Traitor's letter shows ignorance of US law

[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.

.

 

[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.

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.”

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Without the consent of 67 senators a treaty can not be ratified, that is of course assuming all 100 are there for the vote.

 

[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.

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.

OK........ The right wing will oppose anything our president will say, do, or try, so any actions will have to be done using powers given to the president that the right wing can't interfere with.
There.....The right wing has been thoroughly considered, evaluated, and addressed. What do you want to whine about now?

 

[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.

OK........ The right wing will oppose anything our president will say, do, or try, so any actions will have to be done using powers given to the president that the right wing can't interfere with.
There.....The right wing has been thoroughly considered, evaluated, and addressed. What do you want to whine about now?

YOU are being the whiny little bitch right now. The Constitution requires the senate to "advise and consent" i.e. ratify any treaty made by the executive branch. Obama is the one willing to give away the farm for a chance at a Chamberlinian "Peace in Our Time" moment, not the Republicans.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

No....It's people elected to work for the citizens, not for their party. There was never any good will. That was eliminated on day one by politicians who care more about the republican party than they do about our country.

 

[Edgetho]

YOU are being the whiny little bitch right now. The Constitution requires the senate to "advise and consent" i.e. ratify any treaty made by the executive branch. Obama is the one willing to give away the farm for a chance at a Chamberlinian "Peace in Our Time" moment, not the Republicans.

Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[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.

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.

OK........ The right wing will oppose anything our president will say, do, or try, so any actions will have to be done using powers given to the president that the right wing can't interfere with.
There.....The right wing has been thoroughly considered, evaluated, and addressed. What do you want to whine about now?

YOU are being the whiny little bitch right now. The Constitution requires the senate to "advise and consent" i.e. ratify any treaty made by the executive branch. Obama is the one willing to give away the farm for a chance at a Chamberlinian "Peace in Our Time" moment, not the Republicans.

Not worthy of a reasoned response. If reason mattered to you, you wouldn't be spouting that stupid crap to start with.

 

[martybegan]

So in your view Obama can unilaterally agree with Iran?

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.

OK........ The right wing will oppose anything our president will say, do, or try, so any actions will have to be done using powers given to the president that the right wing can't interfere with.
There.....The right wing has been thoroughly considered, evaluated, and addressed. What do you want to whine about now?

YOU are being the whiny little bitch right now. The Constitution requires the senate to "advise and consent" i.e. ratify any treaty made by the executive branch. Obama is the one willing to give away the farm for a chance at a Chamberlinian "Peace in Our Time" moment, not the Republicans.

Not worthy of a reasoned response. If reason mattered to you, you wouldn't be spouting that stupid crap to start with.

Go scurry back into your hole Bullshitdog. It's evident you have nothing else to add to this thread.

 

[martybegan]

YOU are being the whiny little bitch right now. The Constitution requires the senate to "advise and consent" i.e. ratify any treaty made by the executive branch. Obama is the one willing to give away the farm for a chance at a Chamberlinian "Peace in Our Time" moment, not the Republicans.

Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Executive agreements still have to be reviewed by the Congress by law, and I'm sure the Senate will consider this a treaty and demand their rights as per the constitution.

EA's are for bookkeeping stuff, not a major agreement between multiple powers.

 

[paulitician]

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.

No....It's people elected to work for the citizens, not for their party. There was never any good will. That was eliminated on day one by politicians who care more about the republican party than they do about our country.

It's the opposition party. So it's not surprising when it opposes. And ya know what, the Democratic Party has been known to oppose from time to time too. It's the way the System works. But this current President blew it when he boasted about not needing Congress. It set a very bad tone. It was childish and selfish.

 

[natstew]

I'm not a Rand Paul for President fan, but I'm with him on this:
Seconds After Obama Tried To Explain The Constitution Rand Paul s Shuts Him Up

 

[natstew]

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.

Hey Bulldorf, It was Obama who refused to work with Republicans, remember?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

CBS' Schieffer To Tom Cotton: Will You Write A Letter To N. Korea Too?



CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday pressed Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) to defend the open letter he wrote warning Iran that any potential nuclear deal could expire at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency. At one point, Schieffer asked the senator why he hadn’t reached out to the U.S.' other nuclear adversaries, too.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

You are so smart. Doesn't that mean congress must still give approval.

 

[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.

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

You think Obama's weak ass non-treaty is going to prevent their progress toward a nuke?
LOL!
You are actually dumber than I thought.

 

[martybegan]

CBS' Schieffer To Tom Cotton: Will You Write A Letter To N. Korea Too?



CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday pressed Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) to defend the open letter he wrote warning Iran that any potential nuclear deal could expire at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency. At one point, Schieffer asked the senator why he hadn’t reached out to the U.S.' other nuclear adversaries, too.

Has Obama said he would negotiate a treaty without the Senate's approval vis a vis North Korea?

 

[Thirty6BelowZero]

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.

Starting to feel like 2006 yet, when the liberals did nothing but shoot Bush down? Suck it up. At least the Republicans are stopping this president from screwing us up...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

CBS' Schieffer To Tom Cotton: Will You Write A Letter To N. Korea Too?



CBS' Bob Schieffer on Sunday pressed Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) to defend the open letter he wrote warning Iran that any potential nuclear deal could expire at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency. At one point, Schieffer asked the senator why he hadn’t reached out to the U.S.' other nuclear adversaries, too.

This statement is a flat out lie but on top of that, this idiot cannot even speak grammatically correct sentence.

“Right now I and most every other senator is focused on stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon ...”

 

[mikegriffith1]

Oh, for heaven's sake, what a petty, ignorant OP. I could show you zillions of references about the Senate "ratifying" treaties, from Democrats and Republicans alike going back many decades, even though, yes, strictly technically speaking the Senate does not perform the act of ratification.

But it's a distinction without a difference, since no treaty can be ratified without the Senate's approval. So in a very real sense, the Senate, for all intents and purposes, does "ratify" treaties, even though the act of ratification itself is not done by the Senate but is authorized by the Senate.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

No....It's people elected to work for the citizens, not for their party. There was never any good will. That was eliminated on day one by politicians who care more about the republican party than they do about our country.

It's the opposition party. So it's not surprising when it opposes. And ya know what, the Democratic Party has been known to oppose from time to time too. It's the way the System works. But this current President blew it when he boasted about not needing Congress. It set a very bad tone. It was childish and selfish.

A bad tone.......right. Name one day the right hasn't shown a bad tone. One single day when they didn't oppose everything about the president, even if they had to lie to do it. You are nothing but a bully who whines when someone pushes back.