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

[HenryBHough]

Iran, peopled by peace-loving fuzzy little bunnies, is NOT anybody's enemy.

Don't believe? Consult your (failed) Messiah, Statist....

 

[Statistikhengst]

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... ​

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.

YES.

 

[Statistikhengst]

CHRISL SAID:

“I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”

Nonsense.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.

Projection Boy, pure projection.

And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.

I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts to engage in any real debate kid.

You are simply not worth it. I set the bar higher than that, Cletus.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Pretty much the percentage I was expecting....

3,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.
2,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.
4,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

If I may ask a question, if a policeman advises you to not point a gun at him or he'll shoot you, he'd be giving you aid and comfort? That is amusing, but just as wrong headed thinking as you exhibit by saying that warning Iran that any agreement that isn't approved by the Senate won't be binding in the future, implying that they shouldn't work so hard to create a bad agreement for the United States was giving aid and comfort and therefore treasonous. Ridiculous on it's face...so bad, that I have to wonder if you're just playing word games and don't really believe the twaddle you are posting now.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

ODS is a very serious disease. Especially in Stage IV, which essentially means mental hospice care for the poor unfortunate victims.

 

[Antares]

CHRISL SAID:

“I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”

Nonsense.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.

Projection Boy, pure projection.

And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.

I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts to engage in any real debate kid.

You are simply not worth it. I set the bar higher than that, Cletus.

You poor kid, have you "prosecuted" any of the "traitors" yet?

Now....here is a truth for you...one you and the rest of your Leftwing Cadre try so desperately to avoid....

Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.

They believe that can do this through Global Chaos....and that's why you people are idiots...

 

[nat4900]

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!​

Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

If I may ask a question, if a policeman advises you to not point a gun at him or he'll shoot you, he'd be giving you aid and comfort? That is amusing, but just as wrong headed thinking as you exhibit by saying that warning Iran that any agreement that isn't approved by the Senate won't be binding in the future, implying that they shouldn't work so hard to create a bad agreement for the United States was giving aid and comfort and therefore treasonous. Ridiculous on it's face...so bad, that I have to wonder if you're just playing word games and don't really believe the twaddle you are posting now.

That was a strange argument, to say the least.

 

[hunarcy]

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!​

Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?

Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter. NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement. Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

wrong again nattwit.

In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.

But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.

 

[nat4900]

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 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.

As soon as this idiot writes that Obama is a socialist, Marxist Muslim, he joins the ranks of that lunatic lady that asked McCain if Obama was an Arab.....Wallow in your hatred moron......

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!​

Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?

Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter. NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement. Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.

No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

wrong again nattwit.

In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.

But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.

What was that again, Welcher?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

natwit, you witless twit, just because people disagree with your utterly baseless adoration of Obumbler does not mean that they are hate filled.

You seem to be, but that's another issue.

 

[HenryBHough]

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?

So, you have some special qualification that allows you to regard a nation as an "enemy" when your own failed president obviously disagrees and is snuggling up to them?

Please tell us how one obtains such qualification. Can you buy it from Amazon? Maybe Alibaba? Others might want one, too!

As to what's in the agreement.....why that's none of your or our business. It's just like Obamacare - a secret until you approve it. Uppity little bugger, ain'tcha?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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!​

Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?

Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter. NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement. Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.

No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.

For anybody to "insult" your intelligence, you would first have to have some intelligence, staty.

 

[nat4900]

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.

wrong again nattwit.

In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.

But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.

Of course you can lie to me about how you feel, but lying to yourself is dangerous.....Live with your bigotry and, of course, have another cup of tea and wear your teabags with pride.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"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.

wrong again nattwit.

In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler. He sucks massively as President. I detest his policies and policy inclinations. I loathe his political philosophy.

But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.

What was that again, Welcher?

Poor staty, he has nothing intelligent or valid to say, so like the typical assbrain lolberal infesting USMB, he resorts to the dishonest "welsh" lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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."

Correct.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the Senate to attempt to preempt or interfere with the Executive's good faith efforts to negotiate treaties, which is exactly what the 47 republican dullards sought to do.