Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Deal with Iran
- Thread starter Votto
- Start date
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
- Banned
- #3
A deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
A deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
What did we "give" Iran?
What did they "take"?
Elaborate.
- Banned
- #6
The bombA deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
What did we "give" Iran?
What did they "take"?
Elaborate.
The bomb for being patient
- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,854
- 52,757
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #7
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
Who determined this and why?
The bombA deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
What did we "give" Iran?
What did they "take"?
Elaborate.
The bomb for being patient
How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
Who determined this and why?
Hundreds of years of precedent.
- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,854
- 52,757
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #10
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
Who determined this and why?
Hundreds of years of precedent.
Hundreds of years of precedent?
FDR sent innocent Japanese Americans into detention camps as a precedent.
Here is what wiki says a treaty is.
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.
Not according to Congress...Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
And if Obama ticked off another half-dozen Democrats by going to the UN, the Senate can override a veto.
Iran deal in hand Obama must face Congress - CNNPolitics.com
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
Who determined this and why?
Hundreds of years of precedent.
Hundreds of years of precedent?
Here is what wiki says a treaty is.
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.
You're not seriously trying to use the generic definition of "treaty" from wikipedia to make your argument, are you?
- Banned
- #13
With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.The bombA deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
What did we "give" Iran?
What did they "take"?
Elaborate.
The bomb for being patient
How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
We gave them money, legitimacy, more power in the region, and eventually a nuke..What did we get? absolutely nothing
- Oct 19, 2012
- 61,167
- 59,407
- 3,635
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
We gave them money, legitimacy, more power in the region, and eventually a nuke..What did we get? absolutely nothing
Obama is a traitor!
He will burn in hell!
Not according to Congress...Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
And if Obama ticked off another half-dozen Democrats by going to the UN, the Senate can override a veto.
Iran deal in hand Obama must face Congress - CNNPolitics.com
You're not understanding what happened.
If this were a "treaty", it would need 2/3s of a vote to pass, rather than 2/3s to reject it, and Congress wouldn't have had to pass a law in order to give them the chance to approve it at all.
There's really no chance of Obama's veto being overturned, and that's only if it doesn't pass in the first place.
- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,854
- 52,757
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #17
Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
Who determined this and why?
Hundreds of years of precedent.
Hundreds of years of precedent?
Here is what wiki says a treaty is.
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.
You're not seriously trying to use the generic definition of "treaty" from wikipedia to make your argument, are you?
I am still waiting for you to make your case
- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,854
- 52,757
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #18
Not according to Congress...Should the deal with Iran be considered a treaty and if it is a treaty is not Congress required to approve it?
"Should" doesn't mean anything. It's not a "treaty", and Congress doesn't have to approve it.
This has already been determined.
And if Obama ticked off another half-dozen Democrats by going to the UN, the Senate can override a veto.
Iran deal in hand Obama must face Congress - CNNPolitics.com
You're not understanding what happened.
If this were a "treaty", it would need 2/3s of a vote to pass, rather than 2/3s to reject it, and Congress wouldn't have had to pass a law in order to give them the chance to approve it at all.
There's really no chance of Obama's veto being overturned, and that's only if it doesn't pass in the first place.
I'm still awaiting your definition of what a treaty is.
With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.The bombA deal requires give & take on both sides. Iran took & we gave. Nothing else of consequence took place
What did we "give" Iran?
What did they "take"?
Elaborate.
The bomb for being patient
How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?
You didn't understand my question. I'll try rephrasing it.
What is it in the deal has "given" Iran a nuke?
Is Iran closer to building a nuke now than they were before the deal? How?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 238
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 64
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 64
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 132
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 334
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 197
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8052
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-