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

[Tehon]

Yet, they didn't assert their case. Strange.

lol The US announced it was leaving JCPOA two days ago so we don't know what else was done. Clearly, this is part of a comprehensive ME strategy, something Obama never had, to repair the damage Obama did to US relations in the ME and to try to settle some long standing problems there.

Based on Trump's memorandum from two days ago it appears he had done nothing up to that point. Anxiously awaiting.

Make Israel Great Again. Clearly this ME policy is the fulfillment of long held Israeli aspirations.

That would seem clear only to a bigot.

It's been openly stated.

Only by bigots.

How is one to know?

Reality is proving it out.

 

[Tehon]

end its imperialist wars across the ME

That's ridiculous.

No, it's quite accurate. It has already conquered Lebanon and is trying to take control of large sections of Syria and Iraq and it has proxies fighting in Yemen.

Iran has every right to defend itself. Israel has openly stated its hostility and intentions towards Iran.

Now you are obviously trying to prove you are stupid.

Really? Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

 

[toomuchtime_]

end its imperialist wars across the ME

That's ridiculous.

No, it's quite accurate. It has already conquered Lebanon and is trying to take control of large sections of Syria and Iraq and it has proxies fighting in Yemen.

Iran has every right to defend itself. Israel has openly stated its hostility and intentions towards Iran.

Now you are obviously trying to prove you are stupid.

Really? Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

No, in your case it's a matter of ignorance and stupidity. You have already proved you are too ignorant and stupid to understand JCPOA and now you want to show that you are too ignorant and stupid to understand any of the ME conflicts.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

They never stopped building it.

Is there anything that's preventing them to stop now?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The UN cannot make US law.

The UN Charter is US law. The supreme law of the land. How can this not be understood? Do you deny your own Constitution?

The Constitution is very clear about how US laws can be made and the UN charter plays no role.

 

[Yarddog]

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.”


.

It needed to pass through congress if you want it set in stone. That's it. Therefore it would also take an act of congress to reverse it. As it is, the deal is a piece of shit because Iran isn't forced to verify anything in a manner that is real, and their ICBM program is still going on.
We can make a new and better deal starting with them giving back the money Obama gave them, then we can take it from there. If not, Hit them again with sanctions until they scrap their missile program

 

[Markle]

We're waiting on the better deal, by the way. Oh, and where's the Obamacare replacement? Still waiting for that too.

The Orange Faced Fatso is a joke. His supporters are too. What a bunch of rubes.

No wall that Mexico is paying for.
No Replacecare.
No Better Iran Deal.
No Better Nafta.

So far, I ain't seen shit from this toon.

Only because you're afraid to open your hate-filled eyes.

Treasury: Federal Budget Surplus for April Largest on Record, Driven by Tax Deposits
U.S. government revenue increases 12% in April from year earlier
By
Harriet Torry and Richard Rubin
Updated May 10, 2018 4:21 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The U.S. government posted the highest surplus on record in April, although the federal deficit over the past several months widened as spending rose along with revenues.

Treasury: Federal Budget Surplus for April Largest on Record, Driven by Tax Deposits

###

Trump announces the capture of the five 'most wanted' ISIS terrorists who were lured from Syria to Iraq with fake Telegram app messages - including top aide to 'caliphate' leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

By David Martosko and Rory Tingle For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 07:53 EDT, 10 May 2018 | UPDATED: 01:02 EDT, 11 May 2018

Read more: Trump announces capture of five 'most wanted' ISIS terrorists | Daily Mail Online

###

2.2 Million Fewer People on Food Stamps Under Donald Trump

by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ10 May 2018877

More than 2.2 million people have discontinued their participation in food stamps during President Trump’s first full year in office, according to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data on food stamp enrollment.

The latest USDA data shows that since Trump’s first full month in office in February 2017—when food stamp enrollment was at 42,289,366— participation in the program decreased by 2,257,235 to 40,032,131.

