Here We Go Again - Obama to By-Pass Congress To Pass 'World' Agenda

[easyt65]

HERE WE GO AGAIN…

‘King’ Obama By-Passed Congress AGAIN with Global Warming and Syrian Action at UN

At the United Nations Monday, President Barack Obama touted what are probably the two biggest items left on his to-do list before leaving office — a global warming ‘agreement’ (NOT a ‘treaty’ according to Obama, just a simple binding agreement between the United States and the World) later this year in Paris and a settlement to the Syria conflict (a ‘deal’ to work with China, Russia, Iran, and Syria to fight ISIS and rid Syria of the terrorists and rebels plaguing the nation).

“The Paris accord, like the Iran deal before it, will be strictly an executive agreement, given that Obama wouldn’t have the votes to pass anything in either chamber. Congress, if it gets a chance to weigh in at all, though, will be via an effort to disapprove Obama’s carbon regulations.”

There’s only 1 problem: The Iran ‘deal’, as these would be, is completely UN-Constitutional. There is no such thing as a ‘Deal’ in the Constitution, especially one that allows ONE MAN to impose such a decision on the entire nation, by-passing Congress to do so. Obama is ramming the Iran TREATY into effect without even a MAJORITY of Congressional approval, far from the Constitutional 2/3rds majority called for my the Constitution to ratify any treaty! 66% of Congress – to include Democrats – oppose the Iran TREATY, while 78% of Americans oppose it. Obama has and continues to carry out a dictatorial agenda in direct violation of the Constitution.

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obamas-global-warming-syria-push-united-nations-skips-congress/

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If it's not a treaty, there is no "binding agreement".

If it is a treaty, it can easily be unsigned.

 

[easyt65]

If it's not a treaty, there is no "binding agreement".

If it is a treaty, it can easily be unsigned.

1. You make my point for me - it IS being presented as a treaty with another name for it and being accepted the same as a treaty by those Obama is presenting it to. There is no difference - it IS a treaty.

2. 'If not a treaty then it is not binding' - FOR WHOM? China and Russia, for example, have already taken the Iran Treaty as 'binding, as they have immediately released Iranian money and have begun trading and selling them weapons again. The 'deal is done'.

3. 'It can be unsigned' - It may not be 'binding' if another President steps in and says, 'Enough of this shi'ite', but again 'the deal (and damage) is done'. The rest of the world? They won't care what WE decide to do. Their part in Obama's deal was accepted and will continue unless a new President can convince the U.N. to put sanctions back on (and it was a miracle they agreed to them in the 1st place...Putin won't do so again). And alone, sanctions imposed by the US are meaningless.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Indeed, the damage is done. The next president will hopefully take a path to mitigate the damage caused by Obama and his party where possible.

If the Democrats remain in position after next year's elections, we will all have a far bigger issue to deal with, domestic in nature.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No one said otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the far right wing nuts run around screaming.

A presidential agreement is binding . . . until the next president takes office.

There will no uprising despite who the president may be after the election. The FEMA Walmart camps are almost ready.

 

[easyt65]

And the far right wing nuts run around screaming.

A presidential agreement is binding . . . until the next president takes office.

Yeah, just ignore the fact that Obama is violating the Constitution by making and imposing Treaties while by-passing Congress to do so. The reason our Founding Fathers never intended any single self-appointed ruler to have the ability to enter into any such agreements on his own without the consent / approval of 3/4rds of Congress.

I suggest you check out 'School House Rock' - they taught all this stuff years ago, and any grown up today that ever watched those can tell you how government is supposed to work...yet DOESN'T under Obama.

 

[tyroneweaver]

The FEMA Walmart camps are almost ready.

Just as long as they have womenz

 

[tyroneweaver]

obama hates everybody, conservatives, hillary, asaad, putin, bush, congress, you name it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right dopes think that presidential agreements are unconstitutional. Amazing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Meh, Obama's set the tone... the next President can just with the touch of a pen undo all of Obama's bullshit... and hopefully he will. Iran deal? undone... Immigration reform? Undone. This deal? Undone.

Actually, I'd like to see just one EO that says "Anything Barack Obama did, undone."

 

[tyroneweaver]

The far right dopes think that presidential agreements are unconstitutional. Amazing.

I'm a far right dope, and I think you're amazing. snicker snicker

 

[007]

obama hates everybody, conservatives, hillary, asaad, putin, bush, congress, you name it.

Especially Putin, since Putin plays Bath House Barry like a cheap piano. Once again Putin has made the kenyan out to be the little ignorant CHUMP that he is...

Obama has turned Putin into the world's most powerful leader

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The far right dopes think that presidential agreements are unconstitutional. Amazing.

The far left dupes like Jake the Fake think that being governed by presidential edict is ok.... I wonder how they will feel when a conservative comes into power and with the stroke of a pen bans abortion... bans gay marriage... etc., etc.?

 

[easyt65]

The far right dopes think that presidential agreements are unconstitutional. Amazing.

JS, show me in the Constitution where a single man, the President, can enter into an agreement involving the entire country with other nations without requiring Congressional ratification of such a deal. show me any evidence that our Founding Fathers, who created this system of government, made ONE EXCEPTION to the idea that we should NOT have a single ruler imposing his will on the nation, intended for the President to impose such a Treaty without the required 2/3rds majority approval of Congress. If such was their desire then there would have been no need to create a Congress. The FACT is this country was founded and based on the idea of NOT having a 'king', which Obama is acting as if he is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of you are constitutional scholars.

You are alleging that presidential agreements, not me, are unconstitutional.

Prove it.

 

[bedowin62]

The far right dopes think that presidential agreements are unconstitutional. Amazing.

they are when they are of a nature that needs to go through Congress

idiots and hypocites

 

[easyt65]

None of you are constitutional scholars.

You are alleging that presidential agreements, not me, are unconstitutional.

Prove it.

Want me to send you a copy of the Constitution? It is Obama, the self-professed Constitutional Scholar, who is claiming authorities that are NOT in the Constitution. It is HE who needs to show ANYONE where those non-existent authorities are found.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here, easy, this may help. Read it before demonstrating your ignorance again. https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

 

[easyt65]

Here, easy, this may help. Read it before demonstrating your ignorance again. https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf

View attachment 51058

Thank you for proving my point - NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUION DOES IT ALLOW FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENGAGE IN A TREATY WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL TO DO SO!

FROM WHAT YOU PROVIDED:

This major POLICY evolution occurred WITHOUT CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches (without the Constitution giving them authority to do so) have validated the change.
-- Just because someone does something does NOT mean it is 'validated' or 'legal'. For example, the Speed Limit - according to the Law - on the Jersey Turn Pike is 60mph (in some places). It is ILLEGAL to go faster, yet people drive as much as 9 miles over without getting a ticket. Driving 9 miles over the speed limit may be 'accepted' and 'validated' because people do it, but it still does not mean that it is 'Legal' or that the Law has been changed to support this 'illegal' yet 'accepted' action!

The last paragraph spells out the danger of allowing any President to do so, a danger demonstrated through Obama's Iran 'Deal' -- such a dangerous, ill-conceived, agreement that jeopardizes genocide for a people, threatens war for many nations, ensures a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle east, and all but guarantees a nation that even today calls for the destruction of Israel and our own nation will have nuclear weapons, is being imposed on our country and instituted despite being opposed by 66% of our nation's government and 78% of the American people.

Our Founding Fathers NEVER EVER intended for 1 man to have such power over this nation!