Obama does not have power to make nuke deal with Iran!

[SwimExpert]

When have the Iranians ever wanted to cooperate with the US?

Since starvation kicked in.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

It's all semantics and still nothing more that an attempted end run around Congress. Sorry but that logic won't fly, it will and should be challenged immediately if it happens.
The key is that making a written agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty regardless of how one tries to spin it and the process for that is covered in the Constitution. I can only assume the reason Obama would attempt to bypass the Congress is he knows they will not approve it, fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how one views it) that's the way our government works and the law(s) must be followed, by law he has to present it to Congress for ratification.

I don't think you understand what a treaty is. It's a binding law between two countries. How can Obama create a binding law between the US and Iran by himself? It's impossible. It's not even a question of going beyond his power. It is, in fact, impossible to do, even if a person tried to do it.

As President, Obama has the power to ease sanctions on Iran. If the administration works out a deal with Iran, the only way the US will "live up" to it is for Obama to do so himself. There is no way to bind any subsequent President to continue easing restrictions, nor anything preventing said future President from establishing new sanctions. You are arguing that this would be a treaty de facto, but that would be entirely impossible.

Okay, apparently you're confusing what I'm talking about with your missing the part all the rest of us are talking about, Obama attempting to bypass Congress with a defacto treaty, NOT his ability, legal or not, to ease restrictions.
You've heard nothing about the proposed "agreement" (treaty) being worked out between the US and Iran by this administration?
It is two different subjects of discussion.

Actually, it seems that your vision is limited by a roll of toilet paper. There is no treaty. You are calling this whole thing a treaty, but there is no treaty. It is not a treaty by name, it is not a treaty by effect. The agreement has no power of law.

In this case your vision is limited by your head being up Obama's ass. Hey one insult deserves another........
Getting concessions from a foreign country in exchange for concessions on our part constitutes the act of negotiating a treaty therefor is dictated by law.

Okay, whatever you say. If you're going to just make stuff up, then I see no reason to bother with any further discussion.

 

[HenryBHough]

On that fateful day it is fortunate nobody had a copy of Mao's "Little Red Book" handy else the cat would have left the bag a little early.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

SEE: Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress

OCT. 19, 2014

”The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.”

The Treasury Department can say anything it wants to say but nowhere in our Constitution has our Executive branch of government been granted authority to make “deals” with foreign nations without the Senate’s approval, and the language in our Constitution is crystal clear: "The President ... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Additionally, there is nothing in our Constitution allowing the Senate to re-assign its requirement to “concur” with any “deal” negotiated by our President. And Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, explains why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” He “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”


Aside from the clear language in our Constitution requiring the Senate to concur with any deal negotiated by our President, and the expressed intentions stated by Hamilton for requiring the Senate’s approval, Townhall tells us How Obama Will Bypass Congress On His Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal: Obama will claim that his deal with Iran is not a treaty but a "sole executive agreement" that requires no approval from Congress. Of course, there is no such authority found in our Constitution granting a “sole executive agreement” power to the executive, and as Hamilton defines the treaty making power as a contract with a foreign nation which has the “force of law”, any deal negotiated with Iran by our President must be approved of by the Senate as commanded by our Constitution!

So why is FoxNews saying “The question now is whether lawmakers would be able to throw up any roadblocks to a potential Iran agreement.”? SEE: Netanyahu makes last-ditch bid to stop Obama from doing nuke deal with Iran

To even suggest that Obama has authority to finalize a deal with Iran without the Senate’s approve is very, very suspicious indeed!

JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Iran deserves to have nuclear weapon

1. Iran has signed the NPT, while Israel, India, and Pakistan have not.
2. The US would have thought twice before invading Iraq if we knew they had nukes. Iran having nukes would hopefully deter the US from invading them and starting yet another endless war / clash of the civilizations.
3. Russia and the U.S. have nukes and have always been interested in Iran's resources. Deterrence is a better option than war.
4. Iran would never nuke Israel and Israel would never nuke Iran, not only due to the theory of mutual destruction, but because there are over 1.5 million Muslims living in Israel.

 

[Ringel05]

It's all semantics and still nothing more that an attempted end run around Congress. Sorry but that logic won't fly, it will and should be challenged immediately if it happens.
The key is that making a written agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty regardless of how one tries to spin it and the process for that is covered in the Constitution. I can only assume the reason Obama would attempt to bypass the Congress is he knows they will not approve it, fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how one views it) that's the way our government works and the law(s) must be followed, by law he has to present it to Congress for ratification.

