Deal with Iran

[Jroc]

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.

Not according to Congress...

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.

Republicans in congress are morons, Corker is the lead moron, and you marvel at a new arms race in the middle east and WWIII ...Obama love it's incredible

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"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

I don't have to make my case, I'm agreeing with the legal consensus.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Not according to Congress...

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.

Since you like wikipedia as a source so much, here's what they have to say about it:

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Not according to Congress...

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.

In his world it is whatever Obama says it is

 

[Votto]

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

I don't have to make my case, I'm agreeing with the legal consensus.

The legal consensus tells us that corporations are people and it once told us that slavery was legal.

I'm still awaiting for you to splain how the legal consensus says this is not a treaty this go round

 

[skye]

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.

Not according to Congress...

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.

In his world it is whatever Obama says it is

yes...he is the ultimate prick... made President by the sheeple....

it's war from within with this Hussein Muslim

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, this N----- in the "White House" is out to destroy the Americans!!!

"GTP"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

I don't have to make my case, I'm agreeing with the legal consensus.

The legal consensus tells us that corporations are people and it once told us that slavery was legal.

I'm still awaiting for you to splain how the legal consensus says this is not a treaty this go round

I, and many other posters, have explained it in many other threads. But I'll do so again, if it will help.

The NPT, which the US ratified 40 years ago, includes it's own mechanisms in which to adjudecate and manage violations of the treaty. These negotiations, and the "deal" are results of that mechanism, put in place by a previously ratified treaty that gave the power to regulate itself to the P5+1.

It is not a "treaty" because it's not a "new" arraigment between the US and Iran - it's a re-adjustment of an existing arraignment between the IAEA and Iran.

 

[Votto]

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

I don't have to make my case, I'm agreeing with the legal consensus.

The legal consensus tells us that corporations are people and it once told us that slavery was legal.

I'm still awaiting for you to splain how the legal consensus says this is not a treaty this go round

I, and many other posters, have explained it in many other threads. But I'll do so again, if it will help.

The NPT, which the US ratified 40 years ago, includes it's own mechanisms in which to adjudecate and manage violations of the treaty. These negotiations, and the "deal" are results of that mechanism, put in place by a previously ratified treaty that gave the power to regulate itself to the P5+1.

It is not a "treaty" because it's not a "new" arraigment between the US and Iran - it's a re-adjustment of an existing arraignment between the IAEA and Iran.

So essentially POTUS has found a way to weasel around the need for a treaty through Executive Agreements, much like he already does with the Executive Order, neither of which are Constitutional.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

I don't have to make my case, I'm agreeing with the legal consensus.

The legal consensus tells us that corporations are people and it once told us that slavery was legal.

I'm still awaiting for you to splain how the legal consensus says this is not a treaty this go round

I, and many other posters, have explained it in many other threads. But I'll do so again, if it will help.

The NPT, which the US ratified 40 years ago, includes it's own mechanisms in which to adjudecate and manage violations of the treaty. These negotiations, and the "deal" are results of that mechanism, put in place by a previously ratified treaty that gave the power to regulate itself to the P5+1.

It is not a "treaty" because it's not a "new" arraigment between the US and Iran - it's a re-adjustment of an existing arraignment between the IAEA and Iran.

So essentially POTUS has found a way to weasel around the need for a treaty through Executive Agreements, much like he already does with the Executive Order, neither of which are Constitutional.

He didn't "find a way" to do anything - the negotiations have gone forward exactly in the way they were defined in the NPT.

In addition, neither "executive agreements" nor "executive orders" are "unconstitutional", and both have been used by every President we've ever had.

 

[BluesLegend]

I don't know why anyone is shocked that government doesn't obey the very laws it passes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The bomb

The bomb for being patient

How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?

With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What did we "give" Iran?

What did they "take"?

Elaborate.

The bomb

The bomb for being patient

How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?

With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

No sanctions have been lifted yet.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The bomb

The bomb for being patient

How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?

With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

No sanctions have been lifted yet.

You do know they're set to be...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How exactly did we "give" them the bomb?

With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

No sanctions have been lifted yet.

You do know they're set to be...

Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

With the swipe of that executive pen & phone that Obama bragged about.

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

No sanctions have been lifted yet.

You do know they're set to be...

Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.

Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

You do realize sanctions have been lifted right?
Now they'll have a shitload of money and an inspection agreement thats not worth shit.

No sanctions have been lifted yet.

You do know they're set to be...

Yes, they are set to be, that's the whole point of the deal. But it hasn't happened yet, and won't until IAEA inspectors say that Iran is compliant with the deal.

Of course it'll be years of hide and seek again but what the hell,who cares if they sneak in a nuclear device right?
I'll at least take solace that it will more than likely take place in one of the liberal cesspools.

You have quite an active imagination.

You realize that in order to do that, Iran would have to build a functioning device (which will be nearly impossible for them to do under scrutiny), test it (completely impossible to hide), and build a delivery system (which would also require testing that would be impossible to hide).

The idea of a "surprise" nuclear bomb from Iran is ludicrous.

 

[jwoodie]

It is not a "treaty" because it's not a "new" arraigment between the US and Iran - it's a re-adjustment of an existing arraignment between the IAEA and Iran.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is...BS.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It is not a "treaty" because it's not a "new" arraigment between the US and Iran - it's a re-adjustment of an existing arraignment between the IAEA and Iran.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is...BS.

You are welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, but they won't change reality.

It's a done deal.