47 acts of treason?

[THE_DEVIL]

Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Foreign PolicyDid 47 U.S. Senators Just Commit Treason By Attempting to Sabotage Iran Deal?

News that 47 Republican senators sent a signed letter to Iran's leaders warning them against cutting a deal with the Obama administration had many Americans openly questioning whether the action constituted treason.
The letter, organized by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, warned Iranthat "...we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the letter's goal was to "undermine" negotiations with Iran, but also noted that if the Obama administration reached an agreement over Iran's nuclear program that it would not be a treaty subject to congressional ratification.
"Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs."
Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said it was highly unusual for a political party to insert itself into a foreign policy negotiation in opposition to the president.
"Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs," he said from the Senate floor Monday. "We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States."
On Twitter, many observers were quick to call the move by Senate Republicans "treason."


This is treason, GOP Senators. You're being treasonous. You are traitors. Literally.- Simon Byrd (@Uosdwis) March 9, 2015[/QUOTE]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-09/did-47-u-s-senators-just-commit-treason-by-attempting-to-sabotage-iran-deal-

 

[naturalmwa]

I bet Darrell Issa will investigate any day now. Can we make the email for those Senators public please?

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't know if it's treason, but if this happened, it's a federal crime. Just as it was when Tom Harkin and a whole bunch of Democrats wrote the "Dear Commandante" letter to Daniel Ortega back during the Reagan administration.

It was a damned bad thing to do then, and if the Republicans are doing it now, it's a damned bad thing to do now.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:










Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Foreign Policy
Did 47 U.S. Senators Just Commit Treason By Attempting to Sabotage Iran Deal?


News that 47 Republican senators sent a signed letter to Iran's leaders warning them against cutting a deal with the Obama administration had many Americans openly questioning whether the action constituted treason.

The letter, organized by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, warned Iranthat "...we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the letter's goal was to "undermine" negotiations with Iran, but also noted that if the Obama administration reached an agreement over Iran's nuclear program that it would not be a treaty subject to congressional ratification.

"Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs."

Harry Reid

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, said it was highly unusual for a political party to insert itself into a foreign policy negotiation in opposition to the president.

"Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs," he said from the Senate floor Monday. "We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States."

On Twitter, many observers were quick to call the move by Senate Republicans "treason."






This is treason, GOP Senators. You're being treasonous. You are traitors. Literally.- Simon Byrd (@Uosdwis) March 9, 2015

[/QUOTE]Who is Tom Cotton?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Who is Tom Cotton?

It tells you in the story he's the new freshman Senator from Arkansas.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Who is Tom Cotton?

It tells you in the story he's the new freshman Senator from Arkansas.

He is the foolish freshman Senator from Arkansas.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is very helpful to Iran.

They are basically telling Iran "you may think you are on the verge of a 10-year deal but any deal you reach won't last past mid-January, 2017."

If I'm Iran, I probably already suspected that. But now it's perfectly clear.

Does that change anything? Well, if I'm Iran, I am now even more willing to make commitments that apply several years in the future (since I won't have to live up to them when the GOP breaks the deal), as long as I get short term benefits, like removal of sanctions.

Alternatively, if I'm heading toward a deal I really want to last, I'd better figure out some ways to make sure the GOP doesn't win.

 

[joelbc1]

Kudos to the GOP Senator's who did NOT sign this letter. That would include The Chuckster and the Bag Lady, if they didn't participate in this exercise of stupidity.

The GOP as a party never fails to exasperate.

 

[jthawk]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
I don't know if it's treason, but if this happened, it's a federal crime. Just as it was when Tom Harkin and a whole bunch of Democrats wrote the "Dear Commandante" letter to Daniel Ortega back during the Reagan administration.

It was a damned bad thing to do then, and if the Republicans are doing it now, it's a damned bad thing to do now.

Agree, this is ridiculously stupid.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by joelbc1:
Kudos to the GOP Senator's who did NOT sign this letter. That would include The Chuckster and the Bag Lady, if they didn't participate in this exercise of stupidity.

The GOP as a party never fails to exasperate.

Grassley and Ernst both signed the letter.

