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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.

You should care what other nations do. Other nations told us invading Iraq was a really, really stupid idea and they didn't go along with it.

It turned out to be a really stupid, stupid idea.

LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.

(Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)

 

[Faun]

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..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

 

[Dot Com]

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..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

when he has an (R) behind his name.

 

[eagle1462010]

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..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

 

[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.

Your opinion is noted.

As is your own.

 

[Kondor3]

...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment, prove Obama didn't break the law?

Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.

(Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)

France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.

In fact, very few or our allies joined us on this stupidity, and the ones who did voted out the fools who did it. As did we, come to think of it.

 

[Faun]

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 acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.

They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.

Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.​

They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.

Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.

 

[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.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................

End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............

I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.

And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.

Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

If President Clinton was half the President Barrack Obama is ... He would have just done it all on his own.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

reposting the letter...............for clarity.........as it states the Senate and Congress are part of the process of ratification........................as a poster is splitting hairs on final ratification is the countries signing .....................which is true BTW.............

 

[HenryBHough]

So the narcissism hasn't progressed to the point where He simply disbands Congress.

Imagine how much a little medication might help.........perhaps even save the country!

But it'd have to be force-fed and that would be torture.

 

[Kondor3]

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 acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.

They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.

Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.​

They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.

Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.

Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?

We dally with semantics here.

Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the 'advice and consent' process which is tantamount to the same thing.

A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.

We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?

 

[Faun]

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.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Does any of that feature Jesus of Nazareth teaching his followers to commit violence or to engage in warfare in defense or advancing of The Faith?

No, but it does indicate what they're expecting, even hoping, to have happen when Jesus returns and what they can avoid by being faithful. And it's not peaceful. Just like how Islam prophecy claims similar cataclysmic events upon the arrival of the 12th Imam.

 

[Vigilante]

Fallout from senators’ Iran letter: Tom Cotton for president?

McClatchy DC ^
WASHINGTON — While a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tom Cotton wielded some of the military’s most sophisticated firearms. Today it’s letters that appear to be Sen. Cotton’s weapon of choice.....

 

[Faun]

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.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................

End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............

I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.

And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

 

[BlackSand]

Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?

We dally with semantics here.

Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the 'advice and consent' process which is tantamount to the same thing.

A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.

We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?

It really all depends on what the meaning of "is" is ... And "what difference does it make"?
If you like your "advise and consent" you can keep your "advise and consent".

.

 

[Faun]

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..............

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

This is peaceful, is it?

One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.​

Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................

End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............

I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.

And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?

The topic isn't about Religion............

It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.

 

[Antares]

Republicans are like the children that refuse to believe they lost. They lost the Presidential election but act AS IF they didn't.

When they win they win but when they lose they win as well. Odd that.

Um need I point it out hat your side has taken a horrific beating for 3 elections now?