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

[g5000]

The Rube Herd is parroting a lie they heard from their propagandists. They have been deliberately lied to, and they have been deliberately led to believe that Obama is the first President in the history of the United States who entered into an executive agreement without Senate approval.

In fact, there have been over EIGHTEEN THOUSAND executive agreements since 1789.

Idiots.

 

[g5000]

It is going to be fun watching these same parroting rubes explain how it is okay for Trump to enter into an executive agreement with North Korea without Senate approval.

 

[g5000]

Executive Agreements

The great majority of international agreements that the United States enters into are not treaties but executive agreements—agreements entered into by the executive branch that are not submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Congress generally requires notification upon the entry of such an agreement. Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution, but they nonetheless have been considered valid international compacts under Supreme Court jurisprudence and as a matter of historical practice. Although the United States has entered international compacts by way of executive agreement since the earliest days of the Republic, executive agreements have been employed much more frequently since the World War II era. In recent years, the State Department has begun making available on its website the text of executive agreements recently entered by the United States. Adding these agreements to earlier State Department estimates, it would appear that over 18,500 executive agreements have been concluded by the United States since 1789


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf



So...are we done here, retards?

 

[Rustic]

Executive Agreements

The great majority of international agreements that the United States enters into are not treaties but executive agreements—agreements entered into by the executive branch that are not submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Congress generally requires notification upon the entry of such an agreement. Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution, but they nonetheless have been considered valid international compacts under Supreme Court jurisprudence and as a matter of historical practice. Although the United States has entered international compacts by way of executive agreement since the earliest days of the Republic, executive agreements have been employed much more frequently since the World War II era. In recent years, the State Department has begun making available on its website the text of executive agreements recently entered by the United States. Adding these agreements to earlier State Department estimates, it would appear that over 18,500 executive agreements have been concluded by the United States since 1789


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf



So...are we done here, retards?

Are your feelings hurt?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

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.

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

A case can be made that the US has not acted in good faith to exhaust any dispute.

So far that's true. There is nothing in JCPOA or the UN resolution that endorsed it to prevent the US from leaving and reimposing its own sanctions, but if the US wants the UN to reimpose its sanctions the US would have to go through a months long process of essentially allowing others to try to talk it out of leaving, and so far that has not begun, but there is nothing in JCPOA to prevent the US from imposing its own sanctions while it goes through the process of forcing the UN to reimpose its sanctions. That said, I believe the President is more interested in persuading he E3 and Iran to negotiate new agreements than to punish Iran long term so what comes next depends on the E3 and Iran.

 

[kaz]

No Senate ratify = not a treaty. Period

The Senate ratified the UN Charter.

The Iran deal had conditions under which the US could void the deal. Those terms were followed.

Don't you have any curiosity how the United States became the military and economic power of the world while you live on a few islands with a little over 1% of our population? Or do you already know everything?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Iran has no nukes, and Israel does, this whole thing is ridiculous.

As for that user, they're Protestant Ulster types who came from Britain to oppress real Irish Catholics before scurrying off to Colonize the U.S.A.

They tend to identify with Israel because both are scurrying, oppressive Colonialist Vagabonds who love the power, of looting, and shooting helpless people.

 

[Doc1]

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.

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.

Nope, sorry, You're stupid. We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.

It is not a treaty, it is INTERNATIONAL LAW that the USA voted for in the affirmative.

No, the JCPOA is not an international law. It is, at most, an executive agreement.

They don't get it.

 

[Doc1]

.

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.[/QUOTE]

Already were moron.[/QUOTE]

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

Iran aren't the Globalists, even if they hate America.

The Globalists are America, more specifically a rabble of elite Jews, and Anglos in the U.S.A.[/QUOTE]

Can anyone help me translate this?

 

[Doc1]

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

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.

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

Your cite doesn't say what you claim.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't, just ask him.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

Your cite doesn't say what you claim.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't, just ask him.

lol Ask who what?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The Globalists aren't Iranians overall, it's not Iran forcing Illegals, and refugees to come into your country, it's not Iran trying to get rid of your 2nd amendment, it's not Iran forcing you to love Gays, to love Diversity, or Iran trying to get your country to accept Abortion.

