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

[boedicca]

And the Iran Deal itself is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


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

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

so - did 2/3rds of the senate concur?

The vote was 89-2; so what do you think?


.

Linky link to a vote on this as a treaty?

 

[boedicca]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution?

Article VI clause 2, ffs.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, Clause 2​

I've already given it to you, just how dense are you? Sleep in class much?

As 2/3 of the Senate did not vote to ratify the Iran agreement as a treaty, it is crap.

 

[Darkwind]

Are you trying to say that the United States is bound to obey and adhere to everything the UN does, up to and including their superseding our Congress?

Are you trying to say the supreme law of the land is not the supreme law of the land as given in the Constitution?

Nice dodge. I see you fear answering the question.

Our Charter with the UN does NOT turn us into a vassal state of the UN.

Understand?

 

[Contumacious]

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


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

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

Yes, EXCEPT those approved by the UNSC pursuant to The United Nations Charter.


Sue the government to force them to rescind the 1948 statute.

,

That is a crock of shite interpretation. The U.S. is not bound to decisions made by the UNSC that run contrary to our Constitutional requirements.

Identify PRECISELY what was done which is contrary to Constitutional requirement(s)?


.

 

[Tehon]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

 

[Darkwind]

It is amazing that there are people who actually argue against the sovereignty of our nation.

 

[Doc1]

Is it not a UNSC Resolution which the US is bound to obey as signatory to the UN Charter? Why yes, it is.

Underscoring 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,
1. Endorses the JCPOA, and urges its full implementation on the timetable established in the JCPOA;
2. Calls upon all Members States, regional organizations and international organizations to take such actions as may be appropriate to support the implementation of the JCPOA, including by taking actions commensurate with the implementation plan set out in the JCPOA and this resolution and by refraining from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA;
http://www.un.org/​

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


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

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

Yes, EXCEPT those approved by the UNSC pursuant to The United Nations Charter.


Sue the government to force them to rescind the 1948 statute.

,

That is a crock of shite interpretation. The U.S. is not bound to decisions made by the UNSC that run contrary to our Constitutional requirements.

Indeed it is. According to them we gave up our sovereignty.

 

[boedicca]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution? My civics classes didn't cover that.

I understand your predicament : you are slow in the uptake


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

2- In 1948 the Senate gave the the President the authority to ratify treaties which were approved by the UN Security Council

3- Obama was acting within the authority granted in 1948 when he approved the Iran Deal

'nuff SAID

The Senate still has to ratify treaties, bub.

Yes, EXCEPT those approved by the UNSC pursuant to The United Nations Charter.


Sue the government to force them to rescind the 1948 statute.

,

That is a crock of shite interpretation. The U.S. is not bound to decisions made by the UNSC that run contrary to our Constitutional requirements.

Identify PRECISELY what was done which is contrary to Constitutional requirement(s)?


.

You are trying to have it both ways. Obabble subverted the Constitutional requirements for the Iran deal to be a treaty. You can't claim it is valid as a treaty while also accepting the process by which the Constitution was by-passed.

Hence: You lose!

 

[Doc1]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

Now I'm starting to feel sorry for you kids.

 

[sakinago]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

Nope, it's an "Executive Action".

I know that, if it’s a treaty (which it is) then it needed to be voted on with a 2/3s majority. Really the blame falls on the GOP senate leadership for not excercising their authority in the matter. Anyway the whole point of the question was if they had said yes it is a treaty, then it is an unconstitutional one, and if they had said no, than this entire threads premise is built on top of a giant Japanese style sinkhole that just collapsed.

 

[Doc1]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

No, it's a unilateral Executive Action and not a treaty. The Constitution (The Law of the Land) expressly states how treaties are entered into.

 

[eagle1462010]

Was not ratified by the proper votes as a treaty. Bye Bye

 

[Contumacious]

It is amazing that there are people who actually argue against the sovereignty of our nation.

I agree that Congress in 1948 should have NOT relinquished its authority to ratify all decisions.


But the Congresscritters love to abdicate - another case in point is the WAR POWERS ACT

Also remember that Prez Trump gave up our Sovereignty when he allowed Israel to decide which treaties are good for us.


.

 

[eagle1462010]

It is amazing that there are people who actually argue against the sovereignty of our nation.

I agree that Congress in 1948 should have NOT relinquished its authority to ratify all decisions.


But the Congresscritters love to abdicate - another case in point is the WAR POWERS ACT

Also remember that Prez Trump gave up our Sovereignty when he allowed Israel to decide which treaties are good for us.


.

2/3rds vote. Obama did it improperly

 

[Doc1]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution?

Article VI clause 2, ffs.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, Clause 2​

I've already given it to you, just how dense are you? Sleep in class much?

As 2/3 of the Senate did not vote to ratify the Iran agreement as a treaty, it is crap.

No, he's screaming that the Senate voted 89-2 to ratify the UN Charter. He's claiming that that VOTE over rides the Constitution.

 

[sakinago]

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.”


.

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

It's an agreement made pursuant to the ratification of the UN Charter.

Okay so it’s not the law of the land...thank you.

And we both know your answer is BS, the only reason you’re not calling a treaty a treaty is because doing so we would’ve never seen this treaty pass, even with a dem majority. In what ways is it not a treaty?

 

[boedicca]

Please show where in the U.S. Constitution that the UN Charter trumps the Constitution?

Article VI clause 2, ffs.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article 6, Clause 2​

I've already given it to you, just how dense are you? Sleep in class much?

As 2/3 of the Senate did not vote to ratify the Iran agreement as a treaty, it is crap.

No, he's screaming that the Senate voted 89-2 to ratify the UN Charter. He's claiming that that VOTE over rides the Constitution.

He's just an incoherent loon, imo.

 

[cnm]

Sorry kid. You've lost and you're starting to look foolish.
Remove your ego son.

Ffs.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You realize treaties need to be voted on with 2/3s majority? This treaty was never voted on, instead a bill to block the treaty proposed by Republicans was voted on and did not get 2/3s majority. So the treaty is unconstitutional, and the reason trump can unilaterally tear up the deal with executive action, is because Obama unilaterally created the deal with executive action.

While you were reading this tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or very untruthful propaganda article...you didn’t stop and say “hey if this treaty is law, than why is nobody stopping trump?” That should’ve been your first thought, then you would have investigated this and figured this out on your own, before starting this thread (based on a tremendous display of either sheer stupidity, or untruthful misleading obvious propaganda).

Na, they think we gave up our sovereignty.

We didn't give up our sovereignty. Our elected officials freely negotiated a UNSC agreement. It is law.

Is this deal a treaty?

Nope, it's an "Executive Action".

I know that, if it’s a treaty (which it is) then it needed to be voted on with a 2/3s majority. Really the blame falls on the GOP senate leadership for not excercising their authority in the matter. Anyway the whole point of the question was if they had said yes it is a treaty, then it is an unconstitutional one, and if they had said no, than this entire threads premise is built on top of a giant Japanese style sinkhole that just collapsed.

President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

 

[cnm]

Are you trying to say that the United States is bound to obey and adhere to everything the UN does, up to and including their superseding our Congress?

Are you trying to say the supreme law of the land is not the supreme law of the land as given in the Constitution?

Nice dodge. I see you fear answering the question.

Our Charter with the UN does NOT turn us into a vassal state of the UN.

Understand?

The US is bound to the UN Charter as the supreme law of the land. Can you not comprehend your own Constitution?