 

[Funky Bunch]

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Forty-seven Republicans on Sunday wrote directly to Tehran to suggest that any nuclear deal with the Obama administration would not be constitutionally binding because a future president or Congress could take steps to revoke it. Biden called the move an unprecedented affront "designed to undercut a sitting president."
"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America's commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.
"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine," he added.
The kind of executive agreements to which Biden refers are a consistent feature of U.S. foreign policy important for purposes like basing U.S. troops abroad, protecting those soldiers from prosecution in foreign countries and enabling intelligence and defense cooperation with other governments. They have historically been upheld by U.S. courts.[/B]
Biden, a longtime senator and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also criticized the author of the letter, freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), for willfully sabotaging the negotiations. Cotton admitted as much at a conservative conference in January.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran hawks in the House and Senate have long said that their aim is to help the White House strike a tougher deal with Iran. The administration and others, meanwhile, have charged that the hawks' true motivation is to undermine the talks entirely. Cotton, for his part, has made no secret that he wants the talks to fail.
"The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so speak," Cotton said in January, speaking at a conservative conference hosted by the advocacy group Heritage Action for America.
Cotton's bald admission would be less interesting had he not been the one to spearhead a Senate effort revealed Monday by Bloomberg View -- an open letter to Iran's leaders signed by 47 Republican senators. The letter explains the workings of the American government to the Iranian regime.

F these traitors

 

[THE_DEVIL]

The letter highlights that the Constitution includes a congressional role in approving any international commitment more binding than an executive agreement between two governments and that it limits President Barack Obama's time in the White House. That means, according to them, that any deal the Obama administration reaches with Iran to limit its nuclear program could be revoked by the next president or modified by future Congresses.
But there are a couple of problems with this constitutional lesson. The first hitch is that contrary to the letter's premise, Iran's leadership actually has access to a great deal of understanding about how the U.S. works: as users reminded the Twitterverse last night, Iran's presidential cabinet presently features more members with doctorates from U.S. universities than Obama's cabinet does. And the second issue, which is perhaps more alarming for a GOP only just becoming reacquainted with Senate control, is that a legal luminary from the senators' own party now says they got the Constitution wrong.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard University law professor and former top legal official in the George W. Bush administration, offered the lawmakers their own lesson early Monday morning.
Writing for the blog Lawfare, Goldsmith noted that the senators mistakenly say in their message that the Senate "must ratify" any treaty. In fact, he points out, the Senate's role is to give the president its consent for a treaty -- and to recognize that ratifying it is the president's choice.
"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," Goldsmith wrote. "But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing."

F these traitors #2

 

[Nat Algren]

I'm beginning to think G.O.P. stands for Gathering Of Predators.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:

I always like watching Blues Clues with THE_LITTLE_DEVIL

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by joelbc1:
Kudos to the GOP Senator's who did NOT sign this letter. That would include The Chuckster and the Bag Lady, if they didn't participate in this exercise of stupidity.

The GOP as a party never fails to exasperate.

Grassley and Ernst both signed the letter.

And this Lone, does not surprise me in the least. They are unfortunately proving themselves to be tools of the right and not capable of independent thought. However, we get what we vote for in America.
(Lone....the one thing I fear upon my death is justifying to my father why I ever voted (once) for Charles Grassley. This just gives my dad's sentiments regarding Republicans more fodder, I must agree.)

 

[nowalkin]

Chuck's reaching the point where he should probably be the single most independent thinker in the GOP, don't understand why he seems to take up the flag for so many of these stupid GOP moves lately.

Jonibags on the other hand is not someone I would ever expect to deviate from the party line. She's already getting worked like a part-time job by the power-brokers.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by nowalkin:
Chuck's reaching the point where he should probably be the single most independent thinker in the GOP, don't understand why he seems to take up the flag for so many of these stupid GOP moves lately.

Jonibags on the other hand is not someone I would ever expect to deviate from the party line. She's already getting worked like a part-time job by the power-brokers.

Same thing happened to McCain. When you think independantly, the GOP primary voters get rid of you. Apparently holding onto a job in your 70's is very important.

 

[dandh]

After hearing people opine everything from this being no big deal to claims of treason, I decided to read the letter (linked below). It looks to me like a political stick in the eye of Obama, but I can't see why anyone would call it treason. Basically, all it says is that Congress needs to approve actual treaties, that Congressionally unapproved presidential deals are only executive orders, and that executive orders can be reversed by future presidents. And, for a kicker, it reminds the Iranian leaders that most of the Senators who signed the letter will be around a lot longer than President Obama.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that's treason, unless they believe that the office of POTUS carries with it a guarantee that no one can do anything to oppose the President's approach to a problem. It might have been poorly thought out, it clearly appears to exhibit little to no faith in the ability of the President to strike a deal that's good for the country, and it might have been politcally stupid, but I'm don't see anything that could logically be deemed as treasonous to the country.