Your country is sinking because of a Jew - Anglo status quo of Liberal values, whom also tells you that you must waste American tax-dollars, and American serviceman lives on war for Israel, and that Iran needs to be liquidated for Israel's sake.

 

[Tehon]

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

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.

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

As I said. I anxiously await the draft resolution for non-performance.

If you understood what I posted, then you would realize no such resolution is necessary.

I understand that a draft resolution is necessary to reverse the security council resolution in question. The one that is effectively US law.

11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph ‎7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in the JCPOA;
Security Council, Adopting Resolution 2231 (2015), Endorses Joint Comprehensive Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Programme | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

 

[Doc1]

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

Your cite doesn't say what you claim.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't, just ask him.

lol Ask who what?

cnm, he knows everything about everything and HE says your site doesn't address your point. Hell, that settles it for me.

 

[Dschrute3]

It was a bad deal. Obama and Kerry should have at least demanded the immediate release of all US hostages. No negotiations should have started until they were on a plane home. Kerry was an awful inept negotiator. Trump should now right a wrong. He should demand the release of US hostages in Iran. If it refuses, it should be the end of the Mullah reign there. Bombs away.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Can you cite the text that supports the statement.

Of course.

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

As I said. I anxiously await the draft resolution for non-performance.

If you understood what I posted, then you would realize no such resolution is necessary.

I understand that a draft resolution is necessary to reverse the security council resolution in question. The one that is effectively US law.

11. Decides, acting under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that, within 30 days of receiving a notification by a JCPOA participant State of an issue that the JCPOA participant State believes constitutes significant non-performance of commitments under the JCPOA, it shall vote on a draft resolution to continue in effect the terminations in paragraph ‎7 (a) of this resolution, decides further that if, within 10 days of the notification referred to above, no Member of the Security Council has submitted such a draft resolution for a vote, then the President of the Security Council shall submit such a draft resolution and put it to a vote within 30 days of the notification referred to above, and expresses its intention to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue by the Advisory Board established in the JCPOA;
Security Council, Adopting Resolution 2231 (2015), Endorses Joint Comprehensive Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Programme | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

The draft resolution only state the UN should continue to suspend sanctions, and has nothing to do with non performance. It comes after the member has already notified the UN that it believes Iran has not been in compliance and has gone through all the prescribed steps in the dispute resolution mechanism in JCPOA. The complaining member does not have to prove Iran is not in compliance but merely assert it believes this and has gone through all the steps to have the UN sanctions reimposed.

 

[Lakhota]

What's next? The military draft reinstated and boots on the ground?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What's next? The military draft reinstated and boots on the ground?

Nope, sanctions and if that doesn't work, bombing. There is no reason to put boots on the ground.

 

[Kondor3]

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.”


.

Then we're in violation.

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it."

The sun still came up, the next morning.

Good luck trying to sanction us.

 

[healthmyths]

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.”


.

First there was NO official signature from anyone in the government per the below statement:

“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.
State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

2nd I guess you didn't know that:
The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, reviewed this cash transfer in a 2018 report. It gave a total of $1.7 billion.
That was the amount that U.S. and Iranian negotiators settled on to resolve an arms contract between the United States and Iran that predated the Iranian revolution in 1979.
Iran had paid for military equipment, and it was never delivered.
As of 1990, there were $400 million in that account.
Negotiators agreed that accrued interest would add $1.3 billion to the amount, which is a lot of money — but 25 years is a long time for interest to build up the balance.
Remember this is money that was paid by Iran before the ayatollahs take over in 1979 for equipment.
Donald Trump: Iran got $150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash

Now the dumb ass Kerry/et.al. said OK we'll release this money if you release the prisoners.
Wow! Such a deal!

Guess what the Iranians did with the $1.7 billion?
The State Department is staying silent after Iranian officials disclosed that the Islamic Republic spent a recent payment by the United States of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to expand and build-up its military, according to comments provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
Iran Spends $1.7 Billion in U.S. Taxpayer Funds to Boost Military

Right... a lot of "peaceful" intentions Mr. Kerry/Obama was purchased with that $1.7 billion!