Democrats demand Access To Controversial Documents After Leak

[dilloduck]

Congress has no international authority. It's laws do not apply outside the US. Congress has no right to know the details of any negotiations between the Executive branch and any foreign government. And the last thing we want is for any international negotiations to be made public, and politicized by Congress. That includes peace negotiations with Israel, and trade negotiations.

Public peace negotiations might settle things really damn fast. If people only knew---

 

[Steelplate]

wow... hardly any liberal leaning posters are complaining when a Democrat asks for 'sensitive' information... but all Hell breaks lose when a Republican does.

Go figure.

That's not true...Issa kept moving the goalposts every time Holder complied...finally it gets to the point where he's sticking his nose where perhaps he has no business sticking it and Holder and Obama said "enough is enough".

It's a lose lose situation...deal with Issa demanding more and more everytime he hits a dead end...or claim EP and have wingnuts claim conspiracy.

Why don't you give us some examples of how Issa moved the goalposts? Is it because you have no idea what you are talking about?

Really? From what I understand, there have been a series of demands from Issa, every one of which has been met to the tune of some 7600 documents. I know your partisan nature won't let you entertain the idea that perhaps the reason for EP being invoked really is to protect the participants in ongoing operations...


But I keep forgetting....critical thinking is only allowed by you guys when it's aimed at Dems. Issa is off limits...because there's no way possible that he could be acting for purely political reasons...only Dems do that....Christ you guys are pathetic

 

[occupied]

Trade negotiations are the exclusive privilege of the president, he answers to no one in this area.

I know you didn't forget about the fact that the Senate has to approve all treaties, so you obviously didn't mean what you said.

Sure I did, read carefully, trade NEGOTIATIONS are the exclusive business of the president. It's different after a treaty is signed and settled.

 

[Conservative]

Trade negotiations are the exclusive privilege of the president, he answers to no one in this area.

I know you didn't forget about the fact that the Senate has to approve all treaties, so you obviously didn't mean what you said.

Sure I did, read carefully, trade NEGOTIATIONS are the exclusive business of the president. It's different after a treaty is signed and settled.

The Senate approves the treaty PRIOR to it's being signed, not AFTER.

Ratification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, 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. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

 

[Conservative]

Congress has no international authority. It's laws do not apply outside the US. Congress has no right to know the details of any negotiations between the Executive branch and any foreign government. And the last thing we want is for any international negotiations to be made public, and politicized by Congress. That includes peace negotiations with Israel, and trade negotiations.

you don't know how the whole President/Senate treaty cooperation thing works, do you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not true...Issa kept moving the goalposts every time Holder complied...finally it gets to the point where he's sticking his nose where perhaps he has no business sticking it and Holder and Obama said "enough is enough".

It's a lose lose situation...deal with Issa demanding more and more everytime he hits a dead end...or claim EP and have wingnuts claim conspiracy.

Why don't you give us some examples of how Issa moved the goalposts? Is it because you have no idea what you are talking about?

Really? From what I understand, there have been a series of demands from Issa, every one of which has been met to the tune of some 7600 documents. I know your partisan nature won't let you entertain the idea that perhaps the reason for EP being invoked really is to protect the participants in ongoing operations...


But I keep forgetting....critical thinking is only allowed by you guys when it's aimed at Dems. Issa is off limits...because there's no way possible that he could be acting for purely political reasons...only Dems do that....Christ you guys are pathetic

No examples, just a vague, unsupported claim of understanding? C'mon, show me how Issa was unreasonable and I will admit you are right. BE advised before you try to find them that I can actually go through the news reports and show how Issa initially demanded a lot more than he is now, and how all he wants is information about one letter that the DOJ sent to Congress and ended up admitting was wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trade negotiations are the exclusive privilege of the president, he answers to no one iDid Clinton know that?n this area.

I know you didn't forget about the fact that the Senate has to approve all treaties, so you obviously didn't mean what you said.

Sure I did, read carefully, trade NEGOTIATIONS are the exclusive business of the president. It's different after a treaty is signed and settled.

The Senate has the authority to amend said agreements if they get a hair up their ass.

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Clementine]

Obama has used it once, did you protest when Bush did it six times?

It's not how many times, it's a question of why. This one stinks big time.