Just mho.

NYT Link

 

[Mattski]

Originally posted by dandh:
After hearing people opine everything from this being no big deal to claims of treason, I decided to read the letter (linked below). It looks to me like a political stick in the eye of Obama, but I can't see why anyone would call it treason. Basically, all it says is that Congress needs to approve actual treaties, that Congressionally unapproved presidential deals are only executive orders, and that executive orders can be reversed by future presidents. And, for a kicker, it reminds the Iranian leaders that most of the Senators who signed the letter will be around a lot longer than President Obama.



I'm not sure why anyone would think that's treason, unless they believe that the office of POTUS carries with it a guarantee that no one can do anything to oppose the President's approach to a problem. It might have been poorly thought out, it clearly appears to exhibit little to no faith in the ability of the President to strike a deal that's good for the country, and it might have been politcally stupid, but I'm don't see anything that could logically be deemed as treasonous to the country.



Just mho.

Link:
NYT Link

This.
Stupid? Yes. Treason? Give me a break.
All this does is reinforce the fact we need term limits in congress. If both D and R voting blocks would get behind this we could probably make it happen. Get all these people out after 8 yrs max.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[IMCC965]

Tom Cotton was a Congressman before he became a Senator.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by dandh:
After hearing people opine everything from this being no big deal to claims of treason, I decided to read the letter (linked below). It looks to me like a political stick in the eye of Obama, but I can't see why anyone would call it treason. Basically, all it says is that Congress needs to approve actual treaties, that Congressionally unapproved presidential deals are only executive orders, and that executive orders can be reversed by future presidents. And, for a kicker, it reminds the Iranian leaders that most of the Senators who signed the letter will be around a lot longer than President Obama.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that's treason, unless they believe that the office of POTUS carries with it a guarantee that no one can do anything to oppose the President's approach to a problem. It might have been poorly thought out, it clearly appears to exhibit little to no faith in the ability of the President to strike a deal that's good for the country, and it might have been politcally stupid, but I'm don't see anything that could logically be deemed as treasonous to the country.

Just mho.

I don't view it as benignly as you do. First, its not the truth that congress gets to ratify this agreement. This isn't' an arms treaty being negotiated. So the letter is giving false information. Second, the US, not the president, not Obama, the nation is conducting proper foreign affairs negotiations with the aim of preventing war. Into that mix, unauthorized agents are claiming to speak for the US and giving false information with the expressed desire of derailing those negotiations. If congress wanted to have a say, then the entire body should have passed a resolution rather than seeking to neuter the negotiating ability of the nation for political gain. This is more than just stupid.

 

[aflachawk]

Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by aflachawk:
Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

How do you think crippling sanctions will prevent them from getting the bomb? They have the uranium. They have the centrifuges. All they need is time to enrich enough of it and the will to build it. Crippling sanctions ensure they will have both. If you don't have a good answer to that, you may want to be a bit more careful about who you call ignorant liars especially given how often you like to call others out for being uncivil.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by dandh:
After hearing people opine everything from this being no big deal to claims of treason, I decided to read the letter (linked below). It looks to me like a political stick in the eye of Obama, but I can't see why anyone would call it treason. Basically, all it says is that Congress needs to approve actual treaties, that Congressionally unapproved presidential deals are only executive orders, and that executive orders can be reversed by future presidents. And, for a kicker, it reminds the Iranian leaders that most of the Senators who signed the letter will be around a lot longer than President Obama.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that's treason, unless they believe that the office of POTUS carries with it a guarantee that no one can do anything to oppose the President's approach to a problem. It might have been poorly thought out, it clearly appears to exhibit little to no faith in the ability of the President to strike a deal that's good for the country, and it might have been politcally stupid, but I'm don't see anything that could logically be deemed as treasonous to the country.

Just mho.

I don't view it as benignly as you do. First, its not the truth that congress gets to ratify this agreement. This isn't' an arms treaty being negotiated. So the letter is giving false information. Second, the US, not the president, not Obama, the nation is conducting proper foreign affairs negotiations with the aim of preventing war. Into that mix, unauthorized agents are claiming to speak for the US and giving false information with the expressed desire of derailing those negotiations. If congress wanted to have a say, then the entire body should have passed a resolution rather than seeking to neuter the negotiating ability of the nation for political gain. This is more than just stupid.

