Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last

What difference does the UN make? Is the sovereignty of any nation subordinate to the UN? What enforcement capabilities does the UN posess?

The UN is a waste of time, money and energy. It's purpose is to provide leaders an excuse to not lead.

 

More than Obama.

More so than Obama

More than Obama

 

M

Those are all valid points. That should tell you a lot about what an incompetent boob he is.

 

In the past, both sides would agree there is a problem, concern, issue, etc, but disagree on the solution. Even with the Soviet Union and the START teaties, both sides wanted peace with the former USSSR, but disagreed on the specifics. However today, that is not the case. Today, you have one side who is still stuck in the past and the other side trying to be pragmatic. We have had pragmatic agreements with the USSR, Vietnam, and the People's Republic of China. And I see no difference with Cuba and Iran.

What is interesting about the deal with Iran is how we will trust and verify the process. That is the only stumbling bloc for the deal, but the GOP does not want that at all, for the simple political reason that party comes first and not country.

 

Wrong. Kerry has already stated it is not a treaty but an executive agreement, which as Congress stated in their letter, has no binding effect once Obama is out of office.

 

Sorry to not respond promptly. I only have internet at the library.
All I'm trying to say is:

(1) that if I were a defense attorney for the republican senators, my stance would be that the president is not the u.s. government in it's entirety.
So the senators can't be sabotaging a u.s. government policy until the policy has been confirmed by the senate.
Like wise Obama couldn't be sabotaging a u.s. policy it the senators went to Israel to talk to Netenyahu and Obama made a statement that the senate couldn't make policy.
It would cut both ways.

(2) A case could be made that Obama has "committed treason against the constitution" by issuing executive orders that change law.

I believe scotus ruled against several Obama initiatives last year, including one case were the vote was nine to zip against Obama.
Does anyone know if any other U.S. president ever had a scotus against him nine to zip?

 

That's how US is run.

 

spare me this nonsense. Go spam someone/somewhere else.

 

Blow all the smoke you like, Mikey....the chronology of the posts show you for the intellectually dishonest right wing crank that you are. I'm not interested in getting you to admit you're wrong or in error, just to demonstrate to the reader the sheer fraud of your attempt to defend the indefensible screw up of the GOP 47. So rather than just go in circles with your BS, I'll just dump you in the IA with the others of your mindset.

 

Got it!

 

Pay attention: Kerry pointed out that any RESULTS from the meetings are non-binding......that is STANDARD UNTIL ALL PROPOSALS FOR A FINAL TREATY ARE RUN THROUGH cONGRESS AND GET 2/3 APPROVAL. The GOP 47 letter acts on the PREMISE that a FINALIZED TREATY PROPOSAL WILL (MOST LIKELY) NOT BE HONORED IN 2016...WHICH IS A VEILED THREAT BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION, SINCE THE JOKERS THAT SIGNED IT FIGURE ON THE PRESIDENCY BEING WON BY THE GOP IN 2016.

No matter how you slice it, the GOP 47 sought to sabotage negotiations at the preliminary stages....and it's back firing on them.

 

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/30/bush-claims-he-has-author_n_20085.html





The "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority."

— Bob Goodlatte on Sunday, June 29th, 2014 in comments on "Fox News Sunday"





Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water.

...For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.

Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.



....Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue.


..."This is a concocted statistic," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog.com. "It's just saying that the government lost cases unanimously. The government participates in roughly 60 cases a term. Every administration loses cases unanimously."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

 

Two uses of the word "could" does not constitute a valid premise; go take logic 101.

 

For one who blows a lot of smoke, dodges issues and facts raised and then tries to take out of context what others say to support your revisionist screed...logic is NOT your forte...especially in a printed medium. For those interested in what this right wing comedian avoided in the referred post: And in typical fashion, when the right wing pundits and sycophants cannot logically or factually refute or disprove a point, they throw every and anything against the wall in hopes that that no one will notice their folly.


Bottom line: the GOP 47 tried to interfere directly with preliminary negotiations based on a PREMISE of victory in 2016. That last stipulation is the ONLY reason why they skirt the label of treason. NO DEMOCRAT HAS DONE EXACTLY THE SAME TO EITHER BUSH OR REAGAN. PERIOD. Now it's come back to bite them in the butt no matter how defiant and arrogant they are, as seen here http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...dumb-idea.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ck-116003.html

Your attempt at an intellectually honest debate is indeed a divine comedy. Carry on.

 

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

Okay, fine, Right-Wing Nuts can adopt your “liberal” logic:

Since Obama could be the anti-Christ, therefore, Obama is the anti-Christ.

 

So you don't have a response for any of my questions. I figured that much, but if you are going to toss accusations my way, you should at least try to back them up. How was I intellectually dishonest? What are the ways I defended the GOP?

Now, as for the questions I've asked that you continue to ignore:

I asked you what exactly do you consider "near treason" or "skirting treason?"

Why so none of the other examples given to you in this thread of Democrats in Congress running their own foreign policy fit the non crime of near or skirting treason?

 

This story proves Obama is just a puppet. The US is controlled by an inside group.

 

Which a lot of your conservative compatriots seem to think, given the rhetoric in the last 6 years. Look son, you're just going in circles to avoid acknowledging the major screw-up by the GOP 47. Unless you've got something new besides parroting the SOS, I'd say we're done here.

