47 acts of treason?

[downtown hawk redux]

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

Are Senators not US citizens?


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.

So what injury has this diplomacy done to them? And then why would they seek redress from Iranian mullahs? Hell, most of these guys, based on the letter I read don't even understand the American legal system but that doesn't stop them from lecturing others on its meaning. This letter was quite possibly the dumbest letter I have ever read, but then look where it came from.

I don't think anybody will be prosecuted under the Logan Act, but I wish they would be.



This post was edited on 3/10 5:08 PM by downtown hawk redux

 

[THE_DEVIL]

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

Why wouldn't it?

Not trolling, a serious question as I am not well versed in the spider web of intricacies of interpreting constitutional law

 

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by dandh:

Oh yes, the absolute refuge for the stupid and clueless. Find some old photo that has no relevance to the situation at hand and post it as if it has some great moral equivalency. I am amazingly unsurprised by this or that you wouldn't understand the gravity of what happened or what it means. Forget for a second the complete and utter lack of respect for the office of the President. But here's the absolute truth here: Had this been done by 47 Democrats (which in my mind would be just as detrimental and appalling), well your old hacky political self would be on here screaming bloody murder, right? So it becomes easy to dismiss you as having nothing more of substance to offer.

 

[aflachawk]

For months now our POTUS has shown utter contempt for Congressional powers and the separation of powers doctrine. Almost to a person, the libs on this board have cheered him on. Now Congress shows contempt for POTUS powers and you are talking treason and aghast at the act? What a bunch of self righteous, sanctimonious BS

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by aflachawk:
For months now our POTUS has shown utter contempt for Congressional powers and the separation of powers doctrine. Almost to a person, the libs on this board have cheered him on. Now Congress shows contempt for POTUS powers and you are talking treason and aghast at the act? What a bunch of self righteous, sanctimonious BS

False equivalence aside, at least you admit they're guilty.

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by IMCC965:
Tom Cotton was a Congressman before he became a Senator.

But he still lived in Arkansas.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by IMCC965:
Tom Cotton was a Congressman before he became a Senator.

But he still lived in Arkansas.

Well...................can't argue with this.

 

[IMCC965]

Originally posted by aflachawk:
For months now our POTUS has shown utter contempt for Congressional powers and the separation of powers doctrine. Almost to a person, the libs on this board have cheered him on. Now Congress shows contempt for POTUS powers and you are talking treason and aghast at the act? What a bunch of self righteous, sanctimonious BS

 

[joelbc1]

FWIW, today I mailed BOTH my US Senator's and congratulated them for demonstrating their fool heartedness for all to see. Their signature on the letter to the government of Iran was such a classy move.

 

[Arbitr8]

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]
Did 47 U.S. Senators Just Commit Treason By Attempting to Sabotage Iran Scheme?

FIFY

And the answer is no.

 

[Lone Clone]

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

It absolutely, positively applies to United States senators.

There was talk about it when Harkin, et al, sent the "Dear Comandante" letter to Ortega.

I don't think the Act has ever been invoked. Not once.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by 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.

I know what you're saying. It's just so obviously wrong that I'm amazed you keep saying it. Especially since after saying it, you proceed to explain why what you said is wrong. And apparently don't realize what you wrote.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by 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.

I know what you're saying. It's just so obviously wrong that I'm amazed you keep saying it. Especially since after saying it, you proceed to explain why what you said is wrong. And apparently don't realize what you wrote.

I'm certainly not above losing my own narrative, but you are correct in assuming that realization remains elusive. Maybe you could take pity on me and break it down?

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by 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.

I know what you're saying. It's just so obviously wrong that I'm amazed you keep saying it. Especially since after saying it, you proceed to explain why what you said is wrong. And apparently don't realize what you wrote.

I'm certainly not above losing my own narrative, but you are correct in assuming that realization remains elusive. Maybe you could take pity on me and break it down?

Tom Cotton is a fool. These guys are starting to act like the House. They will not be prosecuted but they clearly broke the law and the world knows it. Instead of acting like a deliberative body, they acted like a bunch of undisciplined drunk cowboys shooting up the town on a Saturday night.