I don't think you understand what a treaty is. It's a binding law between two countries. How can Obama create a binding law between the US and Iran by himself? It's impossible. It's not even a question of going beyond his power. It is, in fact, impossible to do, even if a person tried to do it.

As President, Obama has the power to ease sanctions on Iran. If the administration works out a deal with Iran, the only way the US will "live up" to it is for Obama to do so himself. There is no way to bind any subsequent President to continue easing restrictions, nor anything preventing said future President from establishing new sanctions. You are arguing that this would be a treaty de facto, but that would be entirely impossible.

Okay, apparently you're confusing what I'm talking about with your missing the part all the rest of us are talking about, Obama attempting to bypass Congress with a defacto treaty, NOT his ability, legal or not, to ease restrictions.
You've heard nothing about the proposed "agreement" (treaty) being worked out between the US and Iran by this administration?
It is two different subjects of discussion.

Actually, it seems that your vision is limited by a roll of toilet paper. There is no treaty. You are calling this whole thing a treaty, but there is no treaty. It is not a treaty by name, it is not a treaty by effect. The agreement has no power of law.

In this case your vision is limited by your head being up Obama's ass. Hey one insult deserves another........
Getting concessions from a foreign country in exchange for concessions on our part constitutes the act of negotiating a treaty therefor is dictated by law.

Okay, whatever you say. If you're going to just make stuff up, then I see no reason to bother with any further discussion.

Make stuff up??? I'm relating law and known practice. While Obama can ease trade restrictions with an Executive Order anything beyond that (which this so called "agreement" entails) falls within the realm of negotiating a treaty hence subject to Congressional ratification.
Just because you refuse to see it, for whatever reason, doesn't make you correct in your assessment.
I've explained how it is the act of negotiating a treaty, multiple times, you have yet to show how it's not based on law and common practice. Pretty much all you've done is discount and insult, ya want to play that game then fine, let's have at it. You're up Sparky.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, the Constitution is crystal clear that any Iran nuke deal would have to be approved by the Senate. But, you see, liberals could not care less about following the Constitution.

Sad and hard to believe but true: There are 43 Democratic Senators who are refusing to require that Obama submit the Iran nuke deal to the Senate in accordance with the plain, undeniable language of the Constitution. The Republicans have proposed a bill that simply says that Obama must follow what the Constitution says about treaties with foreign powers, i.e., that the Iran nuke deal must be submitted to the Senate. The Republicans have 57 votes, just 3 short of a veto-proof majority, for this bill.

We are literally seeing the destruction of our form of government under Obama and Congressional Democrats. It is amazing that 43 Democratic Senators refuse to require the President to follow the Constitution on such a historic and crucial issue as Iran getting nuclear weapons.

 

[SwimExpert]

Make stuff up??? I'm relating law and known practice. While Obama can ease trade restrictions with an Executive Order anything beyond that (which this so called "agreement" entails) falls within the realm of negotiating a treaty hence subject to Congressional ratification.

So you really mean to say that Obama has the power to ease restrictions, but it takes a treaty for him to ease restrictions pursuant to an agreement?

You sound like Franco with the way you are desperately trying to distort this.

 

[johnwk]

The problem is, our Fifth Column media, and this includes some of our supposed "conservative" media personalities, are talking about the merits of Obama's deal as if the President actually has the power to negotiate and then finalize a deal with a foreign nation. As pointed out above, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, lists a number of reasons why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make any deals with foreign nations. Even FoxNews and Sean Hannity have not emphasized enough the irrefutable fact that Obama has no such power. WHY?


The only important point to be made at this juncture, and made in such a manner that the entire world is cognizant of the fact, is that Obama does not have authority to finalize any deal with Iran. And without our Senate's approval, any deal made by Obama isn't worth the paper its written on. This is what our Republican controlled Congress ought to be doing right now ___ drawing up a one page Joint Resolution confirming Obama does not have authority to finalize a deal with Iran, and any agreement entered into with Iran by Obama is without force and effect until and if our Senate approves as outlined in our Constitution.


JWK






When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

 

[Ringel05]

Make stuff up??? I'm relating law and known practice. While Obama can ease trade restrictions with an Executive Order anything beyond that (which this so called "agreement" entails) falls within the realm of negotiating a treaty hence subject to Congressional ratification.