 

Since it was not negotiations to state facts as they understood them so it is not a violation of the Logan act, which is questionable as to its constitutionality especially with regard to members of Congress (a branch of the US government), as Obama is NOT the government, it also was not unconstitutional for the Senate to want to be engaged with advice and consent over the issue, in real time like George Washington thought he had to do, because the powers to regulate commerce with foreign nations and war and “To define…Offences against the Law of Nations” is the power of Congress and is NOT a power of the president, and to fulfill their power to regulate such commerce could in this instance (of an administration that has demonstrated repeated contempt for the powers of Congress and has repeatedly lied) require free speech and a violation of protocol or precedent (See George Washington) to make sure the enemy knows the extent of the president’s powers, that We the People do not have to remove sanctions of an enemy over WMD but could keep them simply because they’re threatening bung holes, and a violation of protocol or precedent (SEE George Washington) is not a constitutional issue, therefore, it was not major screw-up.

“The Constitution gives the President the “power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.” (The Senate irritates the President):

“This first time the President attempted to seek that advice occurred in August 1789 when first President George Washington sent a message to the Senate asking “to advise with them” on a treaty with the Southern Indians (at that time the United States treated Indian tribes as foreign nations).

On August 22, 1789, Washington arrived at Federal Hall in New York City (then the capital) with Secretary of War Henry Knox, and they proceeded to read aloud a series of documents related to the various Southern Indian tribes.

The incident was not recorded in the Senate Executive Journal, but Senator William Maclay of Pennsylvania kept a diary and documented what transpired: apparently the noise from the Manhattan traffic below drowned out the reading of the documents.

As a result, the Senate decided to appoint a committee rather than debate the issue in front of the President, which caused great consternation to Washington.”
http://blogs.archives.gov/prologue/?p=13806

“Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.” The first time this was put into practice was in August 21, 1789 when President George Washington sent this message to the Senate asking “to advise with them” on a treaty with the Southern Indians.

President Washington appeared before the Senate on August 22 to present documents relating to various tribes, but rather than discussing the matter with him in person, the Senate voted to appoint a committee to consider the treaty. Unhappy that the consideration of the treaty was done without him, the President decided that in the future he would only communicate with the Senate in writing when requesting their consent on treaties. This precedent set by the first President still continues today.” http://congressarchives.tumblr.com/post/95465240259/225th-anniversary-of-the-first-congress-well-be

“Message of President George Washington Requesting that the Senate Meet to Advise Him on the Terms of the Treaty to Be Negotiated with the Southern Indians, 08/21/1789”
http://research.archives.gov/description/306283

 

I'm not a Bush fan, not of any of the Bush clan.
FBI reinstated close surveillance of me when I got out and protested the then upcoming 2nd Iraq war.
(As a DOD engineer with a security clearance it's wasn't surprising)
So if you arrest the whole Bush clan for treason I'd be willing to sit down and listen to the charges.

 

Don't remember YOUR posit?



"(2) A case could be made that Obama has "committed treason against the constitution" by issuing executive orders that change law.

I believe scotus ruled against several Obama initiatives last year, including one case were the vote was nine to zip against Obama.
Does anyone know if any other U.S. president ever had a scotus against him nine to zip?"

 

If you have a new car get something wrong, the dealer refused to repair and said the the new board directors of manufactoy won't admit the guarantee made by the old CEO. What would you do?

 

I don't understand your post. I take it you are asking me if I remember something. My posit? (I think you mean my position on this thread, i.e, my general attitude.)
I'm a constitutionalist. I'm not a fan of the repubs. I've said before on this thread that I don't think the rep senators can be charged with treason in this instance.
I don't have to be a repub activist to think that what the senators did wasn't treason.
Fair enough? Or did I misinterpret your point?

 

Constitutionalists? Oh those guys who support the Constitution by invoking that thing that was just propaganda to get the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T Constitution passed in NY, the Federalist papers? AND you think YOUR interpenetration is better than the rest of US even the Prez of the US?

You don't have to "think" the 47 GOP traitorous Senators broke the law, but for MANY who actually use honesty and reason, they sure broke a LONG held custom, and POSSIBLY broke the law!

 

Originally posted by dad2three:

"Constitutionalists? Oh those guys who support the Constitution by invoking that thing that was just propaganda to get the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T Constitution passed in NY, the Federalist papers? AND you think YOUR interpenetration is better than the rest of US even the Prez of the US?"

You don't have to "think" the 47 GOP traitorous Senators broke the law, but for MANY who actually use honesty and reason, they sure broke a LONG held custom, and POSSIBLY broke the law! "



All of us who went into the military in the cold war took an oath to support the constitution. Under the oath we are not to obey an unconstitutional order from our commanding officer.
But if scotus supports the commanding officer, then we still have to obey our oath. Not the potus, scotus or anyone else can releave us of our oath to God.
I think it's debatable that the senators didn't break the law. I suspect that they didn't.
I have to support what I think is constiutional. Lincoln said once: "How many legs does a donkey have if you count a tail as a leg?
Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one."
That's my position with respect to the constitution. If scotus makes a decision that supports something I think is clearly unconstitutional, such as the Patriot Act and holding people with out trial for the duration of the War on Terror, then I have to dissent.
As to thinking my interpretation is better than the prez, I could say the same thing about the ferrett. What makes him think his interpretation is better than that of 47 U.S. senators? Both sides can say either the prez or the senators are making their interpretations of the law on politicized grounds.
As to the Federalist Papers my understanding is the scotus occasionally refers to them when deciding cases. They use it to help clarify to themselves what the founders meant.