You need to read the letter. It doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:
Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

How do you think crippling sanctions will prevent them from getting the bomb? They have the uranium. They have the centrifuges. All they need is time to enrich enough of it and the will to build it. Crippling sanctions ensure they will have both. If you don't have a good answer to that, you may want to be a bit more careful about who you call ignorant liars especially given how often you like to call others out for being uncivil.

Wow. You've been taking a lot more personal shots a people the last week or so. You feeling OK, because this isn't like you?

 

[nowalkin]

The only thing that letter said was that the people that wrote it are a bunch of condescending, arrogant pricks. Wow! With lines like "you may not know our President's term is almost up" and "we're all going to be around for decades", I can certainly see why anyone would want to "negotiate" with these clowns. That letter was actually quite disturbing and childish if you ask me.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by dandh:
After hearing people opine everything from this being no big deal to claims of treason, I decided to read the letter (linked below). It looks to me like a political stick in the eye of Obama, but I can't see why anyone would call it treason. Basically, all it says is that Congress needs to approve actual treaties, that Congressionally unapproved presidential deals are only executive orders, and that executive orders can be reversed by future presidents. And, for a kicker, it reminds the Iranian leaders that most of the Senators who signed the letter will be around a lot longer than President Obama.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that's treason, unless they believe that the office of POTUS carries with it a guarantee that no one can do anything to oppose the President's approach to a problem. It might have been poorly thought out, it clearly appears to exhibit little to no faith in the ability of the President to strike a deal that's good for the country, and it might have been politcally stupid, but I'm don't see anything that could logically be deemed as treasonous to the country.

Just mho.

I don't view it as benignly as you do. First, its not the truth that congress gets to ratify this agreement. This isn't' an arms treaty being negotiated. So the letter is giving false information. Second, the US, not the president, not Obama, the nation is conducting proper foreign affairs negotiations with the aim of preventing war. Into that mix, unauthorized agents are claiming to speak for the US and giving false information with the expressed desire of derailing those negotiations. If congress wanted to have a say, then the entire body should have passed a resolution rather than seeking to neuter the negotiating ability of the nation for political gain. This is more than just stupid.

You need to read the letter. It doesn't say what you think it does.

I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

For ease of debate, here is the text of the letter:


It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution - the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices - which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.


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. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.


Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.


For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then - perhaps decades.


What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.


We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.


Sincerely,


Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

Link

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by IMCC965:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:
Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

How do you think crippling sanctions will prevent them from getting the bomb? They have the uranium. They have the centrifuges. All they need is time to enrich enough of it and the will to build it. Crippling sanctions ensure they will have both. If you don't have a good answer to that, you may want to be a bit more careful about who you call ignorant liars especially given how often you like to call others out for being uncivil.

Wow. You've been taking a lot more personal shots a people the last week or so. You feeling OK, because this isn't like you?

How is that a personal attack? I'm calling aflac out for making a personal attack when he claims not to like that sort of debate. Is pointing out hypocrisy now considered some sort of personal shot? That seems a pretty low bar, but I personally enjoy a good dust up.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

Jeez, that's the opposite of what it says. The whole point of the letter is to make it clear that what's being discussed is NOT a treaty between two nations -- which would require congressional participation -- but an agreement between two individual heads of state.

And yes, it is true that once a president is out of office, his administrative orders and executive actions have no legitimacy in U.S. law.

By the way, a reminder: I think the letter is a POS and perhaps a violation of the Logan Act, although no worse than actions in the past by others on the other side. The U.S. can only speak to other countries with one voice. This kind of crap can only confuse things. I fervently wish Iowa's two senators hadn't signed it.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

Jeez, that's the opposite of what it says. The whole point of the letter is to make it clear that what's being discussed is NOT a treaty between two nations -- which would require congressional participation -- but an agreement between two individual heads of state.

And yes, it is true that once a president is out of office, his administrative orders and executive actions have no legitimacy in U.S. law.

By the way, a reminder: I think the letter is a POS and perhaps a violation of the Logan Act, although no worse than actions in the past by others on the other side. The U.S. can only speak to other countries with one voice. This kind of crap can only confuse things. I fervently wish Iowa's two senators hadn't signed it.

I don't think you're correct here. First its not an agreement between two people, but between two governments. Second, executive agreements don't automatically lapse or unravel when a President leaves, they simply are under the discretion of a new President who could change them or not. We have executive agreements that have been in place governing US policy for decades.

 

[gusto79]

Response from Iranian foreign minister. Who's correct? Zarif or the 47 senators?

Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the
Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view,
this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is
very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while
no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so
afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to
unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This
indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential
threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.


Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it
appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own
President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the
open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand
international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their
own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of
foreign policy.


Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point
to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the
United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by
international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully
understand that in international law, governments represent the
entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of
foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake
with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification
for failure to perform their international obligations.


The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration
does not in any way relieve the next administration from international
obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about
Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten
the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with
the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a
blatant violation of international law."


He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement
between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the
participation of five other countries, including all permanent members
of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council
resolution.



Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the
knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international
law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time
as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its
implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US
obligations.


The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US
international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the
signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties
ratified by the Senate.


He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the
credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have
been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.


Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has
entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to
reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove
similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement
possible."

Link

 

[dandh]

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:


I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

Jeez, that's the opposite of what it says.

This.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

Jeez, that's the opposite of what it says. The whole point of the letter is to make it clear that what's being discussed is NOT a treaty between two nations -- which would require congressional participation -- but an agreement between two individual heads of state.

And yes, it is true that once a president is out of office, his administrative orders and executive actions have no legitimacy in U.S. law.

By the way, a reminder: I think the letter is a POS and perhaps a violation of the Logan Act, although no worse than actions in the past by others on the other side. The U.S. can only speak to other countries with one voice. This kind of crap can only confuse things. I fervently wish Iowa's two senators hadn't signed it.

I don't think you're correct here. First its not an agreement between two people, but between two governments. Second, executive agreements don't automatically lapse or unravel when a President leaves, they simply are under the discretion of a new President who could change them or not. We have executive agreements that have been in place governing US policy for decades.
=========
Of course executive agreements have lasted for decades. But ONLY because subsequent executives wanted them to last.

If there's any reason this agreement would have legal status, I'd appreciate knowing what it is. What you are arguing is that Obama has the power to make agreements with foreign powers without involving Congress, but his successor will not.

It's really very simple. If Obama has the power to make an agreement with Iran on his own, then his successor will have the same power.

 

[pablow]

Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are forbidden to have nuclear weapons under it. Just how can Obama enter into an "agreement" that in anyway conflicts with the treaty? And, how does he do it without Senate approval under the US Constitution's treaty clause - "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

I have read it and I don't think it says what you think it says. First, the letter insinuates what is being negotiated as a treaty requiring congressional ratification. It is not. Second the letter insinuates Obama is negotiating on his own behalf and his actions will have no legitimacy in US policy once he is out of office. Thats also not correct. Some (perhaps yourself?) seem to want to characterize this letter as simply a helpful, if naive civics lesson being offered to a foreign leader. That IMO is not correct. This is nefarious effort to get the US into a war with Iran and spill American blood and treasure on behalf of a foreign power.

Jeez, that's the opposite of what it says. The whole point of the letter is to make it clear that what's being discussed is NOT a treaty between two nations -- which would require congressional participation -- but an agreement between two individual heads of state.

And yes, it is true that once a president is out of office, his administrative orders and executive actions have no legitimacy in U.S. law.

By the way, a reminder: I think the letter is a POS and perhaps a violation of the Logan Act, although no worse than actions in the past by others on the other side. The U.S. can only speak to other countries with one voice. This kind of crap can only confuse things. I fervently wish Iowa's two senators hadn't signed it.

I don't think you're correct here. First its not an agreement between two people, but between two governments. Second, executive agreements don't automatically lapse or unravel when a President leaves, they simply are under the discretion of a new President who could change them or not. We have executive agreements that have been in place governing US policy for decades.
=========
Of course executive agreements have lasted for decades. But ONLY because subsequent executives wanted them to last.

If there's any reason this agreement would have legal status, I'd appreciate knowing what it is. What you are arguing is that Obama has the power to make agreements with foreign powers without involving Congress, but his successor will not.

It's really very simple. If Obama has the power to make an agreement with Iran on his own, then his successor will have the same power.

No you're trying too hard, probably those boobs taking your blood supply away. I'm saying its not an Obama agreement. Its a US agreement that would be in place until the US decided it wanted to change it. That's true of most every agreement any nation enters into. This is the traditional way the US conducts foreign policy. For a few Rs in congress to rise up and insinuate to a foreign power that the US will not honor the agreement is false and I believe their motivations are treacherous.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Chapter 45 › § 953[/URL]18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments




Current through Pub. L. Public Laws for the current Congress.)


Notes



next
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Logan Act

 

[pablow]

I doubt if the Logan Act applies to United States Senators.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by pablow:
I doubt if the Logan Act applies to United States Senators.

This - I'd question its constitutionality if it did.