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

[nat4900]

You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go **** yourself!

You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia. And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You ******* asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to ******* yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest ****. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack ***** lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

As is usual with you ball-lacking ***** lolberals, you preach the inevitability of failure as an excuse not to even try.

LOTS of things could stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability. Meekly allowing it after some inconsequential passage of time is NOT one of those things, you scum sucking asshole.

I heard that prunes may help your condition.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go **** yourself!

You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia. And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You ******* asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to ******* yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest ****. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack ***** lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

So, you believe that Obama and Kerry are wasting their time trying to get an agreement to keep Iran from developing the bomb? Have you let them know that?

Wait. YOU seem to believe that Obumbler and Lurch are even TRYING to to get an agreement that would prevent Iran from EVER getting the capacity to make nuclear weapons?

Seriously?

Thrill us with your acumen. Tell us how their public statements square with your "belief?"

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

 

[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!​

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.

I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President. Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.

You are mistaken on several levels. First of all, treaties do not "take effect" merely because the Senate approves them. The Senate does not ratify treaties. It can, however, approve a treaty which can then be ratified by the inclusive parties, should they wish to proceed.

You are also VERY mistaken to claim that a "presidential agreement" does not carry the full weight of the law. It is as lawfully binding as if the Senate had approved it. That is not the same as the Senate voting down on such a measure, which would express the Senate's disapproval.

As far as some future president altering or cancelling an existing treaty, that can happen, and has happened, to even Senate approved treaties. There is nothing special about a treaty the Senate does not vote on to approve.

 

[Faun]

Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.

Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy. The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well. Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too ******* stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.

The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact. Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want. But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.

Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal your source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?

 

[eagle1462010]

Summing up the last post...............

The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............

Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say **** YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................

If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................

Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............

PLEASE DO SO.

 

[nat4900]

Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.

Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy. The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well. Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too ******* stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.

The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact. Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want. But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.

Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal your source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?

FOX, where else......LOL

 

[Faun]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You ******* asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to ******* yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest ****. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack ***** lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

As is usual with you ball-lacking ***** lolberals, you preach the inevitability of failure as an excuse not to even try.

LOTS of things could stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability. Meekly allowing it after some inconsequential passage of time is NOT one of those things, you scum sucking asshole.

I heard that prunes may help your condition.....

If you were to take a shit, shit head, the entire world would be swept away. So stay away from prunes you massively full of shit idiot.

 

[Rambunctious]

Liberals are mentally ill, they would rather put their idiot offspring at risk of being nuked rather than call out their president when he is wrong. The man from Kenya is desperate for a legacy. So desperate that he will place us and Israel at risk.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

 

[Faun]

Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are. True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same. Remind me to wipe my shoes, *****.

Have your ***** little Senators write me a letter, junior.

Oh I love this...

One morning coming up pretty quick I expect, we're going to wake up to find that the Left's subversion has once again screwed us but good.

Now on 9-11-01, I sat there in my N.Y. Apartment, watching the dust rise out of Manhattan, the WTCs which were there that morning, gone... and I watched as the fomenters of Leftist guile did their best to pretend that they had absolutely NO PART in that destruction.

OH how they weeped and gnashed their collective tooth.

I was in Yahoo's old Washington Watch room... a regular for many years at that time...

I remember like it was yesterday, trying to get my head around the unimaginable events of that day, and thinking about those same Leftists; who had LONG defended the Clinton Cult's moves to cut the CIA budget, passing policy that forbid them from hiring foreign resources with 'criminal records'.... all hotly contested policy over the preceding years... and I begin to type:

"Friends, Look around this room and see the idiots, all amazed that what they have so long fought to defend, has finally come to pass. Today they're shocked that en enemy has struck us, which was made possible by 8 YEARS OF SUBVERSION, which ceaselessly promoted the interests of our enemies... remember back to '93 when they demanded that the Towers were bombed by CRIMINALS and how we said then that they were NOT criminals but warriors, determined to injure us in a prolonged and determined fight to destroy us, and the left laughed at the very idea of that notion, referred to it as INSANITY of the tinfoil hat variety.

I tell you today, as the Pentagon burns, as thousands lay slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan, that we are only weeks, maybe months away, from watching the same idiots in here crying today, returning to defend our enemies... overtly siding with them, doing everything in their power to provide them aid and comfort... ."

OMG How they howled in OUTRAGE at that very suggestion.

But sure enough, within 18 months they were clambering to support the HUMAN SHIELDS in Iraq and 8 years later, with Osama Bin Laden still on the run and Saddam Hussein dead... they elected barack hussein obama as the President of the US and TODAY defend HIS RIGHT to PROVIDE IRAN WITH THE MEANS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

So on that looming morning, I want you to know... that there will be no joining hands, there will be no 'we're all Americans'.

We, the Americans, will be AT WAR with the enemies of the United States, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.

Oh, please. Clinton warned us an attack within our borders was highly likely, and the moronic right claimed he was making that up to get a domestic anti-terrorist team and to get America to forget about his impeachment trial.

Too bad the right wasn't on board. Their anti-Clinton vitriol caused them to take their eyes off the ball.

 

[eagle1462010]

2008 Candidate Senator Obama Sent U.S. Secret Emissary To Iran Telling Them Not To Negotiate With George Bush Said Wait For Him To Be Elected . The Last Refuge

It is a remarkable revelation given the level of apoplectic response recently from the White House and State Dept. to a rather innocuous “open letter” from 47 Senators.

President Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry shouting about how wrong it is for the Senate to publish their opinion, yet it is now clear that Senator Obama not only communicated with the Iranian government in secret, but he did so specifically to undermine President George W. Bush during prior Iranian negotiations.

As Breitbart explains: […] Biden, like his boss, fails to do his homework before making outlandish statements or else chooses conveniently to overlook the facts.

Livid over the GOP letter, Biden proclaimed: “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country.”

Directing his venom at the Senate’s Republican majority, Biden claimed the GOP letter was “expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations…(an act) beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”

Biden need not go back that far to find a senator who sent advice to a foreign power when similar “sensitive” negotiations were ongoing. Seven years back is far enough.

According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senator sent 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. (read more)

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................

and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............

CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[nat4900]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement

 

[nat4900]

Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................

and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............

CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.

STILL citing Breibart AND Pajamas Media for your source of "knowledge"?????

 

[Faun]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.

The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, "Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.

 

[Faun]

Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.

Damn. For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo. You MUST be a lib.

You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go **** yourself!

You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia. And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.

Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post. You really ARE a poster child for stupid.

Try to follow along. Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing. You ******* asshole. Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to ******* yourself.

Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....

Oh you hypocritical dishonest ****. Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack ***** lolberals are gullible.

Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.

Even if Israel were to disarm every nuke in their possession, Iran will continue pursuing nuclear capabilities of their own.

 

[eagle1462010]