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

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Sigh...I'm Catholic you deluded fruit loop. You keep spewing BS about people you have absolutley no knowledge of. Knock it off

 

[sakinago]

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

There you have it, it is either war with Iran, or the deal...NOTHING ELSE. Just a big ole fat binary choice. Either peace or apocalypse.

 

[Flash]

That idiot Obama could sign a piece of paper to make the stupid deal and Trump can sign a piece of paper to undo the stupid deal.

If Obama wanted the deal to be "the law of land" the asshole should have got Congress to ratify a treaty. But he didn't do it because he knew Congress would not go along with something that dumb.

Bye bye Obama's legacy.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Oh pipe down, pip squeak, I don't take direction from you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

 

[Tehon]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

No, the US has to refer a case of non compliance to the joint commission for resolution.

 

[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.

Sigh...I'm Catholic you deluded fruit loop. You keep spewing BS about people you have absolutley no knowledge of. Knock it off

You sound like Ulster, English, and Scottish Protestants who love Israel for no reason at all who liter the U.S.A South.
(Since you admitted to having 'Supposed" Irish origins to before the Civil War, I highly doubt your story of Catholic heritage, or even having much of a Irish heritage)

My Irish Catholic family all hate Jews, and are anti-Iraq war, and not pro-Israel, same with my Polish Catholic family.

We learned Jews killed Jesus, in Catholic school until about 50 years ago.

Why would we like Jews, exactly?

A Jewish Israel is of little, or no importance to Catholics, or Catholic agenda.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Sigh...I'm Catholic you deluded fruit loop. You keep spewing BS about people you have absolutley no knowledge of. Knock it off

You sound like Ulster, English, and Scottish Protestants who love Israel for no reason at all who liter the U.S.A South.
(Since you admitted to having 'Supposed" Irish origins to before the Civil War, I highly doubt your story of Catholic heritage, or even having much of a Irish heritage)

My Irish Catholic family all hate Jews, and are anti-Iraq war, and not pro-Israel, same with my Polish Catholic family.

We learned Jews killed Jesus, in Catholic school until about 50 years ago.

Why would we like Jews, exactly?

Israel is of little, or no importance to Catholics, or Catholic agenda.

You're blabbering to blabber and your hatred of Jews is disgusting. Now stop flinging your shit you look ridiculous

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

No, the US has to refer a case of non compliance to the joint commission for resolution.

True, that's part of the process it has to go through before getting to the UN, but all it has to do there is assert it believes Iran has been in noncompliance and the process moves on from there. The US doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, it just has to allow the other members of JCPOA the opportunity to try to persuade it not to leave.

 

[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.

Sigh...I'm Catholic you deluded fruit loop. You keep spewing BS about people you have absolutley no knowledge of. Knock it off

You sound like Ulster, English, and Scottish Protestants who love Israel for no reason at all who liter the U.S.A South.
(Since you admitted to having 'Supposed" Irish origins to before the Civil War, I highly doubt your story of Catholic heritage, or even having much of a Irish heritage)

My Irish Catholic family all hate Jews, and are anti-Iraq war, and not pro-Israel, same with my Polish Catholic family.

We learned Jews killed Jesus, in Catholic school until about 50 years ago.

Why would we like Jews, exactly?

Israel is of little, or no importance to Catholics, or Catholic agenda.

You're blabbering to blabber and your hatred of Jews is disgusting. Now stop flinging your shit you look ridiculous

Some users call Catholic's Papists, and mock them, like Pismoe but you didn't go nuts saying their hatred of Catholics is disgusting.

Why do you put Jews, and Israel as #1.

If anything Zion-Nuts like you are now the #1 problem in this World.

You could very well start WW3 with Iran, or cause a lot of killings for many parties to say the very least.

