Traitor's letter shows ignorance of US law

[Edgetho]

What 'letter' dimocrap scumbags?

There was no letter. Ever.

There was simply an open statement posted on Cotton's website, never was there a letter.

dimocraps are lying scum.

Period.

National Review

dimocraps are the scum of the earth, people

Understand that and everything ese falls into place

 

[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?

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

Your Dear Leader has behaved like a childish Dictator wannabe. He blew it when he started boasting about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. And he's solely to blame for it.

 

[paulitician]

What 'letter' dimocrap scumbags?

There was no letter. Ever.

There was simply an open statement posted on Cotton's website, never was there a letter.

dimocraps are lying scum.

Period.

National Review

dimocraps are the scum of the earth, people

Understand that and everything ese falls into place

Yeah but MSNBC and CNN (Communist News Network) told em there was. So there ya go.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Regardless of the mechanics and semantics it takes, on average, 67 votes in the senate to ratify a treaty. Period, end of story.

 

[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.

Regardless of the mechanics and semantics it takes, on average, 67 votes in the senate to ratify a treaty. Period, end of story.

Ha, the Communist Organizer dipshit needs Congress after all. Hilarious.

 

[Edgetho]

Ha, the Communist Organizer dipshit needs Congress after all. Hilarious.

Unfortunately, no he doesn't. At all.

The Lying Cosucker in Chief has Republicans and other Patriots over a barrel. No matter what we do, nothing will change that fact.

If we wait until 2016 and the new Republican President tries to revoke the traitorous piece of shit, the UN will scream bloody murder and the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media will side with America's enemies -- As usual.

America is FUCKED. If the Lying Cocksucker in Chief wants a treaty with Iran, there's nothing we can do about it.

Trust me. Nothing we can do to stop it. And once it's in place, there will be HELL to pay if we try to revoke it later on.

This is what happens when you tell people, "They're all the same" and cause them to stay home.......

You get a scumbag like the Lying Cocksucker in Chief.

Suck on it. Your children will pay for this. Believe it. And they will spit on your graves because 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.

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.

Your Dear Leader has behaved like a childish Dictator wannabe. He blew it when he started boasting about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. And he's solely to blame for it.

Can you name even one day during our president's administration when there was "good will" ? The right has opposed him every day about every thing. Trying to blame him for that is stupid, and only believed by teabaggers. The sane world knows what happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It's the right wing who is agreeing with hard line Iranians.

Wrong. The Republicans want to stop the hard line Iranians from getting nukes.
Obama, not so much.

 

[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?

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

Your Dear Leader has behaved like a childish Dictator wannabe. He blew it when he started boasting about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. And he's solely to blame for it.

Can you name even one day during our president's administration when there was "good will" ? The right has opposed him every day about every thing. Trying to blame him for that is stupid, and only believed by teabaggers. The sane world knows what happened.

Nah, that's just programmed Obamabot Bullshite. He's enjoyed boasting about not needing Congress. It's shameful behavior.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ha, the Communist Organizer dipshit needs Congress after all. Hilarious.

Unfortunately, no he doesn't. At all.

The Lying Cosucker in Chief has Republicans and other Patriots over a barrel. No matter what we do, nothing will change that fact.

If we wait until 2016 and the new Republican President tries to revoke the traitorous piece of shit, the UN will scream bloody murder and the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media will side with America's enemies -- As usual.

America is FUCKED. If the Lying Cocksucker in Chief wants a treaty with Iran, there's nothing we can do about it.

Trust me. Nothing we can do to stop it. And once it's in place, there will be HELL to pay if we try to revoke it later on.

This is what happens when you tell people, "They're all the same" and cause them to stay home.......

You get a scumbag like the Lying Cocksucker in Chief.

Suck on it. Your children will pay for this. Believe it. And they will spit on your graves because of it

Poor Edgetho.....Sometimes it's best to just embrace your grief........You'll feel better afterward.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

No, the Constitution disagrees with the Harvard Law Professor and the Senate's own page.