So you really mean to say that Obama has the power to ease restrictions, but it takes a treaty for him to ease restrictions pursuant to an agreement?

You sound like Franco with the way you are desperately trying to distort this.

No, I'm not and never did say that, you did. How about reading what I post as opposed to reading into what I post. You sound like Franco the way you are desperately putting words in my mouth.
You seem focused solely on the restrictions, I've been discussing the talks the administration is having with Iran concerning their nuclear program, what the gist of the OP was.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Is there a reason Obama does everything without Congress?

 

[johnwk]

Is there a reason Obama does everything without Congress?

Yes! Our Fifth Column media is in his corner!


JWK

 

[SwimExpert]

No, I'm not and never did say that, you did. How about reading what I post as opposed to reading into what I post.

Okay, well if you can't even take ownership for the exact thing that you posted, there's no reason to talk to you anymore. Time to add another to the ignore list.

 

[Ringel05]

No, I'm not and never did say that, you did. How about reading what I post as opposed to reading into what I post.

Okay, well if you can't even take ownership for the exact thing that you posted, there's no reason to talk to you anymore. Time to add another to the ignore list.

Okay Sputz, I see what you're doing, twist, turn, deflect, redirect, infer and accuse. Hope the DNC is paying you well. Have a fucked up life, ah wait a minute, that's already the case.

 

[johnwk]

Senator Tom Cotton is correct! Obama’s Iran “deal” isn’t worth squat!



SEE: Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding

March 11 at 12:36


”Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” Oh, really?”


JWK



When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?

 

[jillian]

SEE: Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress

OCT. 19, 2014

”The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.”

The Treasury Department can say anything it wants to say but nowhere in our Constitution has our Executive branch of government been granted authority to make “deals” with foreign nations without the Senate’s approval, and the language in our Constitution is crystal clear: "The President ... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Additionally, there is nothing in our Constitution allowing the Senate to re-assign its requirement to “concur” with any “deal” negotiated by our President. And Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, explains why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” He “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”



Aside from the clear language in our Constitution requiring the Senate to concur with any deal negotiated by our President, and the expressed intentions stated by Hamilton for requiring the Senate’s approval, Townhall tells us How Obama Will Bypass Congress On His Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal: Obama will claim that his deal with Iran is not a treaty but a "sole executive agreement" that requires no approval from Congress. Of course, there is no such authority found in our Constitution granting a “sole executive agreement” power to the executive, and as Hamilton defines the treaty making power as a contract with a foreign nation which has the “force of law”, any deal negotiated with Iran by our President must be approved of by the Senate as commanded by our Constitution!

So why is FoxNews saying “The question now is whether lawmakers would be able to throw up any roadblocks to a potential Iran agreement.”? SEE: Netanyahu makes last-ditch bid to stop Obama from doing nuke deal with Iran

To even suggest that Obama has authority to finalize a deal with Iran without the Senate’s approve is very, very suspicious indeed!

JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

does the obama-derangement hurt?

 

[johnwk]

Senator Tom Cotton is correct!

If Obama hadn’t created the illusion that he can make law by executive order, there would not have been any need to make sure Iran’s leaders know Obama cannot make any deal with them without our Senate’s approval.


Obama brought this crap on himself. He is not King Obama as he portrays himself to the world.


The 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran’s leaders engaged in a good faith effort to notify Iran’s leaders that any deal Obama strikes with them must be approved by the Senate of the United States.


JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving work permits to millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Senator Tom Cotton is correct!

If Obama hadn’t created the illusion that he can make law by executive order, there would not have been any need to make sure Iran’s leaders know Obama cannot make any deal with them without our Senate’s approval.


Obama brought this crap on himself. He is not King Obama as he portrays himself to the world.


The 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran’s leaders engaged in a good faith effort to notify Iran’s leaders that any deal Obama strikes with them must be approved by the Senate of the United States.


JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving work permits to millions who have invaded our borders!

What they did was send a letter saying don't bother, and Iran shouldn't, they should build their bomb and blame the GOP.

 

[HenryBHough]

Senate even get a look at a treaty before it's signed and phoned in?

Oh ye primitives living in the (OK, not so distant) past!

 

[blackhawk]

As I am understanding things the President can do a deal like an executive order with Iran where he doesn't have to got through Congress however such a deal would not be binding to either party and the next President could undo it with the stroke of their pen if they wanted to.

 

[HenryBHough]

"If"?

That would require Americans elect an incompetent.

Again.,