Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bullshit. Only chapter VII resolutions have any standing as international law, and moreover, according to the dispute ressolution mechanism of JCPOA, if any permanent member of the UNSC withdraws and asks the UN to reimpose the UN sanctions, it is obligated to comply.It is a UNSC decision which has the status of supreme law of the land through the UN Charter.According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.
And what does the UN Charter we ratified state?2/3s of the nation were against the deal at the time. The reason it was never voted on was because it would never pass. No it wasn’t Israel telling trump the deal was bad, (we knew it was bad right off the bat BC inspectors were still barred from military sites, as well as allowed them to continue ICBM development. So it’s like a serial killer allowing the cops to search his home but barring them from the searching the basement and the freezer in his garage, and then telling them he’s going to go stalk some joggers.), it was Israel showing the world that Iran violated the terms of the deal right off the bat.It is amazing that there are people who actually argue against the sovereignty of our nation.
I agree that Congress in 1948 should have NOT relinquished its authority to ratify all decisions.
But the Congresscritters love to abdicate - another case in point is the WAR POWERS ACT
Also remember that Prez Trump gave up our Sovereignty when he allowed Israel to decide which treaties are good for us.
.
If anything this deal is good for Obama in the long run and prevents him from becoming the next Neville chamberlain.Why do you deny your Constitution?You are an absolute fucking idiot.
You either must be from Africa or Western Europe.
Because is not his constitution .
He is unable to rebut or refute .
He is a fanatic .He is a Zionist.
.
lol The UN resolution is not a chapter VII resolution and therefore it is not legally binding on anyone.It is a UNSC decision. Which the US is bound to obey under Article 25 of the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory and which is the supreme law of the land in the US under article 6, clause 2, of the US Constitution.Again, according to Obama's State Department in 2015 JCPOA is a political agreement
There is no treaty and no legally binding UN resolution.Oh. How about giving the intelligent person's view of treaties made under the authority of the US?lol No, it doesn't, not when it is read by an intelligent person.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, Clause 2
Again, according to Obama's State Department in 2015 JCPOA is a political agreement, not a treaty and not even an executive agreement, and is non binding.We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.The US is bound to the UN Charter as the supreme law of the land. Can you not comprehend your own Constitution?Nice dodge. I see you fear answering the question.Are you trying to say the supreme law of the land is not the supreme law of the land as given in the Constitution?
Our Charter with the UN does NOT turn us into a vassal state of the UN.
Understand?
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review
It is a UNSC decision. Article 25 of the UN CharterThere was a negotiated plan of action between the powers that be.
Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Chapter V: Article 25 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications
The UN Charter is US law. The supreme law of the land. How can this not be understood? Do you deny your own Constitution?The UN cannot make US law.
The JCPOA is a UNSC decision.lol The UN resolution is not a chapter VII resolution and therefore it is not legally binding on anyone.
And what does the UN Charter we ratified state?
nor is it the "supreme law of the land" then.There was no treaty.
Well, Iran never signed it and Obama's state department says it is merely a political agreement and non binding.Again, according to Obama's State Department in 2015 JCPOA is a political agreement, not a treaty and not even an executive agreement, and is non binding.We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.The US is bound to the UN Charter as the supreme law of the land. Can you not comprehend your own Constitution?Nice dodge. I see you fear answering the question.
Our Charter with the UN does NOT turn us into a vassal state of the UN.
Understand?
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review
That's pure bullshit.
Obama signed the deal as authorized.
Bolton, Pompeo and the rest of the criminal warmongers, neocrazies and Likudnicks can dispute it but is all irrelevant.
.
It is not a treaty, it is INTERNATIONAL LAW that the USA voted for in the affirmative.Actually it is INTERNATIONAL LAW agreed to by the USA representative to the UN. So it IS the law of the international land which includes the land of the USA.The JCPOA is not a treaty. Technically, it isn't even an executive agreement. However, all the parties concerned treat it as an executive agreement.
Therefore, not "the law of the land". Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.
Nope, sorry, You're stupid. We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.
And the UN Charter has been ratified. How can you not understand this?The Constitution is clear, ALL treaties must be ratified.
Article 6 of the US constitution stipulates that we are bound by the UN Charter, a treaty which was ratified by Congress and made law.lol No, it doesn't, not when it is read by an intelligent person.The constitution says otherwise.According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.The treaty that went into effect when congress ratified it and which gave Obama the authority to enter into the Iran agreement was the UN Charter. It is US law as stipulated by the constitution.Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.
And we both know your answer is BS, the only reason you’re not calling a treaty a treaty is because doing so we would’ve never seen this treaty pass, even with a dem majority. In what ways is it not a treaty?
President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.
Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review
.I believe Iran burnt/burned their's, on television.Depends. For Iran at this point, I think it would be in their best interest to say that it certainly is, at least to all the other countries that signed the plan of action.
How is the UN Charter not a treaty made under the authority of the US?There is no treaty and no legally binding UN resolution.
Nobody "signed" it, it was voted for in the UN and both the USA and Iran voted YES.Well, Iran never signed it and Obama's state department says it is merely a political agreement and non binding.
Uh-huh and on to my next question...why isn’t a judge blocking trump, and the legislative dems not jumping up and down?And what does the UN Charter we ratified state?Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Chapter V: Article 25 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications
How is the UN Charter neither a treaty nor the supreme law of the land?nor is it the "supreme law of the land" then.There was no treaty.
The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.
Sorry, I know you are a good little Globalist but we are not bound. Your knowledge of the Constitution is sorely lacking.
"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land"
A treaty MUST be made under the authority of the Constitution to be "binding". I am glad I could help clear this up.
Was Congress not acting "under the authority" of the Constitution when in 1948 it to authorized the Prez to enter into treaties approved by the UNSC?
If NOT, why not?
.
Because of your dictator thumbing his nose at the constitution. And as an Irish citizen, I am insulted by you calling yourself Irish. Change your avatar.Not anymore it isn't.
