The Iran Nuclear Deal Is ***The Law of the Land***

[blastoff]

We're out of Barry's Iran agreement, thank you very much president Trump. Add another to the growing list of accomplishments by the amateur, inexperienced political neophyte.

We're waiting on the better deal, by the way. Oh, and where's the Obamacare replacement? Still waiting for that too.

The Orange Faced Fatso is a joke. His supporters are too. What a bunch of rubes.

No wall that Mexico is paying for.
No Replacecare.
No Better Iran Deal.
No Better Nafta.

So far, I ain't seen shit from this toon.

Not surprising, Mr. Magoo!

 

[Contumacious]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.

Everybody knew it wasn't a Treaty. Still, it doesn't matter even if it was a Treaty. We do what we want! Just ask the Natives how well we honor our Treaties.

American Indians slowly assimilated, No all our enemies will do that.


.

 

[easyt65]

Now Iran is freed from any restraints and can build a nuke.

Way to go conservatives, way to go.

OH, F*ING STOP!

Can you be anymore dramatic WHILE LYING YOUR ASS OFF?!

As numerous snowflakes have pointed out in this thread alone, many of our allies, and many other nations, have declared they are sticking with the treaty...which means they will be adhering to and 'forcing' Iran to adhere to the treaty.

The United States is 1 country, and there is no way Iran should be 'guaranteed to get a nuke' just because the US pulled out of the illegitimate deal. If so, there is too much reliance on the US by other nations, and the rest of the world is weak as hell and lost without us!

If Iran pulls out of this deal with the rest of the world just because 1 nation pulls out, they are using it as an excuse to get rid of ALL restrictions, checks, and balances slowing them down from getting nuclear weapons.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

Yeah? Nikki Haley says fuck off. You and this author need to study up on what law of the land means. It’s not an unratified UN resolution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

 

[easyt65]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.

Everybody knew it wasn't a Treaty. Still, it doesn't matter even if it was a Treaty. We do what we want! Just ask the Natives how well we honor our Treaties.

American Indians slowly assimilated, No all our enemies will do that.


.

As a native American I don't know whether to be insulted by that .. or grateful we were 'conquered' so I don't live in a teepee...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[Some Guy]

Now Iran is freed from any restraints and can build a nuke.

Way to go conservatives, way to go.

They were never prevented from pursuing a nuke, just delayed by this deal. They increased military spending and ballistic missile development under the deal. They increased funding for terrorism. It's why Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have allied with Israel in the region to counteract the rising Iranian influence. Said countries have come out in support of the U.S. pulling out of the deal, along with Bahrain and the UAE.

You can say that "Iran never broke the deal" but that just speaks to how flawed the deal was in the first place. It was the equivalent to paying the mafia goons a protection fee so you don't have to worry about them for another few months.

 

[DJT for Life]

Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

That's not a problem. We can just pull out of the UN.
They won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

That's not a problem. We can just pull out of the UN.
They won't be able to do anything about it.

And take our money with us.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”

does any of this also make it "The supreme law of the land in Iran", does it become the "supreme" law of the land on the entire planet? it all of a sudden seems to have taken on biblical status hasn't it?...lol "supreme", this is the work of someone whose imagination was just short of hollywood and needed to find work elsewhere.

The law is only as good as the Sheriff who enforces it. Right now, we have veto power over the Sheriff. Which is ultimately why we can do what we want. Most other countries, well they don't have the veto power so.....................

 

[DJT for Life]

Article 25
“The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

That's not a problem. We can just pull out of the UN.
They won't be able to do anything about it.

And take our money with us.

And our building.

They can head on over to Geneva and lie in the fetal position waiting
for the Russians to come take them away. Germany can defend them
with the 4 jets that they have missiles for.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The law is only as good as the Sheriff who enforces it. Right now, we have veto power over the Sheriff. Which is ultimately why we can do what we want. Most other countries, well they don't have the veto power so.....................

so is it the "supreme law of the land" in Iran as well?

 

[Contumacious]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.

"President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do."


Explain why he didn't have the authority


.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t Just a Good Idea — It’s the Law

by THOMAS KNAPP

On May 8, President Donald Trump announced US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as “the Iran nuclear deal.”