 

[dandh]

It depends on what the phrase "without authority of the United States" means regarding whether it applies to Senators. If they're acting within the course of their authority under the Constitution, then it would not apply to them. I'm guessing that's the argument they'd make , and the main reason no one's ever tried to apply it.

This post was edited on 3/11 2:47 AM by dandh

 

[pepsicock]

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by 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.

I know what you're saying. It's just so obviously wrong that I'm amazed you keep saying it. Especially since after saying it, you proceed to explain why what you said is wrong. And apparently don't realize what you wrote.

I'm certainly not above losing my own narrative, but you are correct in assuming that realization remains elusive. Maybe you could take pity on me and break it down?

What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:

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

Why wouldn't it?

Not trolling, a serious question as I am not well versed in the spider web of intricacies of interpreting constitutional law

The Senate under the Treaty Clause is given co-equal authority to participate in and ratify treaties. This would certainly constitute "authority of the United States." The authority comes directly from the constitution. The president can't revoke it.

Also Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under its terms is forbidden to have nuclear weapons. So there is in fact a treaty in play here, not just a potential presidential agreement.


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..."

Logan Act:

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

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:

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

Why wouldn't it?

Not trolling, a serious question as I am not well versed in the spider web of intricacies of interpreting constitutional law

The Senate under the Treaty Clause is given co-equal authority to participate in and ratify treaties. This would certainly constitute "authority of the United States." The authority comes directly from the constitution. The president can't revoke it.

Also Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under its terms is forbidden to have nuclear weapons. So there is in fact a treaty in play here, not just a potential presidential agreement.


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..."

Logan Act:
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

There is a huge difference between the Senate and one (or more) of its members.

The Senate, as an institution, can do any number of things that its members cannot do. Pass laws, for starters. Participate in treaties, for another.

Moreover, although it doesn't really matter in this case, the Senate and President do not have equal roles, in the sense that either can institute the act. It's like appointments. The Senate must advise and consent to a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court, for example, but the Senate cannot appoint justices. Similarly, the Senate cannot institute treaty negotiations with a foreign power and then present the result to the president for approval.

The Logan Act may well be unconstitutional. It's awfully broad. It could be interpreted to prevent just about any contact between an American and a foreign entity, like a car company negotiating an import fee or something like that.

But the need for something like this is pretty obvious. Foreign powers need to know who they're dealing with; they can't be expected to negotiate without knowing whether the entity with whom they are dealing has the power to deal. And we can't abide a situation where a foreign power can pick and choose which position offered by various political factions in the U.S. it wants to accept.

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:

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

Why wouldn't it?

Not trolling, a serious question as I am not well versed in the spider web of intricacies of interpreting constitutional law

The Senate under the Treaty Clause is given co-equal authority to participate in and ratify treaties. This would certainly constitute "authority of the United States." The authority comes directly from the constitution. The president can't revoke it.

Also Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under its terms is forbidden to have nuclear weapons. So there is in fact a treaty in play here, not just a potential presidential agreement.


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..."

Logan Act:
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

There is a huge difference between the Senate and one (or more) of its members.

The Senate, as an institution, can do any number of things that its members cannot do. Pass laws, for starters. Participate in treaties, for another.

Moreover, although it doesn't really matter in this case, the Senate and President do not have equal roles, in the sense that either can institute the act. It's like appointments. The Senate must advise and consent to a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court, for example, but the Senate cannot appoint justices. Similarly, the Senate cannot institute treaty negotiations with a foreign power and then present the result to the president for approval.

The Logan Act may well be unconstitutional. It's awfully broad. It could be interpreted to prevent just about any contact between an American and a foreign entity, like a car company negotiating an import fee or something like that.

But the need for something like this is pretty obvious. Foreign powers need to know who they're dealing with; they can't be expected to negotiate without knowing whether the entity with whom they are dealing has the power to deal. And we can't abide a situation where a foreign power can pick and choose which position offered by various political factions in the U.S. it wants to accept.

