Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Faun]

...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment, prove Obama didn't break the law?

Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.

Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​

... bump ...

Didn't see this... sorry... and I'm off to partake of dinner in a few, however...

They did, indeed, attempt to influence the negotiations.

Nolo contendere.

Their defense is that they did so with the authority of the United States.

It's the 10,000-pound elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.

Bon appetite! Hopefully, we can pick this up again at a later date .....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.

(Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)

France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution. They just don't.

The 47 Americans in the Senate did follow the Constitution.

See Amendment 1.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, "Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are part of the Senate and their votes can pass or deny a Treaty. This is really what started it, as I stated that since a 2/3rd's is needed they sure as hell can..........

And then Faun states I basically said they are the Senate...............Splitting Hairs in the whole dang thing..............

And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..............Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............

Many Executive Agreements have been made since WWII.............many being standard house keeping measures..........but not all........and when the Senate doesn't agree they have a RESPONSIBILITY TO CHALLENGE IT.

And they are doing so...................Just as OBAMA did as a Senator with Iran back then, but suddenly IT'S WRONG NOW.

HYPOCRITES have no HONOR.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, "Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are part of the Senate and their votes can pass or deny a Treaty. This is really what started it, as I stated that since a 2/3rd's is needed they sure as hell can..........

And then Faun states I basically said they are the Senate...............Splitting Hairs in the whole dang thing..............

And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..............Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............

Many Executive Agreements have been made since WWII.............many being standard house keeping measures..........but not all........and when the Senate doesn't agree they have a RESPONSIBILITY TO CHALLENGE IT.

And they are doing so...................Just as OBAMA did as a Senator with Iran back then, but suddenly IT'S WRONG NOW.

HYPOCRITES have no HONOR.

Don't sweat it Faun's an imbecile and irrelevant in terms of debate. I read a thread way back when I first came to the board, where JakeStarky drug her around the thread like an intellectual rag doll.
ROFL! JAKE STARKY! the Intellectual equivalent of a turnip, destroyed her.

She's a troll, whose only interest is the drama.

 

[hunarcy]

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You fucking asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to fucking yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

So, you believe that Obama and Kerry are wasting their time trying to get an agreement to keep Iran from developing the bomb? Have you let them know that?

Wait. YOU seem to believe that Obumbler and Lurch are even TRYING to to get an agreement that would prevent Iran from EVER getting the capacity to make nuclear weapons?

Seriously?

Thrill us with your acumen. Tell us how their public statements square with your "belief?"

It's what they claim is their goal. I'm just pointing out that even nat knows it's not going to happen, though I don't think he intended to admit it.

 

[hunarcy]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

Executive agreements are not treaties and do not carry the force of law. And future Presidents are not bound by them.

 

[hunarcy]

...Thank you for proving the OP to be correct. For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.

Nonsense.

We are not in a declared war against Iran.

We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.

We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.

No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.

No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.

We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.

Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.

A one-sided definition of a relationship.

Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.

Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.

Consequently, the pallor of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' does not apply.

Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.

Fail.

But thank you for playing.

"Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport ?"

Next contestant, please.

If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,

would you be defending the Democrats?

Would you be calling the Democrats traitors?

 

[hunarcy]

... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.

But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.

They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution. They just don't.

The "Cotton 47" didn't violate the Constitution. All your whining and feet stomping changes nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

huna 10973771

Executive agreements are not treaties and do not carry the force of law. And future Presidents are not bound by them.

This treaty is P5+1. Future presidents are not bound to it but if Iran does not violate it and UNSC sanctions are dropped over the next fifteen years what is a future US president wanting war with Iran or to attack Iran in someway gonna do? No violation by Iran means Iran is not trying to build a bomb. The US would be a pariah nation if it attacks Iran for no reason like it attacked Iraq for no reason.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle1462010

..Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............

The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and in international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.

 

[Antares]

eagle1462010

..Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............

The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.

Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.

 

[Dot Com]

They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution. They just don't.

The "Cotton 47" didn't violate the Constitution. All your whining and feet stomping changes nothing.

just because you say so? Who are you again?

 

[BlackSand]

The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and in international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.

I think the UN Security Council should start meeting in Tehran.
I am sure it would be better than in New York because America is so irresponsible and terrible.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Come on guys! Don't be shy. What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through? Don't avoid the question.

what will happen. Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb. Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.

The Zionists will whine and bitch and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.

Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME. Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.

 

[Dot Com]

Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME. Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.

name them w/links to their assertions.

 

[ChrisL]

Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME. Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.

name them w/links to their assertions.

I already have in this thread, SEVERAL times.

 

[ChrisL]

This is very interesting. Read.

Obama s Iran scheme is laid bare - The Washington Post

 

[nat4900]

[QUOTE="Antares,

.[/QUOTE]

It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah[/QUOTE]

Another Dell Comic Books interpretation of the Q'uran...Such ignorance by this poster and probably allowed to vote somewhere. Sad

 

[nat4900]

LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.

(Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)

France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.

In fact, very few or our allies joined us on this stupidity, and the ones who did voted out the fools who did it. As did we, come to think of it.

Well responded....but right wingers have very "selective memory lapses"......Remember what happened to Tony Blair and his unequivocal support of GWB?

(actually I have always suspected that the CIA had something on Blair to blackmail into submitting to GWB's wishes....but that's just my own theory.)