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

[cnm]

We are bound to Constitutionally ratified treaties.

Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
https://www.politico.com

 

[Doc1]

Good luck with that.

Well, you know, US Constitution and all that.

I've already shown how it expressly destroys your claims. The ship has sailed son, you going to file a Law suit?

 

[cnm]

You are an absolute fucking idiot.

You either must be from Africa or Western Europe.

Why do you deny your Constitution?

 

[DJT for Life]

You are an absolute fucking idiot.

You either must be from Africa or Western Europe.

Why do you deny your Constitution?

I'm not. Our constitution doesn't say shit about the UN

 

[cnm]

I've already shown how it expressly destroys your claims. The ship has sailed son, you going to file a Law suit?

I understand you're from West Virginia, but US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2, says treaties undertaken under authority of the US are the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter is such a treaty.

 

[BlindBoo]

again, even if that mess is true, does it mean the treaty is or is not the law of the land in Iran?

Depends. For Iran at this point, I think it would be in their best interest to say that it certainly is, at least to all the other countries that signed the plan of action.

not if the treaty no longer exists...

There was no treaty. There was a negotiated plan of action between the powers that be. It still exist regardless of what President Grump says.

 

[cnm]

I'm not. Our constitution doesn't say shit about the UN

Article 6, Clause 2. Treaties entered into under the authority of the US are the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter is such a treaty.




Is everyone from West Virginia?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

You are an absolute fucking idiot.

You either must be from Africa or Western Europe.

Why do you deny your Constitution?

Because is not his constitution .

He is unable to rebut or refute .

He is a fanatic .He is a Zionist.

.

 

[cnm]

There was a negotiated plan of action between the powers that be.

It is a UNSC decision. 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 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications​

 

[cnm]

Because is not his constitution .
He is unable to rebut or refute .

He is a fanatic .He is a Zionist.

Oh. Hadn't realised. Thank you. Another metaphorical West Virginian.

 

[cnm]

I can't believe how these guys either won't understand, or can't understand, or point blank refuse to accept clear English; even in their own founding documents.

It's a mystery.

 

[Contumacious]

Because is not his constitution .
He is unable to rebut or refute .

He is a fanatic .He is a Zionist.

Oh. Hadn't realised. Thank you. Another metaphorical West Virginian.

Actually , West TelAviv, LOL.

.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Again, according to Obama's State Department in 2015 JCPOA is a political agreement, not a treaty and not even an executive agreement, and is non binding.

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

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

lol No, it doesn't, not when it is read by an intelligent person.

 

[Contumacious]

I can't believe how these guys either won't understand, or can't understand, or point blank refuse to accept clear English; even in their own founding documents.

It's a mystery.

If they are Zionists the documents must be translated into Hebrew. And even then they will be denied.

If they are Hagee's followers then they are religious nuts , totally beyond redemption.

.

 

[cnm]

Again, according to Obama's State Department in 2015 JCPOA is a political agreement

It is a UNSC decision. Which the US is bound to obey under Article 25 of the UN Charter, to which the US is signatory and which is the supreme law of the land in the US under article 6, clause 2, of the US Constitution.

 

[cnm]

lol No, it doesn't, not when it is read by an intelligent person.

Oh. How about giving the intelligent person's view of treaties made under the authority of the US?

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​

 

[9thIDdoc]

The UN cannot make US law.

 

[Doc1]

We are bound to Constitutionally ratified treaties.

Senate Ratifies United Nations Charter, July 28, 1945
https://www.politico.com

The Constitution is clear, ALL treaties must be ratified. I'm baffled at an education that teaches you that we are subservient to an international body.
ALL treaties son, not just the ones you like. You are really trying to make the point that the Senate can "ratify" an unconstitutional treaty? YOU really think that THAT ratification renders all others unnecessary?

 

[sakinago]

I've already shown how it expressly destroys your claims. The ship has sailed son, you going to file a Law suit?

I understand you're from West Virginia, but US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2, says treaties undertaken under authority of the US are the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter is such a treaty.

And the UN charter binds us to what exactly? If what you’re trying to claim was true, then why aren’t any judges blocking trump on this? Why aren’t the dem senators and congressmen jumping up and down by saying we are bound to this treaty through the UN treaty? Do you guys think a single step ahead ever?