Recognizing A Lawless President

[PoliticalChic]

If only you were smart enough to recognize how dumb you are.

Correct, I'm too dumb for this "intellectual-juggernaut" of a thread, so enjoy leveling insults and mocking other posters who showed up here in good faith in order to participate in this awesome-sauce thread

I'm getting sick and tired of being nice and having you act like a complete jerk for NO OTHER REASON than I'm a Lib and therefore WRONG.

You have quite a lot to learn about manners, young lady.
Good day.

"...than I'm a Lib...."


You know that little thing inside your head that keeps you from saying insulting things....I don't have one of those.

But I can be nicer if you can be smarter.

Smarter than me? Dream on. I can assure you that isn't idle boasting, but don't expect me to elaborate, I could not give a damn WHAT you think.

Flap your gums all you want, you aren't even the smartest person in your Klan meetings.

As for you being nice, I'll believe it when you stop hurling insults at every single person who disagrees with your silly, partisan, Enquirer Magazine, thread-fails.

Your threads are so ridiculously pathetic, that they are too silly even for the funny farm.

You yourself, are completely clueless to the fact that I actually feel sorry for you being out of touch with actual politics, and that I show up in these treasures of the scrap-heap to at least try to get other posters to stay on topic.

It's pretty much a lost cause, though, when the OP cherry-picks through mountains of bull-crap, right-wing blogs for her stupid C&P's that are so beyond ridiculous, that even staunch right-wingers show up to condemn them as partisan crap.

Of course I realize that partisan crap is a delicacy to you - I would not dream of perverting things by injecting my A-sharp into the middle of your b-flat-minor, Elvis impersonator, sing along.

... Anyway, goodbye, post all the horse crap you can muster up and don't forget allow the personal attacks to boil for at least twenty minutes in order to remove all signs of sensibility.

There will always be plenty of suckers, who have no clue and could not care less anyway, to stop by and slap you on the back, proclaiming you to be ... well ... the next PoliticalChic.

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

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. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thus, an international "treaty" as is being talked about with regards to climate change, is not what is considered a treaty by the standards set forth by the constitution that would require a 2/3 vote.

He may present this himself via executive order or by a simple majority vote.

Cabbie.

You'll confuse her by bringing facts into the discussion.

Why don't you read the article before you try to jump on the bandwagon.

Then I might not have to show what a dope you are.

Conservatives are ALWAYS claiming that Obama is violating the constitution. In fact, everything and anything conservatives don't like seems to bring about that charge, which is ironic considering the wholesale violations of the Constitution and international treaties that Bush engaged in.

At any rate, knowing what I know about the conservative penchant to insist that the nation is in grave peril almost anytime after the sun rises in the morning and sometime before they go to bed that night, AND my knowledge of how Mark Levin uses the news of the day as kindling for his daily rants, I just couldn't allow myself to miss the beginning of his show today. He did not disappoint. When I tuned in little more than a minute into his show, he apparently was well into his rant to the extent that it sounded like he was having a stroke. He's a propagandist like no other on the airwaves today, but it's great radio nonetheless.

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. negotiators are instead homing in.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "negotiators are instead homing in

PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one

Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?

I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.

And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.



d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html

You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.

You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.

1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.

"...negotiators are instead homing in...."

Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?

These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.


2. You posted "update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Yet, earlier, they said that treaties did require ratification.

.....taking off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.


3. "No new legally binding requirements. No new vote."
You dope.....from the article:
"Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."




Let me know the next time you require a beating.

How is it you dont understand this? What the united states wanrs is an understanding that uses the legally binding bits of the 1992 treaty with non-binding pledges. So we would beno more or less bound to action than if no new understanding is reached.
That's what we are pursuing, because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office.

1. How is it you can't read past item 2?
This: "Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."


2. "...because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office."

Failed history and civics???

Remind me to give you a lesson on "checks and balances."

The legal obligations have already been ratified in a prior treaty. So no new legally binding agreement would be made by signing on to the new understanding ( as we are pushing for it to be written)

This is really a very easy concept. Why cant you understand it?

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

Camp David Accord 1978

Chemical weapons accord 1990

Are all accords treaties, all needing 2/3's of the senate to be binding?

