Obama does not have power to make nuke deal with Iran!

[Conservative65]

Obama will have to submit a treaty with Iran to the senate, yes.

It requires a 2/3 vote for approval. What happens when that doesn't pass. Will he ***** and moan about it?

The Treaty can be between Iran and all the major powers that DON"T have a mindless GOP to deal with....but I think by then the GOP will have split into adults and brainwashed morons definitively lol...

So the arrogant boy of a President will ***** and whine if he doesn't get his way. Let's see that dumbass try to uphold it through EO.

When exactly will the brainwashed racist wing of the GOP realize they're dead?

When will people like you realize that when you put a black in the White House because he's black, you get failure.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We in the GOP will recognize our failure of a far far right on the day after the national elections next year if our candidate does not rebuke them publicly.

 

[Yarddog]

Yo,
View attachment 37439
"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"

Who's the Marxist-Liberal? Ooohh, you're referring to me because I don't toe your far right political line...... Got it.

Yo, if the shoe fits? I say wear it!!!

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"

When the guy on Breaking Bad said YO all the time, it was dumb, but he was an enjoyable character. When you do it, it's just laughably dumb.

Yo, I Love It If It Strikes A Nerve?

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"
View attachment 37449

I think its suppossed to be YO, Beyyach.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama will have to submit a treaty with Iran to the senate, yes.

It requires a 2/3 vote for approval. What happens when that doesn't pass. Will he ***** and moan about it?

The Treaty can be between Iran and all the major powers that DON"T have a mindless GOP to deal with....but I think by then the GOP will have split into adults and brainwashed morons definitively lol...

So the arrogant boy of a President will ***** and whine if he doesn't get his way. Let's see that dumbass try to uphold it through EO.

When exactly will the brainwashed racist wing of the GOP realize they're dead?

When will people like you realize that when you put a black in the White House because he's black, you get failure.

ANOTHER brainwashed RW meme. POLICIES, stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

It requires a 2/3 vote for approval. What happens when that doesn't pass. Will he ***** and moan about it?

The Treaty can be between Iran and all the major powers that DON"T have a mindless GOP to deal with....but I think by then the GOP will have split into adults and brainwashed morons definitively lol...

So the arrogant boy of a President will ***** and whine if he doesn't get his way. Let's see that dumbass try to uphold it through EO.

When exactly will the brainwashed racist wing of the GOP realize they're dead?

When will people like you realize that when you put a black in the White House because he's black, you get failure.

ANOTHER brainwashed RW meme. POLICIES, stupid.

Yes, his policies are a failure. That's what you get when you put an unqualified person where he doesn't belong.

 

[francoHFW]

The Treaty can be between Iran and all the major powers that DON"T have a mindless GOP to deal with....but I think by then the GOP will have split into adults and brainwashed morons definitively lol...

So the arrogant boy of a President will ***** and whine if he doesn't get his way. Let's see that dumbass try to uphold it through EO.

When exactly will the brainwashed racist wing of the GOP realize they're dead?

When will people like you realize that when you put a black in the White House because he's black, you get failure.

ANOTHER brainwashed RW meme. POLICIES, stupid.

Yes, his policies are a failure. That's what you get when you put an unqualified person where he doesn't belong.

Anyone who voted for Booosh should be struck by lightning for saying that. Idiot.

 

[Conservative65]

So the arrogant boy of a President will ***** and whine if he doesn't get his way. Let's see that dumbass try to uphold it through EO.

When exactly will the brainwashed racist wing of the GOP realize they're dead?

When will people like you realize that when you put a black in the White House because he's black, you get failure.

ANOTHER brainwashed RW meme. POLICIES, stupid.

Yes, his policies are a failure. That's what you get when you put an unqualified person where he doesn't belong.

Anyone who voted for Booosh should be struck by lightning for saying that. Idiot.

Someone that automatically assumes another person voted for Bush has already been struck by the moron stick.

With Obama, the only thing considered by most was the color of his skin. If you wanted a black, you should have voted for one that wasn't part white trash because of his mother.

 

[francoHFW]

So you voted for the Nazi? lol. And wrong AGAIN.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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.

 

[francoHFW]

So it can be Iran and the non GOP moron countries until Hillary gets in.

 

[CowboyTed]

So lets get it straight:
Obama/Rest of the World can strike a deal for lifting sanctions.
UN/EU can do inspections.

Obama can even sign a treaty and just not get it ratified, this would be far from the first treaty signed by the US which is not ratified.
The ROW will sign and ratify it.

The thing is all Obama has to do is lift US sanctions and great. If there is money involved EU can pony up until 2016.

So no one broke any US laws.... Don't worry the US Oil Lobby won't let every other country exploit Irans Oil.

Plus side if a deal was stuck, US can reduce their presence in the Gulf.

Strange thing is the only piranhas in the deal is the GOP, basically everyone else in the world will be agreeing except them.

Way to go US No.1!!!!

That is the problem with the Tea baggers, they think they are the only ones in the world. Just as a fact EU has been trading with Cuba for decades, great place for a holiday as well...

 

[SwimExpert]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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're right. And why would the Iranians agree to something they know would be null and void in under 2 years anyway?

 

[Annie]

If he makes a deal without Congress, they should take a page out of his book and ignore it. Let him try to enforce it on his own.

That's like saying that Congress should ignore what color tie the President chooses to wear.

Sanctions are controlled by the President. They always have. The first sanctions were implemented by President Carter with Executive Order 12170. President Reagan implemented new sanctions. President Clinton implemented new sanctions, then after the election of Khatami he eased sanctions. President Bush later implemented new sanctions.

Nonsense. He can't do diddly without funding, and Congress can refuse to fund anything they want to.

Removing sanctions doesn't entail funding.

 

[Annie]

Yes, if Obama concludes what is in reality a treaty with a foreign nation and plays semantics with calling it something other then a treaty simply to bypass congress then he would be in violation of the constitution and such a potential usage of Executive Privilege is way beyond the scope of what it was and is intended for.

What treaty?

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

This thread has bogged down on sanctions and whether or not Obama can act regarding Iran. IF sanctions are to be removed based upon actions or non-actions by Iran-then it's a treaty. IF instead Obama chooses to remove sanctions by EA, predicated on the hope Iran will play nice-no treaty.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're right. And why would the Iranians agree to something they know would be null and void in under 2 years anyway?

Perhaps they see this as an opportunity to improve relations. They probably hope that willful cooperation over the next two years will prove that they can be trusted to continue cooperating in a joint effort. I know, that's insane.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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.

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.
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.

 

[SwimExpert]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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.

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.
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.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right. And why would the Iranians agree to something they know would be null and void in under 2 years anyway?

Perhaps they see this as an opportunity to improve relations. They probably hope that willful cooperation over the next two years will prove that they can be trusted to continue cooperating in a joint effort. I know, that's insane.

When have the Iranians ever wanted to cooperate with the US? They have been sworn enemies of the US for over 30 years.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you didn't read all the OP or you're attempting to assert that any deal made with Iran (a foreign country) does not constitute a treaty.

I am saying that an agreement does not constitute a treaty, unless it is actually a treaty.

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.

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.
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.

In this case your vision is limited by your head being up Obama's ass. Hey one insult deserves another........
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.