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

[Neotrotsky]

The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.

Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again

I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.

Indeed from the 'right wing" Dailykos...

FDR s Endorsement of Benito Mussolini Is Stunningly Tone Deaf and Troubling


Earlier last century, President Franklin Roosevelt endorsed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as an admirable Italian gentleman.

He also said, in a letter to an American envoy, of all people, that I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.



truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their worst enemy

 

[daws101]

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.

They love sucking that Israeli dick!

I thought Stashisfuckingnameis is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?

Could be. You told people you were in Vietnam, and look what a mistake that turned out to be.

chuck Connors is gay, just thought you should know btw that pic is racist.

 

[daws101]

with all the irrelevant gop shit spewed in this thread....,,,,

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've got a newsflash for a bunch of folks here:

If the president signs a deal with Iran, it qualifies as a treaty under US law, and it must be ratified by the Senate. However, Obama can also enter into an executive agreement with Iran which would essentially do an end run around Congress. The catch there is that it is legal. Why? Because there is precedent, in WWII, FDR went around Congress to send arms and assistance to Britain.

One of two things will happen:

1) Let's say he signs a deal, that makes it a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate:

In Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1956) the court held that our Constitution must be be regarded above a negotiated or finalized treaty between the United States and a foreign nation.

In this ruling, the Reid court stated:

"No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

2) Obama enters into an executive agreement, which has the force of an executive order, and legal as far as article 2 is concerned. However, the first paragraph in the above scenario applies here also, the key word is "agreement." The ruling mentions both treaties and agreements made by any branch of government with foreign nations.

More from the Reid ruling:

"There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And Salon called it "stupid".

Looks like this just might backfire on the traitors.

 

[Neotrotsky]

too funny, the radical left hangs their hopes on kissing the asses of the Iranian Mullahs
Like anyone believes they will keep their word- sure we can trust them

Tough sell to the American people
good luck with that

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

excellent point! Country First was always a slogan, one they dropped along with the Big Tent liel Today's Republican Party is beginning to look like the Democratic Party in the first five decades of the 19th Century.

LOL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Imagine an irony SO SWEET that Leftists are speaking in broad terms of 'love for country'.


ROFL!

Hysterical...

I think a moderator on this very site said it best, when it said:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!

It turns out that this is because Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhering to both the Thesis and Antithesis.

Which simply means that those who are promoting the means for nations which are vehemently hostile to the United States, to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS cannot simultaneously claim that they're also person who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the principles that define America; OKA: An American!

See how that works?​

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No....allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon is stabbing America in the back......at least there are some republicans who know how to fight back......

Are there any Rs fighting back? Or are they all just going along with the 47 to help Iran get a nuclear weapon?

Seriously, has anyone heard of even one Repub who is siding with the US?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.

Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again

I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.

Indeed from the 'right wing" Dailykos...

FDR s Endorsement of Benito Mussolini Is Stunningly Tone Deaf and Troubling


Earlier last century, President Franklin Roosevelt endorsed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as an admirable Italian gentleman.

He also said, in a letter to an American envoy, of all people, that I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.



truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their worst enemy

Just very well said... .

 

[Coyote]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.

Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.

Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.

So ya don't feel that promoting the means of nations vehemently hostile to JEWS... acquiring Nuclear weapons, is indicative of a threat to THE JEWISH NATION?

ROFLMNAO!

What you're seeing there is what is OKA: THE PROBLEM!

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.

A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.

 

[Coyote]

There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.

A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.

Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations. A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.

 

[Coyote]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.

So ya don't feel that promoting the means of nations vehemently hostile to JEWS... acquiring Nuclear weapons, is indicative of a threat to THE JEWISH NATION?

ROFLMNAO!

What you're seeing there is what is OKA: THE PROBLEM!

Iran is not insane. Israel has it's own set of nukes as do it's allies.

 

[Coyote]

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.

Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.

Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.

Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

I'm just wondering why - suddenly - Republicans are having a hissy fit over something routinely done by presidents.

I think I know why...because, even with their limitations, they do carry the weight of law internationally and once in place, they are very difficult to dismantle. The Republicans are trying to scuttle it because they won't have much effect on it afterwards.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Exactly, they are trying to stop another Papa Obama constitutional overreach

 

[Coyote]

There is no "constitutional overreach". What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.

Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica

Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.

...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution

The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar. Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Iran is not insane. Israel has it's own set of nukes as do it's allies.

Yes, yes deary... and taking the life of the child in your womb is not murder, if that child truly IS an inconvenience... and paying people to not work, actually improves the likelihood that they'll look for and accept a job, just as no 30 year old pot head lives in their parents basement, because they're all highly functioning individuals earning extremely large incomes, doing incredibly complex things... and perverse reasoning which induces one to act upon sexual urges which deviate 180 degrees from the human physiological standard, is perfectly normal... .

I understand... .