2.2 Million Fewer People on Food Stamps Under Donald Trump

###

Jobless Claims Remain Near 48-Year Low
by JOHN CARNEY10 May 2018510

Fewer Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed last week than economists expected.
New applications for state unemployment benefits held near the 48-year low of last week, indicating that employers are increasingly holding on to their employees.

Jobless Claims Remain Near 48-Year Low | Breitbart

###

American prisoners held in North Korea on their way home after Pompeo visit, Trump says

By Adam Shaw | Fox News5/10/18


Three American prisoners held in North Korea have been released and are en route to the U.S. after a surprise diplomatic mission by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, President Trump announced Wednesday.

Pompeo is returning with the Americans, said to be in "good health," after a brief visit to Pyongyang. Trump said he plans to greet them at Andrews Air Force Base when they arrive outside Washington.

American prisoners held in North Korea on their way home after Pompeo visit, Trump says

###

And the list goes on, and on, and on!

 

[sakinago]

UN charter also states that nations maintain their sovereignty. So we agreed to join the UN, and the UN agrees we (and all the other members) maintain their sovereignty still. The UNSC does not trump the US const.

Who says it does? The Constitution says the Charter is supreme US law.

No supreme law is something like the BOR. A treaty can supercede states rights from the federal level, but we are talking about a treaty stating we are to maintain our sovereignty. A treaty made with another country to eliminate our first amendment would not work because BOR is the supreme law of the land and supercedes any governmental body. See how that works?

 

[sakinago]

Even if we were bound (which we are not) by this treaty, Iran still negged on the deal. What is your fucking point?

The US has said Iran is in compliance.

Compliance with certain aspects like the inspection of civilian sites. Part of the deal is that Iran was to turn over all the information they decided to hid about their program.

 

[sparky]

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.

~S~

 

[Jantje_Smit]

...We make our own laws and will not bow to foreign dictators or kings.

Go cry yourself to sleep.

 

[TemplarKormac]

...We make our own laws and will not bow to foreign dictators or kings.

Go cry yourself to sleep.

That was dishonest. What'd you do, Google "Trump bowing" and link the first image you found? If you had bothered to look at the picture you linked to, you would notice that what the Saudi King was doing there was putting a necklace around Trump's neck. Trump wasn't bowing at all.

So please, by all means, cry yourself back to sleep. And nix the caffeine.

Hack.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

That was dishonest. What'd you do, Google "Trump bowing" and link the first image you found? If you had bothered to look at the picture you linked to, you would notice that what the Saudi King was doing there was putting a necklace around Trump's neck. Trump wasn't bowing at all.

So please, by all means, cry yourself back to sleep. And nix the caffeine.

Hack.

Relax comrade, I just made fun of the ridiculous statement that the leaders of the exceptional empire bow to no one. If it makes you feel better, I made fun of Obama sucking up to the Saudi criminals too.

And you're right, it's time to switch to beer...

 

[kaz]

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

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

Yes, I've memorized the entire board exactly as you thought. I wanted to know if you knew what post you were referring to. Apparently not

 

[alex.harmuth]

I can't believe it's even an argument that terrorists shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

It's almost like the left WANTS a lot of people to get killed. That coupled with their support of baby killing, dumbing people down, gay marriage, environmental extremists, historical support of slavery and racism, etc it's almost like the left wants a massive kill off of the human race mainly people that they considered inferior to them.

Sounds an awful lot like... Who was that German guy... The guy with the dumb mustache... The guy that repeatedly called himself a socialist... The guy that built up Germany's railroads and bridges, like Obama wanted to do... The guy that controlled the media and the media supported him... The guy who brainwashed German youth and used them as his personal army... The guy that took the guns away from the people he concurred, Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler.

It's either the supporters of the left don't know this and they are just useful idiots, or they very much know this and they are supporting it.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

 

[Tehon]

That's ridiculous.

