SwimExpert
Gold Member
- Nov 26, 2013
- 16,247
- 1,680
- 280
- Banned
- #81
When have the Iranians ever wanted to cooperate with the US?
Since starvation kicked in.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When have the Iranians ever wanted to cooperate with the US?
In this case your vision is limited by your head being up Obama's ass. Hey one insult deserves another........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.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.I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.
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.
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.
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.
Iran deserves to have nuclear weaponSEE: 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
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.In this case your vision is limited by your head being up Obama's ass. Hey one insult deserves another........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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Is there a reason Obama does everything without Congress?
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.
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.
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
What they did was send a letter saying don't bother, and Iran shouldn't, they should build their bomb and blame the GOP.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!