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

[Doc1]

LOL< the UN charter (as I just posted) plainly states that it does not supersede a Nations self governance and determination.

International agreements are not domestic. That's what international means.



Oh. I forgot. Again. My apologies, Doc1.

You don't read well, I got it. Sorry Rocket man. Never mind that the charter itself tells you it has no authority over the affairs of an individual Nation.

 

[sakinago]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

 

[Doc1]

OL, it means ALL treaties rocket man.

Of which the UN Charter is one; and the supreme law of the land.

Learn your Constitution, you might be able to clear a case of acne then.

United Nations Charter

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[1]

United Nations Charter - Wikipedia

You're dismissed rocket man.

Yo dingle berry

CONGRESS ***VOLUNTARILY***RELINQUISHED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RATIFY TREATIES IN WHICH THE UNSC UNANIMOUSLY AGREED.


THAT WAS NOT FORCED UPON CONGRESS BY THE UN.

,

So you're point is that the UN Charter doesn't REALLY mean what it says. Got it.

 

[Doc1]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Let me give you a few recent examples. The invasion of Iraq violated the UN charter. Why didn't the UN do something about it? Because we can veto any action the SC decides on. Why didn't the SC do something about the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria? Because a permanent member vetoed it! They too can do what they want!

again, even if that mess is true, does it mean the treaty is or is not the law of the land in Iran? under any circumstances one of those two options must absolutely be true, it is impossible for it to be both or neither, one of those answers absolutely does exist.

If it's true that it is the law of the land because we signed the UN Charter agreement, shouldn't that be challenge-able in court?

not if the treaty no longer exists...the entire argument about it being the "supreme law of the land" is a specious one [and it may not even reach that level reason] and if we are no longer a part of the treaty then it no longer meets "supreme law of the land "requirements"

 

[cnm]

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[1]

No need to demonstrate your inability to read for comprehension again. Contumacious has explained it satisfactorily. My apologies, as I said.

 

[iceberg]

OL, it means ALL treaties rocket man.

Of which the UN Charter is one; and the supreme law of the land.

Learn your Constitution, you might be able to clear a case of acne then.

United Nations Charter

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[1]

United Nations Charter - Wikipedia

You're dismissed rocket man.

Yo dingle berry

CONGRESS ***VOLUNTARILY***RELINQUISHED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RATIFY TREATIES IN WHICH THE UNSC UNANIMOUSLY AGREED.


THAT WAS NOT FORCED UPON CONGRESS BY THE UN.

,

then why did they vote?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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 UN is a worthless organization. Any "laws" passed by that useless body should never be equal to those of the US Constitution.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

 

[Tehon]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

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.

 

[cnm]

You don't read well, I got it. Sorry Rocket man. Never mind that the charter itself tells you it has no authority over the affairs of an individual Nation.

Domestic affairs, reading comprehension impaired.

Oh, damn, West Virginia, forgot again.

 

[Darkwind]

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

The UN Charter is a treaty.

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?

 

[cnm]

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?

For the comprehension impaired I'm saying the UN Charter is a treaty made under the authority of the US. The US Constitution deals with such matters, don't you think?

 

[Doc1]

You don't read well, I got it. Sorry Rocket man. Never mind that the charter itself tells you it has no authority over the affairs of an individual Nation.

Domestic affairs, reading comprehension impaired.

Oh, damn, West Virginia, forgot again.

Sorry kid. You've lost and you're starting to look foolish.
Remove your ego son.

 

[Tehon]

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

The UN Charter is a treaty.

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?

Only the stuff that we are signatory to.

 

[sakinago]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

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?

 

[Doc1]

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?

You globalists are a dense bunch.

 

[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.”


.

The UN is a worthless organization. Any "laws" passed by that useless body should never be equal to those of the US Constitution.

The UN does not pass US LAWS


Congress , our legislative branch , decided in 1948 that those resolutions agreed upon UNANIMOUSLY by the UNSC could be ratified by the executive branch.


.


.

 

[Doc1]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

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?

Nope, it's an "Executive Action".

 

[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.

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


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

,

That is a crock of shite interpretation. The U.S. is not bound to decisions made by the UNSC that run contrary to our Constitutional requirements.