No, it's quite accurate. It has already conquered Lebanon and is trying to take control of large sections of Syria and Iraq and it has proxies fighting in Yemen.

Iran has every right to defend itself. Israel has openly stated its hostility and intentions towards Iran.

Now you are obviously trying to prove you are stupid.

Really? Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

No, in your case it's a matter of ignorance and stupidity. You have already proved you are too ignorant and stupid to understand JCPOA and now you want to show that you are too ignorant and stupid to understand any of the ME conflicts.

Except I was correct, from the start. The US needs a draft resolution referred to the security council for a vote. Assuming we want to maintain whatever remains of our credibility.

If we want to go rogue, well that's another matter entirely.

Anxiously waiting the decision.

 

[iceberg]

...We make our own laws and will not bow to foreign dictators or kings.

Go cry yourself to sleep.

need a few dozen videos of obama on the bow parade? trump is having something put around his neck so he leans over.

what fuckheads who knowingly pull this bullshit then cry FAKE NEWS when others do the same.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.”


.

Dear Putin's Butt Plug:

No, it is NOT the Law of The Land. We are a Sovereign Nation, and therefore can rescind, revoke, back out of any agreement created by a foreign body, group of nations, or an organization like The UN.

Only The United States Congress can Write Law introduced as a Bill, and vote upon it in The House & Senate, and to be eventually signed by The President.

We do not need the UN or Security Council's Permission or Authorization to take any actions. They have No Legal Authority over any Sovereign Nation.

 

[BlindBoo]

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/
​

Not at all. Iran has clearly been violating the spirit of JCPOA by trying to develop long range missiles. Long range missiles are enormously expensive to make and are of little value unless you have nuclear warhead to put on them, so Iran's push to develop them is a clear indication it intends to produce nuclear weapons.

Yet, no one was willing to challenge the legality of Iran's actions with respect to the JCPOA.

President Trump has and Macron agreed with him.

Rhetoric does not constitute a legal challenge.

No legal challenge is necessary to have the UN reimpose its sanctions. All the US has to do is assert its complaint and go through the steps outlined in JCPOA. Once that process has been completed the UN sanctions are automatically reimposed regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Having left the deal, does the US still have the right to dispute anything or use the mechanisms of the JCPOA?

https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf

If Iran believed that any or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under this JCPOA, Iran could refer the issue to the Joint Commission for resolution; similarly, if any of the E3/EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under this JCPOA, any of the E3/EU+3 could do the same. The Joint Commission would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration, any participant could refer the issue to Ministers of Foreign Affairs, if it believed the compliance issue had not been resolved. Ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period was extended by consensus. After Joint Commission consideration – in parallel with (or in lieu of) review at the Ministerial level - either the complaining participant or the participant whose performance is in question could request that the issue be considered by an Advisory Board, which would consist of three members (one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member). The Advisory Board should provide a non-binding opinion on the compliance issue within 15 days. If, after this 30-day process the issue is not resolved, the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than 5 days in order to resolve the issue. If the issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining participant, and if the complaining participant deems the issue to constitute significant non-performance, then that participant could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non-performance.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, it's quite accurate. It has already conquered Lebanon and is trying to take control of large sections of Syria and Iraq and it has proxies fighting in Yemen.

Iran has every right to defend itself. Israel has openly stated its hostility and intentions towards Iran.

Now you are obviously trying to prove you are stupid.

Really? Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

No, in your case it's a matter of ignorance and stupidity. You have already proved you are too ignorant and stupid to understand JCPOA and now you want to show that you are too ignorant and stupid to understand any of the ME conflicts.

Except I was correct, from the start. The US needs a draft resolution referred to the security council for a vote. Assuming we want to maintain whatever remains of our credibility.

If we want to go rogue, well that's another matter entirely.

Anxiously waiting the decision.

No, you are wrong. It just says that if such a draft resolution is passed within 30 days the UN sanctions will be reimposed. It has nothing to do with the US leaving or imposing its own sanctions or with US credibility.