(did somebody mention "Amateur Hour"?)

As was quoted to you.

And you are trying so hard to ignore.

 

[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.

It's the right wing who is agreeing with hard line Iranians.

Wrong. The Republicans want to stop the hard line Iranians from getting nukes.
Obama, not so much.

The right wing and Iranian hard liners both want to trash the negotiations and prevent a treaty to prevent nuclear weapons from happening.

 

[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.

Regardless of the mechanics and semantics it takes, on average, 67 votes in the senate to ratify a treaty. Period, end of story.

Nope.

Although that is a necessary step, the Senate does not ratify treaties.

Only the president can do that.

“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.”

Or do you know of anything that negates the above?

Edited to add, from the same link:

“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.”

 

[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"

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.

That doesn't address the issue of the required advice and consent of the Senate. The issue is Republicans don't think Obama will be HARD ENOUGH on Iran, not the other way around.

Just because 5 other nations are involved doesn't remove the fact that this would be a treaty, and requires the input and consent of the senate.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Traitor's letter shows ignorance of US law


I actively support and agree with your outrage against U.S. Senators sending letters of support to enemies of this country who are threatening us with nuclear weapons.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.

The traitor does, indeed, show complete ignorance of US law... which includes the Constitution.

Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.

As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.

Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.

This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?

Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

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

Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find 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.

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.

Your Dear Leader has behaved like a childish Dictator wannabe. He blew it when he started boasting about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. And he's solely to blame for it.

Can you name even one day during our president's administration when there was "good will" ? The right has opposed him every day about every thing. Trying to blame him for that is stupid, and only believed by teabaggers. The sane world knows what happened.

Nah, that's just programmed Obamabot Bullshite. He's enjoyed boasting about not needing Congress. It's shameful behavior.

Don't dodge the question. Can you name one day? I'll save you the time.....you can't,

 

[martybegan]

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.

Regardless of the mechanics and semantics it takes, on average, 67 votes in the senate to ratify a treaty. Period, end of story.

Nope.

Although that is a necessary step, the Senate does not ratify treaties.

Only the president can do that.

“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.”

Or do you know of anything that negates the above?

The president (or his designee) signs treaties, however the senate ratifies that signing, under the advise and consent clause.

rat·i·fy
ˈradəˌfī/
verb

1. sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.

 

[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"

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.

It's the right wing who is agreeing with hard line Iranians.

Wrong. The Republicans want to stop the hard line Iranians from getting nukes.
Obama, not so much.

The right wing and Iranian hard liners both want to trash the negotiations and prevent a treaty to prevent nuclear weapons from happening.

Wrong, and also, Bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Regardless of the mechanics and semantics it takes, on average, 67 votes in the senate to ratify a treaty. Period, end of story.

Nope.

Although that is a necessary step, the Senate does not ratify treaties.

Only the president can do that.

“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.”

Or do you know of anything that negates the above?

Edited to add, from the same link:

“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.”

Don't bother. If logic, reason, or facts counted, you wouldn't need to be having this conversation to begin with.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Your Dear Leader has behaved like a childish Dictator wannabe. He blew it when he started boasting about not needing Congress. There is no goodwill left. And he's solely to blame for it.

Can you name even one day during our president's administration when there was "good will" ? The right has opposed him every day about every thing. Trying to blame him for that is stupid, and only believed by teabaggers. The sane world knows what happened.

Nah, that's just programmed Obamabot Bullshite. He's enjoyed boasting about not needing Congress. It's shameful behavior.

Don't dodge the question. Can you name one day? I'll save you the time.....you can't,

It's the opposition party. It's supposed to oppose. That's certainly not unprecedented. But what is unprecedented, is your Dear Leader boasting about not needing Congress. Very shameful behavior on the part of a U.S. President. There is no good will left. And that is solely on him.