Obama’s deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
4,151
1,967
200
.

If Obama’s deal with the terrorist government of Iran is a treaty, then, by our Constitution, it needs a two thirds approval vote in the Senate to be finalized.

In discussing this issue, it is important to note a fundamental rule of constitutional construction:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)

So, in determining if Obama’s deal with a terrorist government is a treaty, we must determine what the meaning of a treaty is as expressed by our forefathers during the time of our Constitution’s framing and ratification process.

In Federalist No. 64 John Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”

And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” And he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

And James Wilson, who attended the Convention of 1787 says the following during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

“Treaties, sir, are truly contracts, or compacts, between the different states, nations, or princes, who find it convenient or necessary to enter into them.” ___ 11 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:505--7

And our very own Supreme Court, in FOSTER v. NEILSON, (1829) Chief Justice Marshall says:

“A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative act”.

Now that we know what a treaty is, as expressed by our forefathers and our very own Supreme Court, what power has been granted to Obama with regard to him making deals with foreign government?

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…”


To pretend Obama has power to make a deal with Iran’s terrorist government without the various States approval by the required two thirds vote, is a narfarious outright lie and attempted subjugation of our written Constitution.

Keep in mind what Hamilton warns, which is especially applicable to Obama and why a two thirds vote is required:


Obama “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

Obama has consorted with the enemy, is attempting to finalize a deal with a terrorist government which will help to finance this terrorist government’s activities and the building of a nuclear war machine. And those who support this attack on America’s general welfare pretend this is not a treaty to avoid the two thirds vote threshold necessary to approve Obama’s treachery.


JWK

When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?
 

Forum List

Back
Top