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

[cnm]

Yes, that's all it takes. I'd say you're observant. But wow, you're not ...

Which of my two assertions is inaccurate?

 

[eagle1462010]

This is America.........we are ruled by our laws and Constitution.

Which say the UN Charter is the supreme law of the land.

The UN Charter is not the dang Constitution.................Countries in the world go there to resolve differences........but no one is really bound others opinions...........

China and Russia are part of the UN............do we need to ask them permission for our policies.............No we do not......

Russia is in bed with Iran anyway for financial reasons..............

We are not bound........It was not passed as a Treaty on Iran............It's done. It's GONE.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's all it takes. I'd say you're observant. But wow, you're not ...

Which of my two assertions is inaccurate?

Can you include the quote you're asking me to assess? Thanks!

 

[Issa]

As much as I don't care for the Iranian government. I think they have every right to have nuclear capabilities so does all countries in the world.
We invaded and ruined so many countries, we nuked civilians....others should have the ability to the same fire power to balance things. Example India and Pakistan.

 

[eagle1462010]

As much as I don't care for the Iranian government. I think they have every right to have nuclear capabilities so does all countries in the world.
We invaded and ruined so many countries, we nuked civilians....others should have the ability to the same fire power to balance things. Example India and Pakistan.

A terrorist supporting country should not be allowed...........And you are very Stupid to think that.

Riddle me this......If Pakistan were to fall today to radical elements.......would the world need to go in and Secure their Nukes.......

 

[cnm]

The UN Charter is not the dang Constitution

No, the Constitution says the UN Charter is the supreme law of the land. How come you don't understand Article 6, Clause 2? Are you West Virginian?

 

[Issa]

As much as I don't care for the Iranian government. I think they have every right to have nuclear capabilities so does all countries in the world.
We invaded and ruined so many countries, we nuked civilians....others should have the ability to the same fire power to balance things. Example India and Pakistan.

A terrorist supporting country should not be allowed...........And you are very Stupid to think that.

Riddle me this......If Pakistan were to fall today to radical elements.......would the world need to go in and Secure their Nukes.......

Blah blah how many countries did iran invade? We ruined so many countries and yet we wanna stay on top of the food chain fucking everyone else. We elected an unstable mormon that threatens others with nukes and you want them sit around waiting ?

 

[Tehon]

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

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

Why? As far as the process goes, it makes no difference what the US complaint is.

If you say so.

No, as far as JCPOA says.

What is the USG waiting for? Seems to me they should have already started the process. There are several steps that the complaint must go through before a "significant non performance" complaint can be voted on as a draft resolution in the security council .

 

[cnm]

Can you include the quote you're asking me to assess? Thanks!

Oh. I'd thought you more observant. Never mind.

 

[g5000]

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.


.

The Security Council endorsed the agreement, idiot. That does not make it the law of the land.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Which it hasn't done.

In your opinion, but as far as JCPOA goes, all the US has to do is assert that it has to get the process rolling for the UN to reimpose its sanctions.

 

[g5000]

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?

Asked and answered

Nope. Wrong.

 

[Tehon]

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.


.

The Security Council endorsed the agreement, idiot. That does not make it the law of the land.

They did more than endorse it. They made decisions and decisions made by the security council are effectively law as stipulated by the constitution.

 

[g5000]

Don't worry. Trump's not going to actually tear up the agreement. He's putting on theater for the rubes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

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

Why? As far as the process goes, it makes no difference what the US complaint is.

If you say so.

No, as far as JCPOA says.

What is the USG waiting for? Seems to me they should have already started the process. There are several steps that the complaint must go through before a "significant non performance" complaint can be voted on as a draft resolution in the security council .

The compliant is never voted on by the SC. The only vote is for a resolution that would prevent the UN sanctions from being reimposed, and that has to be done within 30 of the US sending its complaint to the SC, but of course the US would veto the resolution so the UN sanctions would be reimposed. Nothing has to be done for the US to reimpose its own sanctions.

 

[Tehon]

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

Why? As far as the process goes, it makes no difference what the US complaint is.

If you say so.

No, as far as JCPOA says.

What is the USG waiting for? Seems to me they should have already started the process. There are several steps that the complaint must go through before a "significant non performance" complaint can be voted on as a draft resolution in the security council .

The compliant is never voted on by the SC. The only vote is for a resolution that would prevent the UN sanctions from being reimposed, and that has to be done within 30 of the US sending its complaint to the SC, but of course the US would veto the resolution so the UN sanctions would be reimposed. Nothing has to be done for the US to reimpose its own sanctions.

Have they filed a complaint?

 

[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?

Asked and answered

Ha. No.

The thing is, you're citing UN and UNSC resolutions, not codified and legislatively passed US law.

You seriously lack a basic understanding of how the law works.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why? As far as the process goes, it makes no difference what the US complaint is.

If you say so.

No, as far as JCPOA says.

What is the USG waiting for? Seems to me they should have already started the process. There are several steps that the complaint must go through before a "significant non performance" complaint can be voted on as a draft resolution in the security council .

The compliant is never voted on by the SC. The only vote is for a resolution that would prevent the UN sanctions from being reimposed, and that has to be done within 30 of the US sending its complaint to the SC, but of course the US would veto the resolution so the UN sanctions would be reimposed. Nothing has to be done for the US to reimpose its own sanctions.

Have they filed a complaint?

I don't know, but I don't think the priority is to get the UN sanctions reimposed right away, but to pressure the E3 and the Iranians to the negotiating table. Pressing for the UN sanctions at this time would just be a distraction.

 

[cnm]

Of course complaining of non compliance could be a bit difficult.

U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran, after certifying its compliance with nuclear deal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
​

 

[cnm]

Nothing has to be done for the US to reimpose its own sanctions.

Except for it to abrogate the agreement.