Traitor's letter shows ignorance of US law

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

So you disagree with the Harvard Law Professor as well as the Senate's own page?



Its not all that surprising that Cotton does not know constitutional requirements for treaties and the senate's role but what about the others? What is their excuse for this incredible ignorance of the constitution they swore to uphold?

 

[hunarcy]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

So you disagree with the Harvard Law Professor as well as the Senate's own page?



Its not all that surprising that Cotton does not know constitutional requirements for treaties and the senate's role but what about the others? What is their excuse for this incredible ignorance of the constitution they swore to uphold?

I give you a quote from the Constitution, which is available online and you want to argue about a web page and a professor? Go pound salt and come back when you can engage in a serious conversation.

 

[Stephanie]

this has already been posted

NICE TRY

get over yourselves. Your Messiah got slapped down and his shady behind our backs negations with Iran was brought into spotlight for all the American people to see...

tough shit you can't turn it back now. tsk tsk for you OBOTS and if you want to see a traitor, look in a mirror

 

[paulitician]

The Communist Organizer in Chief often boasts about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. He's an asshole. Congress will have to act with or without his help. This Iranian deal will have to go through Congress. It's by no means a 'Done-Deal.'

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

So you disagree with the Harvard Law Professor as well as the Senate's own page?



Its not all that surprising that Cotton does not know constitutional requirements for treaties and the senate's role but what about the others? What is their excuse for this incredible ignorance of the constitution they swore to uphold?

Without their vote, there is no ratified treaty.

 

[pismoe]

yep , hope that you are correct 'Paul' !!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate."
- Mark Pryor (D) former Senator for Arkansas
Mark Pryor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"You don't need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate."
- Mark Pryor (D) former Senator for Arkansas
Mark Pryor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Obama proved that.

 

[paulitician]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

So you disagree with the Harvard Law Professor as well as the Senate's own page?



Its not all that surprising that Cotton does not know constitutional requirements for treaties and the senate's role but what about the others? What is their excuse for this incredible ignorance of the constitution they swore to uphold?

Without their vote, there is no ratified treaty.

Maybe the Communist Organizer wanker needs Congress after all?

 

[BULLDOG]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

 

[NLT]

I'm not the constitution or legal authority that so many on the board purport to be but it looks like it really is Amateur Hour at the Senate.



The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”


This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

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;

Article II Section 2. Feel free to look it up and stop vomiting propaganda.

So you disagree with the Harvard Law Professor as well as the Senate's own page?



Its not all that surprising that Cotton does not know constitutional requirements for treaties and the senate's role but what about the others? What is their excuse for this incredible ignorance of the constitution they swore to uphold?

I give you a quote from the Constitution, which is available online and you want to argue about a web page and a professor? Go pound salt and come back when you can engage in a serious conversation.

Another Duddy OP goes down in Flames, what an idiot.

 

[martybegan]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

So in your view Obama can unilaterally agree with Iran?

rat·i·fy
ˈradəˌfī/
verb

1. sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
   synonyms: confirm, approve, sanction, endorse, agree to, accept, uphold, authorize,formalize, validate, recognize;
   sign
   "they failed to ratify the amendment"

 

[paulitician]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

Yeah, maybe that dipshit Pelosi got it wrong when she said 'We have to pass the bill so we can read it.' How bout they actually read proposed bills before voting on em?

 

[hunarcy]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

Never heard that...do you have a link?

 

[paulitician]

The Republicans won in a Landslide to do one thing... Oppose the Dictator wannabe asshole at every turn. As long as they do that, they'll be fine. That's why they were elected. So this Iran deal is by no means a 'Done-Deal.' Congress will have a say.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Didn't we learn this in Civics 101? Has Lord Obama thrown this out the window too? Shit, might as well throw the whole constitution out at this point.. he doesn't appear to feel that he is bound by any of it.

 

[BULLDOG]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

So in your view Obama can unilaterally agree with Iran?

rat·i·fy
ˈradəˌfī/
verb

1. sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
   synonyms: confirm, approve, sanction, endorse, agree to, accept, uphold, authorize,formalize, validate, recognize;
   sign
   "they failed to ratify the amendment"

It's the right wing who is agreeing with hard line Iranians. Obama, along with 5 other countries who are equally involved, is trying to negotiate a treaty to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. The right hates Obama so much till they are willing to increase Iran's chances of developing a weapon just to act like a dick toward Obama. The entire world recognizes the right wing's childish behavior for what it is, but it does reduce US credibility.

 

[BULLDOG]

No surprise that they don't understand how our system of government works. Remember when they passed that bill that said that after so many days, if the Senate didn't act on it, it would automatically become law? They should hire a middle school civics teacher to advise them in such matters or at least consult School House Rock occasionally.

Yeah, maybe that dipshit Pelosi got it wrong when she said 'We have to pass the bill so we can read it.' How bout they actually read proposed bills before voting on em?

How about the right actually figure out how the rules work before they start acting like silly children. Well.......too late for that.