While that decision has come under criticism for being both a really bad idea and a severe betrayal of trust, both of which are true, it’s worth noting that the US withdrawal is also a breach of treaty obligations, and that such obligations are, per the US Constitution and co-equal with it, “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, “members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

On July 20, 2015, the members of that body, including the United States, unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

It seems unlikely that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN at the time, didn’t know what she was committing the US government to when she voted for the resolution rather than exercising the US’s veto power on the Security Council. After all, the resolution itself contains text “nderscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions.”


.

President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do.

As such, the document Obama took to the U.N. - again by-passing Congress without allowing them the opportunity to look at it - was an agreement between the U.S. CITIZEN Barak Obama and the Nation of Iran.

Failing to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States in such a capacity, nothing within Obama's personal treaty is legally binding for the united States.

The United nations was DUPED by the former President, who presented them with an illegally negotiated Treaty that was not worth the paper it was written on regarding its legal status as an official Treaty / Agreement involving the United States.

Democrats / Snowflakes can invoke Slick Willy's argument based on semantics if they want, but it does not change the fact that what Obama attempted to do and thought he had done was negotiate a legally binding TREATY with Iran on behalf of the United States. He thought wrong.....

Snowflakes can continue to worship, praise, and fawn all over the dictator-wannabe who made it a habit of violating the Constitution, and Rule of law if they want.

The U.N. can do whatever it wants to do. Every nation in the world can do what it wants to do.

The United States will not have its hands tied by a former President who claimed powers and authorities he did not have, who violated the Constitution and illegally, illegitimately negotiated a treaty / deal on behalf of the United States.

Everybody knew it wasn't a Treaty. Still, it doesn't matter even if it was a Treaty. We do what we want! Just ask the Natives how well we honor our Treaties.

American Indians slowly assimilated, No all our enemies will do that.


.

During the expansion they were not allowed to assimilate.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Explain why he didn't have the authority

why? all you have to do is show why he did, btw I do not think Obama would intentionally hurt this country in any way, I do not know how good/bad this treaty was for us, what I do know is that even if getting out of it was the best thing we could do the liberal left would still be making this argument.

 

[BlindBoo]

The law is only as good as the Sheriff who enforces it. Right now, we have veto power over the Sheriff. Which is ultimately why we can do what we want. Most other countries, well they don't have the veto power so.....................

so is it the "supreme law of the land" in Iran as well?

It's not a matter of if it is or not. Just because we can do what we want, doesn't mean Iran can. They are in a dangerous position. Even if they stick to the agreement, there's a good chance the Trumpolites will attack them one way or another.

 

[Zander]

Incompetent "Constitutional professor" Barry forgot that : The Constitution gives the President the power to commit the United States to treaties – but only with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, and only if the agreement does not contravene the Constitution.

If Barry had submitted the Iran agreement to the SENATE and they approved it, it would be the law of the land. He didn't. It's now in the dustbin of history, like 99% of Barry's "legacy".

 

[Contumacious]

Where is the Constitutional Amendment in which the U.S. voided its national sovereignity in favor of subjugation to the U.N.? I missed that bit of news.

Link?

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The United Nations Charter, delivered to the US Senate by President Harry Truman and duly ratified by that body on July 28, 1945 by a vote of 89-2.

.

 

[easyt65]

"President Barak Obama violated the United States Constitution by illegally negotiating a TREATY on behalf of the United States, an act he did NOT have the legal authority to do."

Explain why he didn't have the authority

You want me to read you the exact passages from the U.S. Constitution or do you think you can look them up for yourself?

What am I asking for? Unless you are spoon-fed you snowflakes won't look anything up!

"The Constitution provides that 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" (Article II, section 2)."

Former President Obama COMPLETELY BY-PASSED CONGRESS in order to negotiate his 'deal'. He neither 'ought 'advice' or 'consent' from the Senate BEFORE he engaged in negotiations with Iran, Once his 'deal' was done he immediately took it to the U.N. for ratification.

Forget '2/3rds of Senators approving' - He by-passed Congress AGAIN, refusing to allow them to even read it....because he KNEW it would not pass...before running to the U.N. to get it ratified.