Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Faun]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

It is OBSOLETE and only ONE person has ever been prosecuted under that "law." Lol. It is from the 1700s!!!! Did you not read my link about it which is based on the opinions of a constitutional expert? Look, it is obvious to all that you libs are trying to defend the president's idiotic plan. In what world does his plan make any sense? You think by loosening sanctions on Iran and allowing them to gather materials for nuclear energy is going to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon? Ba-ha-ha!!! Don't you EVER call anyone else crazy, hypocrite.

Like your link on Obama meeting secretly with Iran which you calling a "secret deal," you don't understand your links, so why would I read them?

 

[nat4900]

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... ​

"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators are speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.

The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.

No shit, Sherlock. But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties. And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.

Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit? Nah. Probably not. But here's a clue. Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally. **** him.

You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.

 

[Faun]

No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.

Silly mindless you. You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.

First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words. You need to try making a point with a little snap.

Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to ******* Iran.

Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way. That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so. But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.

There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way. Don't be "mad," kid. It's really ok that the Senators intervened. Really. It is.

There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran. It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations. It makes us look weak and divided to the world. Putin loved it I'm sure. It lowered our standing with the rest of the world. Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them? All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.

If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our ******* enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.

To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.

When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States. Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.

Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits: that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the way it is designed to work.

The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as the Senate.

They are a part of the senate and part of the governing body of the US of A. Obama has no right to leave them out of negotiations. They are members of Congress.

You're a ******* loon. The Senate as a whole is a governing body. Individual Senators, while a part of that body, have no powers delegated to the Senate as a whole.

Despite your abject ignorance, they are not a special class of citizen.

 

[Dot Com]

so far one or two rw talking-heads are saying the "Cotton 47" pulled a dumb move lol

 

[nat4900]

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.

Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.

The President has lost the trust of much of Congress and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.

People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.

People have long-since come to associate the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.

The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.

Chances are very good that each and every one of those Senators who signed the letter did so with at least a modicum of regret that we had come to such a sorry state of affairs, but, they may have acted from the courage of their convictions, so, rightly or wrongly, they get props for that much.

The rest will be proven or disproven by future events, and, in the meantime, there will be no indictments nor sanctions leveled at those signatories.

And, they have served notice to our Lame Duck President that he is perceived as no longer trustworthy, to conduct the foreign affairs of The Nation, unsupervised.

B.S. (as usual) Obama has not lost the "trust of congress" BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD IT from right wing bigots in congress.
From the very first week of his inauguration, right wingers met and swore to do everything to undermine his administration......What really pissed you guys on here and idiots like McConnell, is that Obama had the nerve to get RE-ELECTED.....Live with it.

 

[Lovebears65]

Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

 

[Faun]

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?

By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,​

Quite correct.

The escape-hatch on this one, however, is...

"...without the authority of the United States..."

Trouble for you(r side in this debate) is...

They ARE the United States, in the context of identifying the Government and its constituent parts...

They ARE the Government (co-equal members, anyway), so they gave themselves '...the authority of the United States...' to undertake such influencing measures.

Nothing more is required.

There will be no 'treason' charges.

There will be no charges of high crimes and misdemeanors (impeachable or recall-able offense) directed against these co-equal members of the US Government.

There will be no indictments under the aegis of the Logan Act nor any other.

Next slide, please.

I'm glad we agree on part of this (so far) ... however, you'll have to demonstrate your "escape hatch." By what authority do they get to commence negotiations on behalf of the United States. And by the way, just because they are representatives within our government by no means establishes them as the United States or the government. The Senate as a body is granted certain powers. Individual Senators have no such powers.

 

[Faun]

Obama is not the king. He works for us. He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.

And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.

The senators are not "individual citizens". They were also elected by the people to represent them. They are members of Congress. Obama is NOT a dictator or a king. This is something he needs to realize.

While there is a power in the Constitution granting the president the ability to negotiate deals with foreign nations, there is nothing in the Constitution granting that same power to individual members of the Congress.

It's just not there no matter how much you hate Obama.

 

[nat4900]

Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:

It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.

The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.

Anyone who cites the likes of Breibart (may the devils wrest his soul) and no other than PAJAMAS Media......has to be either an idiot or......... (well, I'd repeat myself.)

These are the "sources" of right wing intelligentsia.....???

 

[Faun]

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... ​

Give me a link. You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.

Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute

The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.

Holyfuckingshit!

We have a "special" class of citizens now??



You're a ******* nut, chris.

They are members of Congress, sorry but you are wrong . . . again. Also, I believe it is a sign of mental illness when a person has to post the same laughing smileys in a row, as if that somehow makes your point more poignant? Lol.

Then explain how some Americans are special citizens? What class are they in? What laws does that shield them from?

You're a ******* nut to believe there's a special class of citizens. Here's a piece from the 14th Amendment ...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

... explain how Senators are beyond that ... ?

 

[Faun]

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.

Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken. Yes they are a part of the senate. They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works. Obama is not the king. He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements. But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route. The guy is an awful president. Just awful. He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.

 

[Antares]

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should anyway.

I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

They were 'influencing' a pending deal.

There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.

As to your 'position', well...

Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.

Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.

So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't. So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.

Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.

 

[Faun]

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.

Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken. Yes they are a part of the senate. They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works. Obama is not the king. He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements. But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route. The guy is an awful president. Just awful. He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.

Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.

The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.

Nope you're wrong. That law is obsolete and means nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.

You remain a ******* nut, chris.

IOW, you've got nothing so you will now resort to insults. Liberal tactics are SO transparent. Us more intelligent people can see right through you.

You can't even read into that correctly.

 

[Faun]

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.

Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.

Where did I do that?

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."

Is there a reply somewhere in there?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.

LOL! Really?

So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!

Proving once again that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

 

[Faun]

Come on guys! Don't be shy. What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through? Don't avoid the question.

If the deal goes through, then Obama has a multinational coalition to resort to military force should Iran attempt to use nuclear energy to gain a nuclear weapon.

 

[Faun]

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.

LOL! Really?

So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N . . . ON PARADE!

Proving once again that:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

Great, another nut who thinks individual members of the Senate have the power of the entire Senate.

 

[Faun]

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...?? Your own words betray you...

"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."​

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... ​

"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators are speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.

The Constitution does not confer any powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.

No shit, Sherlock. But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties. And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.

Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit? Nah. Probably not. But here's a clue. Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally. **** him.

a) it gives "the Senate" advise and consent powers over treaties, not individual Senators.

b) it gives "the Senate" advise and consent powers over treaties to the president of the United States, not foreign nations.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.

Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.

Look it up, Cleetus.

Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should anyway.

I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.

They were 'influencing' a pending deal.

There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.

As to your 'position', well...

Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.

Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.

So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't. So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.

Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.

The Letter is not a violation of the Logan Act. Nor anything remotely close to it. The suggestion by the cult that such is the case, is as ludicrous as their electing a Muslim-Marxist in the wake of the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, in the midst of a war with the cult of islam.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?

No they did not. They are going against our dumbass ***** of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances. Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while. I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet. Lol.

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does. Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - especially in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, "The Senate."

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.

Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.

For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.