Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AGAIN, we have a process that determines if something should receive ratification. This Accord kicked that process in the nuts. That's why obamas press sec said they weren't going to congress because it wasn't a complete collective.The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts..."Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
It get ratified or not means shit. You are saying the only difference between a treaty and agreement is a signature. That's not right.
This was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL act made by the president because he doesn't have the power to enact TREATIES by himself. That's why the states sued and the SC put it on hold.
You are basically saying the president can enact any executive agreement he wants containing anything and all he has to do is bypass congress. That's NOT the way it works. You are justifying obamas illegal actions.
Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
No, you are taking this shit at face value because you probably just don't know for sure.AGAIN, we have a process that determines if something should receive ratification. This Accord kicked that process in the nuts. That's why obamas press sec said they weren't going to congress because it wasn't a complete collective.The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
It get ratified or not means shit. You are saying the only difference between a treaty and agreement is a signature. That's not right.
This was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL act made by the president because he doesn't have the power to enact TREATIES by himself. That's why the states sued and the SC put it on hold.
You are basically saying the president can enact any executive agreement he wants containing anything and all he has to do is bypass congress. That's NOT the way it works. You are justifying obamas illegal actions.
That's not what I'm saying at all, try reading more slowly maybe? Thus far you aren't very good at this. It's odd how you are attempting mal=ke my words mean the exact opposite of what they mean. Words have meanings. I use language in the way that it's meant to be used and words within their meaning.
Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
No, you are taking this shit at face value because you probably just don't know for sure.AGAIN, we have a process that determines if something should receive ratification. This Accord kicked that process in the nuts. That's why obamas press sec said they weren't going to congress because it wasn't a complete collective.The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
It get ratified or not means shit. You are saying the only difference between a treaty and agreement is a signature. That's not right.
This was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL act made by the president because he doesn't have the power to enact TREATIES by himself. That's why the states sued and the SC put it on hold.
You are basically saying the president can enact any executive agreement he wants containing anything and all he has to do is bypass congress. That's NOT the way it works. You are justifying obamas illegal actions.
That's not what I'm saying at all, try reading more slowly maybe? Thus far you aren't very good at this. It's odd how you are attempting mal=ke my words mean the exact opposite of what they mean. Words have meanings. I use language in the way that it's meant to be used and words within their meaning.
We have processes. We don't have a dictatorship in America. No shit, you are implying the president can do anything he wants as long as he bypasses congress.
You using a black and white argument just makes you look dumb. And im pretty sure you aren't.
your really having a hard time with Obama's used car salesman's bait and switch...Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the US
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
Founder James Wilson :Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the US
Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
Founder James Wilson :Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
"Neither the president, nor the senate, solely, can COMPLETE A TREATY; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced to produce security for the people"
your really having a hard time with Obama's used car salesman's bait and switch...Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...Really?
Then you don't like the dictionary's definition>
"trea·ty
[ˈtrēdē]
NOUN
treaties (plural noun)
- a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries."
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
No it doesn't!Founder James Wilson :Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
"Neither the president, nor the senate, solely, can COMPLETE A TREATY; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced to produce security for the people"
Everything I've posted proves this point, you're looking bad here kid. EVERY source I've posted verifies THAT precise thing. In your haste to be "right" you are missing the entire thing kid.
Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
NO SHIT! That is why it was unconstitutional! Lolyour really having a hard time with Obama's used car salesman's bait and switch...Obama did it... AND you seem to be an Obama apologist... Read the dam agreement. Does is give up powers of congress to make laws and take monies from US citizens? Why yes it does.. ITS A DAM TREATY! It doesn't matter what the name on the header says.If you read the agreement, it is most certainly a treaty and gives powers of congress to a global regime. The fact that congress never ratified it saved our asses...
Sorry, no. A treaty is binding because it has been ratified. Words mean things, and nobody gets to change their meaning for the sake of expediency.
It can't give up any powers because it cannot be "legally" binding UNTIL it's ratified. It isn't a treaty at all no matter it reads. The way it reads doesn't matter, it cannot abrogate the designated procedure of the Constitution. Obama apologist? Too funny.
Not at all, EVERY source I've used says that President cannot put us in a binding situation. Only the Senate can do that, it cannot go to his desk until they ratify it. Lacking ratification there is nothing for him to sign, and nothing that binds us to anything. Take a deep breath and actually read. Like I said, you can call a rose a daisy but that doesn't make it one.
Please do not repost your crock of shit, stupid argumrent that it is a treaty. We have numerous agreeements around the world that are not treaties.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
Name one.Please do not repost your crock of shit, stupid argumrent that it is a treaty. We have numerous agreeements around the world that are not treaties.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?Don't waste your time. I have shown repeatedly in this thread how that statement is wrong. This is a TREATY.
Or should I say WAS
It has never been called a treaty. Check our constitution and see who has to approve a treaty and how.
So, despite our processes in place, your argument is the only difference between an agreement and treaty is the president signing it?No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.It is a treaty. Do I have to post it again?
The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
You don't read well do you? A Treaty is binding, an accord is not. ONLY the Senate can ratify a treaty.
The Paris accord is a TREATY... an unratified one.... Meaning its a useless piece of paper with no agreement from the USdude, you winnered a post of mine yesterday when I called it a treaty. You confused?Now your presenting Constitutional law... your going to confuse them with facts...No shit. That's why its unconstitutional.The accord? No, sorry, it isn't. The President does not have the authority to put a treaty in place all by his lonesome.
I will state it ONE MORE TIME
We have a process called the circular 175 procedure.
It determines whether Congress is necessary.
The agreement effects the Nation at whole, It will cause states right loss, it must involve congress in the first place because of the $, it also doesn't seem to have a termination rate.
"Treaty power is a co-ordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."
Ratification - Wikipedia
So what's new in dealing with North Korea, ISIS and Syria? I don't see anything new.
You're kidding right?
* YOU DON'T SEE that in short order, we've gone from an invisible red line of total impotence in the sand that Obama's bluff was called on long ago leading to the slaughter of many thousands of lives to a missile attack that took out half of Assad's airforce, stopped the use of chemical weapons and made the world take serious Trump's resolve?
* YOU DON'T SEE that ISIS went from a free-running terror agency which had long since stopped taking America seriously to one day having the world's largest bomb dropped on its tunnel network killing many agents and slowing or stopping its tunnel system in and out of Afghanistan?
* And YOU DON'T SEE North Korea going from totally unchecked, to having China its closest ally now down its throat on one side working with us cutting off vital markets to our having a large military presence off shore ready to respond, meetings with Japan, a test of our strategist missile defense, to preparations to defending South Korea?
If you don't see any of that, you are indeed more than blind, you are willingly obtuse.
I see ISIS still attacking so that one bomb did squat.
I see NK firing missile after missile while El Dumster is Tweeting about Comey.
A missile strike on a abandoned air field? Really? You are bragging about that?
Pathetic