The "authority" necessary to defeat a criminal prosecution of a senator under the Logan Act and the "authority" given the Senate to act as an institution under the constitution are not the same. Criminal statutes that arguable reach into the political and First Amendment spheres are construed so as not to stifle free speech or political process.

Thus, it's very doubtful the Supreme Court [or any federal court] would attach your hyper-technical and narrow definition of "authority" to a criminal statute.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.

This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Originally posted by pablow:

Why wouldn't it?

Not trolling, a serious question as I am not well versed in the spider web of intricacies of interpreting constitutional law

The Senate under the Treaty Clause is given co-equal authority to participate in and ratify treaties. This would certainly constitute "authority of the United States." The authority comes directly from the constitution. The president can't revoke it.

Also Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under its terms is forbidden to have nuclear weapons. So there is in fact a treaty in play here, not just a potential presidential agreement.


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..."

Logan Act:
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

There is a huge difference between the Senate and one (or more) of its members.

The Senate, as an institution, can do any number of things that its members cannot do. Pass laws, for starters. Participate in treaties, for another.

Moreover, although it doesn't really matter in this case, the Senate and President do not have equal roles, in the sense that either can institute the act. It's like appointments. The Senate must advise and consent to a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court, for example, but the Senate cannot appoint justices. Similarly, the Senate cannot institute treaty negotiations with a foreign power and then present the result to the president for approval.

The Logan Act may well be unconstitutional. It's awfully broad. It could be interpreted to prevent just about any contact between an American and a foreign entity, like a car company negotiating an import fee or something like that.

But the need for something like this is pretty obvious. Foreign powers need to know who they're dealing with; they can't be expected to negotiate without knowing whether the entity with whom they are dealing has the power to deal. And we can't abide a situation where a foreign power can pick and choose which position offered by various political factions in the U.S. it wants to accept.

The "authority" necessary to defeat a criminal prosecution of a senator under the Logan Act and the "authority" given the Senate to act as an institution under the constitution are not the same. Criminal statutes that arguable reach into the political and First Amendment spheres are construed so as not to stifle free speech or political process.

Thus, it's very doubtful the Supreme Court [or any federal court] would attach your hyper-technical and narrow definition of "authority" to a criminal statute.

Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

I think I said I wouldn't be surprised if the Logan Act was unconstitutional. I think Jane Fonda could have been convicted of treason, and charges might have been brought....IF war had been declared. There was talk about this at the time.

In terms of Devil's question about whether there was anything a Senator might do that could relate do this act, my first candidate would be Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov in 1983. If that didn't qualify under the Logan Act, nothing would.

For those of you who missed the story, which is most people, Kennedy offered to help Andropov get the better of Reagan on disarmament talks if the Soviets would help the Democrats beat Reagan in '84. As one might imagine, most of the U.S. news media didn't consider this worth mentioning. But it's a matter of record. You can go to the Forbes story linked here, or simply Google to find other sources.

No story here

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.

This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will not be legally binding.

This post was edited on 3/11 2:13 PM by Lone Clone

Not that he knows anything about the subject, but.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.


This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will have no legal standing.

I had never heard that story and it was an interesting read. I think that contact, if true and provable, would constitute treason. The key is provable. I don't know that a document pulled from the archives of a competing power would be enough to convict. I wonder if was interviewed? Did he deny the story?

 

[pablow]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

I think I said I wouldn't be surprised if the Logan Act was unconstitutional. I think Jane Fonda could have been convicted of treason, and charges might have been brought....IF war had been declared. There was talk about this at the time.

In terms of Devil's question about whether there was anything a Senator might do that could relate do this act, my first candidate would be Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov in 1983. If that didn't qualify under the Logan Act, nothing would.

For those of you who missed the story, which is most people, Kennedy offered to help Andropov get the better of Reagan on disarmament talks if the Soviets would help the Democrats beat Reagan in '84. As one might imagine, most of the U.S. news media didn't consider this worth mentioning. But it's a matter of record. You can go to the Forbes story linked here, or simply Google to find other sources.

