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

[boedicca]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

 

[Contumacious]

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.”


.

LOL, you people who have NO idea how these things work should just stay out of this shit.

LOL, you people who have NO idea how these things work should just stay out of this shit.


.

 

[basquebromance]

"Senator Cryin’ Chuck Schumer fought hard against the Bad Iran Deal, even going at it with President Obama, & then Voted AGAINST it! Now he says I should not have terminated the deal - but he doesn’t really believe that! Same with Comey. Thought he was terrible until I fired him!" - President Trump

Schumer's actual name is actually "Cryin' Chuck Schumer"

 

[BlindBoo]

So if it is technically the law of the land, could his order to quit the deal be challenged in court then?

Would that piss him off?

Law of WHAT 'Land'?

The illegitimate 'deal' was negotiated in violation of the Constitution. It is not the 'Law of the Land' in the US. Much like every other Un-Constitutional attempted 'edict' or 'Legacy' Obama attempted, the current President has wiped them out.

Again, the U.N. can do anything it wants. Trump's decision can not be challenged here in the US because it was never legitimate to begin with, much like Obama's 'DACA edict', his attempt to push the socialist agenda item into being the unofficial 'Law of the Land'.

Easy there Red. I was asking the OP "if" it were the case technically, that the UN Treaty superseded the constitution, couldn't Trumpybear's pullout be challenged in court? It can't be challenged in the UN cause we'd just veto it.

Don't get your panties in such a tight wad cause there was nothing illegal about the negotiations..

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Okay, but which Sheriff is going to enforce that law?

 

[Contumacious]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

 

[Doc1]

We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.

The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.

Sorry, I know you are a good little Globalist but we are not bound. Your knowledge of the Constitution is sorely lacking.

"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land"

A treaty MUST be made under the authority of the Constitution to be "binding". I am glad I could help clear this up.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's not a matter of if it is or not. Just because we can do what we want, doesn't mean Iran can. They are in a dangerous position. Even if they stick to the agreement, there's a good chance the Trumpolites will attack them one way or another.

even if all that made sense you can still tell me if it is the "supreme law of the land" in Iran?... does your explanation mean it is or is not the "supreme law of the land" in Iran? does your original explanation about the "sheriff" also apply to Iran?

 

[Contumacious]

So if it is technically the law of the land, could his order to quit the deal be challenged in court then?

Would that piss him off?

Law of WHAT 'Land'?

The illegitimate 'deal' was negotiated in violation of the Constitution. It is not the 'Law of the Land' in the US. Much like every other Un-Constitutional attempted 'edict' or 'Legacy' Obama attempted, the current President has wiped them out.

Again, the U.N. can do anything it wants. Trump's decision can not be challenged here in the US because it was never legitimate to begin with, much like Obama's 'DACA edict', his attempt to push the socialist agenda item into being the unofficial 'Law of the Land'.

Easy there Red. I was asking the OP "if" it were the case technically, that the UN Treaty superseded the constitution, couldn't Trumpybear's pullout be challenged in court? It can't be challenged in the UN cause we'd just veto it.

Don't get your panties in such a tight wad cause there was nothing illegal about the negotiations..

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution does not define what constitutes a proper subject matter of treaties,

The Constitution does NOT limit treaties with those countries that are enemies of Israel or that are somehow classified as "islamofascists"


.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The law is only as good as the Sheriff who enforces it. Right now, we have veto power over the Sheriff. Which is ultimately why we can do what we want. Most other countries, well they don't have the veto power so.....................

well, I'm going to use this to answer the OP, chances are he/she will scrarch his/her head and just move on

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.”

The law is only as good as the Sheriff who enforces it. Right now, we have veto power over the Sheriff. Which is ultimately why we can do what we want. Most other countries, well they don't have the veto power so.....................[courtesy of "blindboo"]

 

[boedicca]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

 

[Contumacious]

We are sovereign and the Constitution clearly spells out how treaties are done. Next.

The UN Charter, supreme US law (Article 6, clause 2), clearly spells out how Security Council resolutions are dealt with.

Sorry, I know you are a good little Globalist but we are not bound. Your knowledge of the Constitution is sorely lacking.

"The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land"

A treaty MUST be made under the authority of the Constitution to be "binding". I am glad I could help clear this up.

Was Congress not acting "under the authority" of the Constitution when in 1948 it to authorized the Prez to enter into treaties approved by the UNSC?

If NOT, why not?


.

 

[iceberg]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

so - did 2/3rds of the senate concur?

 

[Contumacious]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

Yes, EXCEPT those approved by the UNSC pursuant to The United Nations Charter.


Sue the government to force them to rescind the 1948 statute.

,

 

[Contumacious]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


1- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

so - did 2/3rds of the senate concur?

The vote was 89-2; so what do you think?


.

 

[cnm]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution?

Article VI clause 2, ffs.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, Clause 2​

I've already given it to you, just how dense are you? Sleep in class much?

 

[Darkwind]

Did Congress ratify this when I wasn't looking?

If not, then it is NOT a treaty and NOT the law of the land.

 

[cnm]

A treaty MUST be made under the authority of the Constitution to be "binding". I am glad I could help clear this up.

Ffs. The UN Charter is a treaty made under the authority of the US. You couldn't clear up a case of acne.

 

[cnm]

If not, then it is NOT a treaty and NOT the law of the land.

The UN Charter is a treaty.