The Iran Nuclear Deal Is ***The Law of the Land***

[cnm]

Uh-huh and on to my next question...why isn’t a judge blocking trump, and the legislative dems not jumping up and down?

You know the answer, stop dancing around.

The US is ignoring its treaty obligations and breaching the supreme law of the land because it's a dishonourable society. It's not rocket science.

edited

 

[imawhosure]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

Yes, EXCEPT those approved by the UNSC pursuant to The United Nations Charter.


Sue the government to force them to rescind the 1948 statute.

,

That is a crock of shite interpretation. The U.S. is not bound to decisions made by the UNSC that run contrary to our Constitutional requirements.

Indeed it is. According to them we gave up our sovereignty.

And we wonder why they are all for open borders? Send THEM to MEHIIIIICCCCOOOOOOOOO-)

 

[NoNukes]

We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.

The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.

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?


.

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co

Not anymore it isn't.

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.

Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

 

[sakinago]

There was no treaty.

nor is it the "supreme law of the land" then.

How is the UN Charter neither a treaty nor the supreme law of the land?

Uh-huh and on to my next question...why isn’t a judge blocking trump, and the legislative dems not jumping up and down?

You know the answer, stop dancing around.

The US is ignoring its treaty obligations and breaching the supreme law of the land. It's not rocket science.

Ok if it’s not rocket science, then why aren’t judges blocking this? Why aren’t the dem legislators challenging and jumping up and down?

Because??....you’re almost there....

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol The UN resolution is not a chapter VII resolution and therefore it is not legally binding on anyone.

The JCPOA is a UNSC decision.

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​

What are you claiming, that the Obama people were lying when they said JCPOA was just a political agreement and non binding or that they were too stupid to know what they were doing? Do you even have any idea what the UN resolution was? If the agreement is binding why does the dispute resolution mechanism section outline how members can drop out of it and impose sanctions?

You clearly have no knowledge and have given no thought to this issue, so why put up so many posts on it?

 

[imawhosure]

We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.

The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.

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?


.

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co

Not anymore it isn't.

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.

Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

Sooooo, what is it like to be a subversive with access to a computer Boseaphus?

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no treaty.

nor is it the "supreme law of the land" then.

If it were, surely Michael Avenatti would have filed suit by now.

Short of a court order stopping him from doing it, the UNSC can't do anything, we're out. No longer a reliable partner. I'm pretty sure China and Russia are going to say fuck you, and your sanctions. So the ball will be in Germany, France's and the UK's court.

Either way. Putin smiles.

 

[NoNukes]

The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.

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?


.

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co

Not anymore it isn't.

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.

Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

Sooooo, what is it like to be a subversive with access to a computer Boseaphus?

I am not, and have never been Hank Williams JR. He is a true asshole.

 

[imawhosure]

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?


.

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co

Not anymore it isn't.

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.

Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

Sooooo, what is it like to be a subversive with access to a computer Boseaphus?

I am not, and have never been Hank Williams JR. He is a true asshole.

Might be true, but you are a close 2nd-)

 

[toomuchtime_]

Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.

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?

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.

According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.



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

The constitution says otherwise.

lol No, it doesn't, not when it is read by an intelligent person.

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.


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

All the UN resolution did was to endorse JCPOA and JCPOA includes and dispute resolution section which outlines the process by which a member can leave and reimpose sanctions, therefor the UN resolution endorsed this process by which a member can leave and impose sanctions.

 

[Tehon]

There was no treaty.

nor is it the "supreme law of the land" then.

How is the UN Charter neither a treaty nor the supreme law of the land?

Uh-huh and on to my next question...why isn’t a judge blocking trump, and the legislative dems not jumping up and down?

You know the answer, stop dancing around.

The US is ignoring its treaty obligations and breaching the supreme law of the land. It's not rocket science.

Ok if it’s not rocket science, then why aren’t judges blocking this? Why aren’t the dem legislators challenging and jumping up and down?

Because??....you’re almost there....

Because the constitution has lost all meaning.

 

[cnm]

Ok if it’s not rocket science, then why aren’t judges blocking this? Why aren’t the dem legislators challenging and jumping up and down?

Because??....you’re almost there....

Because the US is a dishonourable society. It's not rocket science.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no treaty and no legally binding UN resolution.

How is the UN Charter not a treaty made under the authority of the US?

If you know what the UN resolution was, you wouldn't put up such stupid post.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well, Iran never signed it and Obama's state department says it is merely a political agreement and non binding.

Nobody "signed" it, it was voted for in the UN and both the USA and Iran voted YES.

And your point is?

 

[NoNukes]

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?


.

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co

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.

Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

Sooooo, what is it like to be a subversive with access to a computer Boseaphus?

I am not, and have never been Hank Williams JR. He is a true asshole.

Might be true, but you are a close 2nd-)

People who are sure that they know someone who they know nothing about are truly ignoramuses. Thank you for showing your hand. You must have soiled your pants when you saw I knew who Boseaphus was..

 

[cnm]

Do you even have any idea what the UN resolution was?

It is a UNSC decision. I posted an excerpt from it. It is obvious you haven't a clue.

 

[cnm]

All the UN resolution did was to endorse JCPOA

And make it a UNSC decision. Didn't you read the excerpt of it I posted?

 

[cnm]

If you know what the UN resolution was, you wouldn't put up such stupid post.

A UNSC resolution or decision is not a treaty. The UN Charter is a treaty.

 

[sakinago]

Ok if it’s not rocket science, then why aren’t judges blocking this? Why aren’t the dem legislators challenging and jumping up and down?

Because??....you’re almost there....

Because the US is a dishonourable society. It's not rocket science.

So the dishonorable society that is the US blocked trumps “travel ban”, and anti-sanctuary city plan, and has tried to block, with pretty good success, anything that trump has tried to do. So...why aren’t trump opponents who really want this deal, trying to block this as well, if it is blockable as you claim?

 

[imawhosure]

Hey incompetent one----------> the Senate can NOT legislate a change to the co
Go find a safe space, lol.....you phony-baloney. Take your big eared, crack snorting friend with ya-)

?????? Be careful, that pipe is made of glass.

Sooooo, what is it like to be a subversive with access to a computer Boseaphus?

I am not, and have never been Hank Williams JR. He is a true asshole.

Might be true, but you are a close 2nd-)

People who are sure that they know someone who they know nothing about are truly ignoramuses. Thank you for showing your hand. You must have soiled your pants when you saw I knew who Boseaphus was..

LOL, nope. I was actually figuring you didn't. Now that I know you are at least that intelligent, you are more of an embarrassment. By the way, you in Ireland? And if so, we don't need your advice here. Go tend to your own problems.