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

[kwc57]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.

Now Iran is freed from any restraints and can build a nuke.

Way to go conservatives, way to go.

Already were moron.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

The problem we are having is, you don't know what the UN voted on. JCPOA contains a dispute resolution mechanism whereby any member can leave and reimpose sanctions and if that member follows the rules laid out and has a veto in the SC, it can oblige the UN to reimpose its own sanctions regardless of what anyone else does. So by endorsing JCPOA, the UN endorsed this mechanism, meaning this argument about the UN is pure bullshit.

 

[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....

Because the constitution has lost all meaning.

So trumps opponents just don’t care about the constitution any more? Which is why they are not blocking this blockable act (in your assertion)?

 

[NoNukes]

?????? 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.

I have dual citizenship. I have done something with my life.

 

[cnm]

Here's an excerpt again because it's obvious you haven't a clue

Resolution 2231 (2015)

Emphasizing that the JCPOA is conducive to promoting and facilitating the
development of normal economic and trade contacts and cooperation with Iran, and
having regard to States’ rights and obligations relating to international trade,
Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter
of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable
established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international
organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the
implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the
implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from
actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
United Nations Official Document​

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Again, if you know what was in the resolution you would understand the UN decision to endorse endorses leaving it and reimposing sanctions, too.

 

[cnm]

So...why aren’t trump opponents who really want this deal, trying to block this as well, if it is blockable as you claim?

I wonder why you put claims in my mouth? Is it because you don't like facts?

 

[cnm]

Again, if you know what was in the resolution you would understand the UN decision to endorse endorses leaving it and reimposing sanctions, too.

I love it. What a maroon.

 

[Doc1]

.[/QUOTE]

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.[/QUOTE]


Now Iran is freed from any restraints and can build a nuke.

Way to go conservatives, way to go.[/QUOTE]

Already were moron.[/QUOTE]

Forget it, they hate America and simply want to make us just one more cog in their Global Utopia.

 

[cnm]

None of these conditions have been met.

Terminations


5. Requests that, as soon as the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken the
actions specified in paragraphs 15.1-15.11 of Annex V of the JCPOA, the Director
General of the IAEA submit a report confirming this fact to the IAEA Board of
Governors and in parallel to the Security Council;
6. Requests further that, as soon as the IAEA has reached the Broader
Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, the
Director General of the IAEA submit a report confirming this conclusion to the
IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council;
7. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations,
that, upon receipt by the Security Council of the report from the IAEA described in
paragraph 5:
(a) The provisions of resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007),
1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) shall be terminated;
(b) All States shall comply with paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the provisions
in subparagraphs (a)-(f) of paragraph 6 of Annex B for the duration specified in
each paragraph or subparagraph, and are called upon to comply with paragraphs 3
and 7 of Annex B;
8. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations,
that on the date ten years after the JCPOA Adoption Day, as defined in the JCPOA,
all the provisions of this resolution shall be terminated, and none of the previous
resolutions described in paragraph 7 (a) shall be applied, the Security Council will
have concluded its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, and the item
“Non-proliferation” will be removed from the list of matters of which the Council is
seized;
9. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations,
that the terminations described in Annex B and paragraph 8 of this resolution shall
not occur if the provisions of previous resolutions have been applied pursuant to
paragraph 12; ​

 

[cnm]

The Constitution is clear, ALL treaties must be ratified.

Again, the UN Charter has been ratified. What makes you think it hasn't? Is it because you're from West Virginia?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again, if you know what was in the resolution you would understand the UN decision to endorse endorses leaving it and reimposing sanctions, too.

I love it. What a maroon.

It only seems that way to you because you are so boundlessly ignorant of both JCPOA and the UN resolution.

 

[sakinago]

So...why aren’t trump opponents who really want this deal, trying to block this as well, if it is blockable as you claim?

I wonder why you put claims in my mouth? Is it because you don't like facts?

So it isn’t blockable? So we are not bound to this treaty, or to this deal? I know you cited the 1948 UNSC clause, but now I’m confused as to why you did that?

 

[Contumacious]

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....

Before judges can rule there must be a complaint, no one has filed a complaint yet.

.

 

[Doc1]

The Constitution is clear, ALL treaties must be ratified.

Again, the UN Charter has been ratified. What makes you think it hasn't? Is it because you're from West Virginia?

(smile) Poor kid. Did the Senate ratify Obama's Executive Action with regards to Iran?

 

[Doc1]

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....

Before judges can rule there must be a complaint, no one has filed a complaint yet.

.

Then file one, or are you just all hat and no cattle?

 

[sakinago]

The Constitution is clear, ALL treaties must be ratified.

Again, the UN Charter has been ratified. What makes you think it hasn't? Is it because you're from West Virginia?

“You are from West Virginia, therefore, anything you say must be wrong.”

Great example of an ad hominem.

 

[Tehon]

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.

I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.

 

[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....

Before judges can rule there must be a complaint, no one has filed a complaint yet.

.

Why are trumps opponents dragging their feet on this. They knew this was a definite possibility after Israel’s announcement (not to mention trump has lambasted this deal since his campaign). Is it just really shitty but really expensive attorney’s...or is there a more plausible explanation?

 

[MaryL]

I have a bad feeling about this...North Korea's apparent knuckling under to Trump is one thing. I think Iranians are good people caught in a weird place...Iran's present regime is deluded with hate of America and cloaked in a religion , they would rather cut off their noses than capitulate. And see everyone die in the process. Even their own...