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.
The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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.
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
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
Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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.
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
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...
Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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.
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
Ad West Virginian I'd say. And never more apt.Great example of an ad hominem.
I understand that, Iranians aren't stupid. They will overthrow these anachronistic religious bearded imams the same way they overturned the Shaw and American interference. It will happen. But in the meantime, Iranians still seem hypnotized by this Rasputin like anti American Islamic charisma...how and when that spell is broken, is anyone's guess.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...
"Iran's present regime is deluded with hate of America and cloaked in a religion"
Mary it isn't a "cloak", it's the REASON for the hatred. Real Islam calls for World conquest, convert, die, or pay "jizzya" a tax. True Islam is a World Theocracy.
As I said. I anxiously await the draft resolution for non-performance.Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf
Only dumbass motherfuckers think that the Iran deal was a good deal… So quit your bitchingThe 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.
Your cite doesn't say what you claim.Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf
The JCPOA is not a treaty. Try again, loser.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.
I guess it really sucks for you that the JCPOA isn't a treaty.You want me to read you the exact passages from the U.S. Constitution or do you think you can look them up for yourself?"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."
Explain why he didn't have the authority
What am I asking for? Unless you are spoon-fed you snowflakes won't look anything up!
"The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2)."
Former President Obama COMPLETELY BY-PASSED CONGRESS in order to negotiate his 'deal'. He neither 'ought 'advice' or 'consent' from the Senate BEFORE he engaged in negotiations with Iran, Once his 'deal' was done he immediately took it to the U.N. for ratification.
Forget '2/3rds of Senators approving' - He by-passed Congress AGAIN, refusing to allow them to even read it....because he KNEW it would not pass...before running to the U.N. to get it ratified.
I am stating a fact, retard. The JCPOA is not a treaty. No one gives a shit if you think it was a good deal.Only dumbass motherfuckers think that the Iran deal was a good deal… So quit your bitchingThe 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.
Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.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
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf
No, the JCPOA is not an international law. It is, at most, an executive agreement.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.
If you understood what I posted, then you would realize no such resolution is necessary.As I said. I anxiously await the draft resolution for non-performance.Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf
So is tearing up this treaty/deal/agreement a blockable act, being “law of the land” under UNSC? Or is it not a blockable act? You seem to hop back and forth on this.Ad West Virginian I'd say. And never more apt.Great example of an ad hominem.
Of course it does.Your cite doesn't say what you claim.Of course.Can you cite the text that supports the statement.The US doesn't have to submit a resolution to the UN. If any member leaves, the UN sanctions automatically snap back unless a new resolution passes that will keep them suspended. Since the US has a veto, no such new resolution can pass.I anxiously await the US draft resolution for non-performance.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.
Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf
The Iran deal was a piece of shit that’s why It had to go...I am stating a fact, retard. The JCPOA is not a treaty. No one gives a shit if you think it was a good deal.Only dumbass motherfuckers think that the Iran deal was a good deal… So quit your bitchingThe 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.