Stop being such disgusting twits.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Sigh...I'm Catholic you deluded fruit loop. You keep spewing BS about people you have absolutley no knowledge of. Knock it off

You sound like Ulster, English, and Scottish Protestants who love Israel for no reason at all who liter the U.S.A South.
(Since you admitted to having 'Supposed" Irish origins to before the Civil War, I highly doubt your story of Catholic heritage, or even having much of a Irish heritage)

My Irish Catholic family all hate Jews, and are anti-Iraq war, and not pro-Israel, same with my Polish Catholic family.

We learned Jews killed Jesus, in Catholic school until about 50 years ago.

Why would we like Jews, exactly?

Israel is of little, or no importance to Catholics, or Catholic agenda.

You're blabbering to blabber and your hatred of Jews is disgusting. Now stop flinging your shit you look ridiculous

Some users call Catholic's Papists, and mock them, like Pismoe but you didn't go nuts saying their hatred of Catholics is disgusting.

Why do you put Jews, and Israel as #1.

If anything Zion-Nuts like you are now the #1 problem in this World.

You could very well start WW3 with Iran, or cause a lot of killings for many parties to say the very least.

Stop being such disgusting twits.

Off to ignore ya go fruit loop

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Resolution 2231 (2015)

Background

Diplomatic efforts to reach a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union (the E3/EU+3) and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

On 20 July 2015, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2231 (2015) endorsing the JCPOA. The Security Council affirmed that conclusion of the JCPOA marked a fundamental shift in its consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue, expressed its desire to build a new relationship with Iran strengthened by the implementation of the JCPOA and to bring to a satisfactory conclusion its consideration of this matter.


.

Cool, so where is/was this agreement in federal law?

 

[eagle1462010]

Are you trying to say that the United States is bound to obey and adhere to everything the UN does, up to and including their superseding our Congress?

Are you trying to say the supreme law of the land is not the supreme law of the land as given in the 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?

The US is bound to the UN Charter as the supreme law of the land. Can you not comprehend your own Constitution?

We are bound by our Constitution.............not the UN

 

[Tehon]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

No, the US has to refer a case of non compliance to the joint commission for resolution.

True, that's part of the process it has to go through before getting to the UN, but all it has to do there is assert it believes Iran has been in noncompliance and the process moves on from there. The US doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, it just has to allow the other members of JCPOA the opportunity to try to persuade it not to leave.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

No, the US has to refer a case of non compliance to the joint commission for resolution.

True, that's part of the process it has to go through before getting to the UN, but all it has to do there is assert it believes Iran has been in noncompliance and the process moves on from there. The US doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, it just has to allow the other members of JCPOA the opportunity to try to persuade it not to leave.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

Why? Iran violating the spirit of the deal. There you go.

 

[Tehon]

Are you trying to say that the United States is bound to obey and adhere to everything the UN does, up to and including their superseding our Congress?

Are you trying to say the supreme law of the land is not the supreme law of the land as given in the 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?

The US is bound to the UN Charter as the supreme law of the land. Can you not comprehend your own Constitution?

We are bound by our Constitution.............not the UN

The UN Charter is a treaty, according to the constitution we are bound by it.

 

[Tehon]

Non compliance is non performance.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

All the US has to do is assert it believes Iran is not in compliance for the process of reimposing the UN sanctions.

No, the US has to refer a case of non compliance to the joint commission for resolution.

True, that's part of the process it has to go through before getting to the UN, but all it has to do there is assert it believes Iran has been in noncompliance and the process moves on from there. The US doesn't have to prove anything to anyone, it just has to allow the other members of JCPOA the opportunity to try to persuade it not to leave.

The US has to make the necessary claims for non compliance. Anxiously awaiting.

Why? Iran violating the spirit of the deal. There you go.

Okay, that's about what I might expect. Anxiously awaiting.

 

[eagle1462010]

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

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.

It was an executive agreement.......Was not properly voted in as a treaty. Requires 2/3rds..................Didn't happen.

So...........NOT A TREATY

 

[Tehon]

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

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.

It was an executive agreement.......Was not properly voted in as a treaty. Requires 2/3rds..................Didn't happen.

So...........NOT A TREATY

The UN Charter?