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

[JoeB131]

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.

what will happen. Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb. Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.

The Zionists will whine and ***** and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.

 

[eagle1462010]

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

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.

and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............

Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.

 

[JoeB131]

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.

Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends, then.

Oh wait, he's not going to do that? Because that's some shit a dictator would do?

Then he needs to stop the **** whining about it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?

If the Democrats had done it, THEY would have written a Letter which PROMISED that they would scuttle the deal to PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Which, if such were during a time of war, as is the case today, THAT would actually BE Treason.

But I just want to say, that you idiots can't understand the DIFFERENCE is PRICELESS!

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

what will happen. Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb. Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.

The Zionists will whine and ***** and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.

Mostly correct............or the sites would have already be destroyed............But we do have the ability to do so...........

 

[JoeB131]

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

Presidents have reached agreements with other countries for decades without Congress ratifying them.

Is this another case of "It's okay until the black guy does it?" Because you all seem to suffer from that a lot.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

Nonsense.

We are not in a declared war against Iran.

We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.

We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.

No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.

No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.

We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.

Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.

A one-sided definition of a relationship.

Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.

Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.

Consequently, the pallor of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' does not apply.

Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.

Fail.

But thank you for playing.

"Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport ?"

Next contestant, please.

If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,

would you be defending the Democrats?

What does that have to do with which poster is closer to being right, with respect to the commission of treason?

But, as a sidebar, and since you asked...

I vote Pub some years, and Dem others.

I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, because I disliked what I saw of McSame and Mittens, even worse than what I disliked about Obumble.

But I held my nose in the voting booth, both times, and had Buyer's Remorse immediately afterwards, both times.

I voted partially for Dems and partially for Pubs outside the Presidential race in virtually every election (general and mid-terms) since I reached the age to vote.

If I see a Pub President trying to sell the Nation or its People down the river without a paddle, I'll join in the chorus of protests, myself.

And, if a bunch of Dems did something like this to a Pub President who was selling us down the river (or playing Neville Chamberlain), then, yes, I'd like to believe that I would defend a gaggle of Dem Senators under such circumstances, as well.

Dunno fer shure, 'cause I've never witnessed such a thing, but I'd like to think so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?

If the Democrats had done it, THEY would have written a Letter which PROMISED that they would scuttle the deal to PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Which, if such were during a time of war, as is the case today, THAT would actually BE Treason.

But I just want to say, that you idiots can't understand the DIFFERENCE is PRICELESS!

I think you're in the wrong thread or responding to the wrong post.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?

Pictured- some crazy shit right there.

 

[Faun]

...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...

I said the signatory Senators did NOT attempt to influence the negotiations?

Show me... link please.

I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.

Kondor3: The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

Faun: 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,"

kondor3: Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...without the authority of the United States..."

...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...

I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?

Show me... link please.

I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted WITH "...the authority of the United States...".

I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.

...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.

The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.

As I said before, they already HAVE the 'authority of the United States'.

Why?

Because they ARE the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.

As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.

That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.

Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, "game, set, match" self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.

The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.

That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.

Are you right in this, or am I?

The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.

If indictments materialize, you win.

If indictments do not materialize, I win.

Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?

Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.

 

[Kondor3]

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

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.

Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?

Pictured- some crazy shit right there.

The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.

 

[Faun]

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.

You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................

Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............

They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......

Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............

You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........

and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.

Deal with it.

Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......​

47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.

I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.

I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.

You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............

... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.

But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.

 

[Kondor3]

...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...

I said the signatory Senators did NOT attempt to influence the negotiations?

Show me... link please.

I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.

Kondor3: The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to INFLUENCE treaty negotiations.

Faun: 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,"

kondor3: Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...without the authority of the United States..."

...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...

I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?

Show me... link please.

I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted WITH "...the authority of the United States...".

I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.

...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.

The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.

The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.

As I said before, they already HAVE the 'authority of the United States'.

Why?

Because they ARE the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.

As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.

That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.

Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, "game, set, match" self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.

The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.

That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.

Are you right in this, or am I?

The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.

If indictments materialize, you win.

If indictments do not materialize, I win.

Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?

Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.

Indictments are all that signify.

Everything else is background noise.

 

[Faun]

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

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.

and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............

Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.

I asked this before ... who granted them any such right?

 

[Antares]

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.

How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?

Pictured- some crazy shit right there.

It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

You might be a lot of things, but one thing you are not, is an American.

You have more in common with the folks in Weimar, Germany, than you do with this country.

 

[Antares]

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

Presidents have reached agreements with other countries for decades without Congress ratifying them.

Is this another case of "It's okay until the black guy does it?" Because you all seem to suffer from that a lot.

Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.

Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.

The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.

 

[eagle1462010]

You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................

Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............

They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......

Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............

You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........

and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.

Deal with it.

Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......​

47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.

I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.

I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.

You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............

... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.

But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.

They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.

Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.

If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.

And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.