Traitor's letter shows ignorance of US law

[thereisnospoon]

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.

true but not accurate.
The President does not have the legal authority to write treaties..
All treaties MUST be approved by Congress before they sent to the President for his decision to approve or to not approve.
two things are happening here.
The President is attempting to act unilaterally. This is beyond the scope or powers of the Executive Branch.
The letter, is the Senate alerting the Iranian government it intent to exact its authority as prescribed in the US Constitution.
All the rest of this nonsense is just that. Nonsense.
Contrary to your side's belief, Obama is not an elected king. He does not have absolute authority to anything except what the law permits him to do.
Final point. The deal which Iran will not honor, is a bad deal. Very bad.
Congress stands at the ready to hit Iran with more sanctions that will essentially cripple the Iranian government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Your reaching. That's good....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Harvard- Liberal....What do expect.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

The professor is WRONG....Despite your side's use of the Constitution for your own political convenience, there is no ambiguity.
You don't get to interpret the Constitution at your convenience.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"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

Obfuscation...Dismissed as liberal propaganda

 

[BULLDOG]

Which part would you care to try to disprove?

Well all of it is shit,like Obama's goal is not to let them get a nuke,he admits that it just delays,on the other hand rational people understand it to be 100% opposite of what you think you know.
Obmas deal is a can kicked down the road,its a shit deal,get over it,and try and at least be honest with yourself

Only delays them getting a weapon? You got a credible source for that? Something non-fox?

s
The president himself,all of the supporting cast of Harvard professors, anyone that has ears and half a brain sees it for what it is. The simple fact that after 10 years there are no restrictions,nothing,yep a heck of a deal.
A far number of Dems in the Senate,the list goes on.

It's a ten year treaty. Who says there will be nothing later?
.Get over it

This treaty don't be so dense.kicking the nuke can down the road,will ensure they get a nuke,evry rational person on earth knows that, along with Iran.
The president can not do this alone,despite his efforts.

Of course he can't. That's why there are so many other countries involved.

 

[paulitician]

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.

The opposition party usually does oppose. Not unprecedented. But a U.S. President boasting about not needing Congress is. Good will is gone.

 

[paulitician]

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?

You are confused.

He doesn't seem confused. The more likely explanation is that you're lying. BTW, the good will evaporated when Obama announced that Republicans needed to ride in the "back of the bus".

Spot On. A childish Dictator wannabe.

 

[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.

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

You are confused.

He doesn't seem confused. The more likely explanation is that you're lying. BTW, the good will evaporated when Obama announced that Republicans needed to ride in the "back of the bus".

Can you name even one day when the right has been willing to do anything but fight Obama any way possible? Not the first day when they had a meeting and decided to oppose everything, no matter what..........Not today.........And no day in between.

Oh now i get it, you're like 12yrs old. Ok, so i'll go easy on ya. You're too young, so you're confused and naive. Opposition parties oppose. The Democrats have done that with every single Republican President ever elected. It's what opposition parties do.

But your guy blew it when he boasted about 'Republicans riding in the back of the bus', and not needing Congress. It was very hateful and pretty childish. At that point, all good will was lost for good. He is solely responsible for it.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

The opposition party usually does oppose. Not unprecedented. But a U.S. President boasting about not needing Congress is. Good will is gone.

Again I ask when exactly was any good will present. Certainly no time since this president has been in office, no matter how hard he tried to work with the right. Yes, he tried very hard to work with those childish idiots.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

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.

The opposition party usually does oppose. Not unprecedented. But a U.S. President boasting about not needing Congress is. Good will is gone.

Again I ask when exactly was any good will present. Certainly no time since this president has been in office, no matter how hard he tried to work with the right. Yes, he tried very hard to work with those childish idiots.

Obamacare perfect example.....

 

[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.

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

You are confused.

He doesn't seem confused. The more likely explanation is that you're lying. BTW, the good will evaporated when Obama announced that Republicans needed to ride in the "back of the bus".

Can you name even one day when the right has been willing to do anything but fight Obama any way possible? Not the first day when they had a meeting and decided to oppose everything, no matter what..........Not today.........And no day in between.

Oh now i get it, you're like 12yrs old. Ok, so i'll go easy on ya. You're too young, so you're confused and naive. Opposition parties oppose. The Democrats have done that with every single Republican President ever elected. It's what opposition parties do.

But your guy blew it when he boasted about 'Republicans riding in the back of the bus', and not needing Congress. It was very hateful and pretty childish. At that point, all good will was lost for good. He is solely responsible for it.

So you are saying they had expressed good will toward him before that? Everybody is well aware of the opposition, but trying to claim there has been anything but opposition is a pathetic lie. There never was any good will from the right. Just childish obstruction even when it was bad for the country.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

The opposition party usually does oppose. Not unprecedented. But a U.S. President boasting about not needing Congress is. Good will is gone.

Again I ask when exactly was any good will present. Certainly no time since this president has been in office, no matter how hard he tried to work with the right. Yes, he tried very hard to work with those childish idiots.

Obamacare perfect example.....

Can't answer direct questions, so you try to divert. Typical mindless teabagger

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Zzz. Folks do occasionally employ verbal shorthand. A treaty is not ratified without the advice and consent of the Senate. That's the point.

If the traitor wrote a letter, then I demand that Obumbler release it (unless it is in the Shrillary deleted file of course).