What about "Fast Track" treaty /trade agreements by Presidents, did that take 2/3's of the Senate?

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ogibillm]

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is that supposed to be some sort of response? linking to a new thread where you say the same thing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is that supposed to be some sort of response? linking to a new thread where you say the same thing?

Just documenting that both the NYTimes and the NYSun attack the same illegality.

Only fools continue to whine 'is not, is not......'

 

[Lakhota]

Recognizing A Lawless President

I assume you mean Reagan.

 

[Lakhota]

Arrest Obama and Lois Lerner at the same time!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recognizing A Lawless President

I assume you mean Reagan.

You resemble nothing so much as the first three letters in 'assume.'

Bet you hear that a lot, huh.

 

[ogibillm]

Constitutional Chutzpah US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

is that supposed to be some sort of response? linking to a new thread where you say the same thing?

Just documenting that both the NYTimes and the NYSun attack the same illegality.

Only fools continue to whine 'is not, is not......'

The "Sun" article you link to is actually an opinion piece published on the New York Post website. It's written by Seth Lipsky, the conservative founder and editor of the Sun. Anyhow, he's not exactly an unbiased source. Essentially all you've done is link to a fellow poster here and claim victory because of it.

so i'll ask you again, if an agreement places no new binding articles on the United States why do you think it requires senate approval?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Arrest Obama and Lois Lerner at the same time!

"HEY, GUESS WHAT! THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN LYING ABOUT LOIS LERNER’S EMAILS"
....the federal government backs up all computer records to ensure the continuity of government in event of a catastrophe. They told him that retrieving the emails from Lerner, a former IRS official, would be “too onerous” –

Hey guess what The Administration has been lying about Lois Lerner s emails Human Events


That OK with you?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[boedicca]

Recognizing A Lawless President

I assume you mean Reagan.

Reagan hasnt been president in over 25 years and has been dead for a decade. I doubt he has the power to break the law from the grave...nor is he possessing Obama.

 

[ogibillm]

.

do you not know how to string a sentence together? do you use a picture menu when you go out to eat?

 

[Vigilante]

.

do you not know how to string a sentence together? do you use a picture menu when you go out to eat?

Do you think I give a fuck about what your 2 digit IQ thinks? I make my point the easy and entertaining way, You, you're just a subversive cocksucker, see how that works!

 

[ogibillm]

.

do you not know how to string a sentence together? do you use a picture menu when you go out to eat?

Do you think I give a fuck about what your 2 digit IQ thinks? I make my point the easy and entertaining way, You, you're just a subversive cocksucker, see how that works!

well, you're mistaken - at least if you think you're making an on topic point. neither of the last two cartoons you've posted had anything to do with the subject of the thread. i guess my advice to you would be if you insist on posting solely in pictorials, try harder to find relevant ones.

 

[Vigilante]

Apparently you haven't the IQ to realize an ignorant president is also a lawless president... Now, wasn't that hard?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"In response to President Obama’s announcement that he’ll wait until after the election for executive amnesty, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) ramped up the pressure yet again on Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

Sessions says that Senate Democrats must demand a vote on the House-passed bill that blocks President Obama’s planned executive amnesty, or they are complicit in the wave of illegal immigration and the loss of American jobs Obama’s action would undoubtedly cause. Sessions said:

President Obama has openly reaffirmed his unconstitutional plan to nullify our nation’s sovereign laws,....."
Jeff Sessions Senate Dems Willing Accomplices in Obama s Lawless Executive Amnesty

 

[TooTall]

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. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thus, an international "treaty" as is being talked about with regards to climate change, is not what is considered a treaty by the standards set forth by the constitution that would require a 2/3 vote.

He may present this himself via executive order or by a simple majority vote.

Cabbie.

I believe the part about

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. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Thus, an international "treaty" as is being talked about with regards to climate change, is not what is considered a treaty by the standards set forth by the constitution that would require a 2/3 vote.

He may present this himself via executive order or by a simple majority vote.

Cabbie.

This part is the illegal part of the agreement.

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."

Obama doesn't have the authority to spend US money unless Congress appropriates it, and spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.