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

[DJT for Life]

Where is the Constitutional Amendment in which the U.S. voided its national sovereignity in favor of subjugation to the U.N.? I missed that bit of news.

Link?

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

The United Nations Charter, delivered to the US Senate by President Harry Truman and duly ratified by that body on July 28, 1945 by a vote of 89-2.

.

How fucking stupid are you?

Just because we accepted their "charter" doesn't mean that we must
abandon our laws.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.

 

[Doc1]

Apparently these boys think the Senate can "ratify" an Un-Constitutional "treaty", and that a President, ANY President can unilaterally subvert said constitution. Gotta love American schools.

 

[cnm]

Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.

It is a decision of the UNSC which the US has bound itself to follow as signatory to the UN Charter, the supreme law of the land.

 

[Tehon]

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?

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.

 

[cnm]

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN.

What says you're a Charter Member, who suggests you're bound to every UN decision? Are you from West Virginia?

But you are bound to the JCPOA under article 25 of the UN Charter.

Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
Chapter V: Article 25​

 

[Contumacious]

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".

I know that, if it’s a treaty (which it is) then it needed to be voted on with a 2/3s majority. Really the blame falls on the GOP senate leadership for not excercising their authority in the matter. Anyway the whole point of the question was if they had said yes it is a treaty, then it is an unconstitutional one, and if they had said no, than this entire threads premise is built on top of a giant Japanese style sinkhole that just collapsed.

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Wrong again


THe UNSC members are : China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

While it is true that Iran did not sign its signature was NOT required.

Nevertheless , Iran was FULLY complying with its requirements.

But our President is an Israel Firster who is is totally subservient to Netanyahu and the Zionists.

.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.



President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

 

[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?

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.

We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.

 

[sakinago]

It is amazing that there are people who actually argue against the sovereignty of our nation.

I agree that Congress in 1948 should have NOT relinquished its authority to ratify all decisions.


But the Congresscritters love to abdicate - another case in point is the WAR POWERS ACT

Also remember that Prez Trump gave up our Sovereignty when he allowed Israel to decide which treaties are good for us.


.

2/3s of the nation were against the deal at the time. The reason it was never voted on was because it would never pass. No it wasn’t Israel telling trump the deal was bad, (we knew it was bad right off the bat BC inspectors were still barred from military sites, as well as allowed them to continue ICBM development. So it’s like a serial killer allowing the cops to search his home but barring them from the searching the basement and the freezer in his garage, and then telling them he’s going to go stalk some joggers.), it was Israel showing the world that Iran violated the terms of the deal right off the bat.

If anything this deal is good for Obama in the long run and prevents him from becoming the next Neville chamberlain.

 

[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.

According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.



President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

The constitution says otherwise.

 

[cnm]

Just because we accepted their "charter" doesn't mean that we must
abandon our laws.

The Charter is the supreme law of the land, or do you deny your Constitution?

 

[Doc1]

Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.

It is a decision of the UNSC which the US has bound itself to follow as signatory to the UN Charter, the supreme law of the land.

Good luck with that.

 

[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?

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?

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.

We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.

We are bound to Constitutionally ratified treaties.

 

[sakinago]

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".

I know that, if it’s a treaty (which it is) then it needed to be voted on with a 2/3s majority. Really the blame falls on the GOP senate leadership for not excercising their authority in the matter. Anyway the whole point of the question was if they had said yes it is a treaty, then it is an unconstitutional one, and if they had said no, than this entire threads premise is built on top of a giant Japanese style sinkhole that just collapsed.

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

Wrong again


THe UNSC members are : China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

While it is true that Iran did not sign its signature was NOT required.

Nevertheless , Iran was FULLY complying with its requirements.

But our President is an Israel Firster who is is totally subservient to Netanyahu and the Zionists.

.

No they didn’t fully comply, they were supposed to turn all the shit Israel dug up over, they did not. They didn’t even shred the evidence, instead they hid it and tried to guard it telling you they fully intended to use it again.

 

[Tehon]

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?

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.

We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.

We are bound to Constitutionally ratified treaties.

Yes, the UN Charter being the relevant treaty.

 

[sakinago]

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?

It says we are a Charter Member of the UN. It does NOT say we are bound to every decision made by the UN. I comprehend My Constitution just fine.

We are bound by those decisions that we are signatory to.

And so was Iran, but they didn’t turn over what they were supposed to, so...

 

[cnm]

According to Obama's State Department, it is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a political agreement and not binding.

It is a UNSC decision which has the status of supreme law of the land through the UN Charter.

 

[cnm]

Good luck with that.

Well, you know, US Constitution and all that.

 

[DJT for Life]

Just because we accepted their "charter" doesn't mean that we must
abandon our laws.

The Charter is the supreme law of the land, or do you deny your Constitution?

You are an absolute fucking idiot.

You either must be from Africa or Western Europe.