Wow. Ted's just like his father. Amazing.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.

This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will not be legally binding.

This post was edited on 3/11 2:13 PM by Lone Clone

Kudos, thats a good rhetorical point. Did you notice that the article also buttresses mine that these agreements are between nations, not individuals and last as long as nations continue to heed them?

 

[llhcatsports]

What amazes me is how the Congress has not impeached and convicted Barack Hussein Obama when he has gone against the Constitution more times than I can count. I agree with aflachawk. And yet they impeached Bill Clinton so quickly for just a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky which was just a small thing compared to the acts/inactions by Barack Hussein Obama. This guy BHO has done more to send this country down the proverbial toilet than any President in our history as far as I am concerned. Any deal with Iran is not worth the paper upon which it is written. You cannot trust Iran at all. I guess some of you will be surprised when the next attack on our soil by these extremist jihadist terrorists based in Iran, however, I will not be the least bit surprised when this happens. People here seem to think the US is now safer than ever (according to the libs), but with all of the terrorists just pouring into this country from both the north and south borders, it is inevitable that we will see more attacks like 9/11/2001 or Pear Harbor. Go ahead and hate on me and aflachawk all you want, I do not care.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

I think I said I wouldn't be surprised if the Logan Act was unconstitutional. I think Jane Fonda could have been convicted of treason, and charges might have been brought....IF war had been declared. There was talk about this at the time.

In terms of Devil's question about whether there was anything a Senator might do that could relate do this act, my first candidate would be Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov in 1983. If that didn't qualify under the Logan Act, nothing would.

For those of you who missed the story, which is most people, Kennedy offered to help Andropov get the better of Reagan on disarmament talks if the Soviets would help the Democrats beat Reagan in '84. As one might imagine, most of the U.S. news media didn't consider this worth mentioning. But it's a matter of record. You can go to the Forbes story linked here, or simply Google to find other sources.

Tit for tat for Jimmy Carter I would guess.

 

[rocketclone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.


This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will not be legally binding.


This post was edited on 3/11 2:13 PM by Lone Clone

Kudos, thats a good rhetorical point. Did you notice that the article also buttresses mine that these agreements are between nations, not individuals and last as long as nations continue to heed them?

From everything I have heard or read, this is like and Executive Order but most call it an Executive Action and it sounds like it can be undone after the President leaves office.

Why not just try and work with congress and get something in place.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by rocketclone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.


This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will not be legally binding.


This post was edited on 3/11 2:13 PM by Lone Clone

Kudos, thats a good rhetorical point. Did you notice that the article also buttresses mine that these agreements are between nations, not individuals and last as long as nations continue to heed them?

From everything I have heard or read, this is like and Executive Order but most call it an Executive Action and it sounds like it can be undone after the President leaves office.

Why not just try and work with congress and get something in place.

Thats true. Its also true that over 90% of our international agreements are done this way. This is normal. As to why you don't work with congress, well this stunt pretty much makes that clear.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

I think I said I wouldn't be surprised if the Logan Act was unconstitutional. I think Jane Fonda could have been convicted of treason, and charges might have been brought....IF war had been declared. There was talk about this at the time.

In terms of Devil's question about whether there was anything a Senator might do that could relate do this act, my first candidate would be Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov in 1983. If that didn't qualify under the Logan Act, nothing would.

For those of you who missed the story, which is most people, Kennedy offered to help Andropov get the better of Reagan on disarmament talks if the Soviets would help the Democrats beat Reagan in '84. As one might imagine, most of the U.S. news media didn't consider this worth mentioning. But it's a matter of record. You can go to the Forbes story linked here, or simply Google to find other sources.

Tit for tat for Jimmy Carter I would guess.

If you're referring to Carter undermining Clinton's negotiations with North Korea -- for which a number of people in the Clinton camp wanted to invoke the Logan Act -- no, it isn't the same thing, but it's close.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by rocketclone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

What the letter says -- and what you say in your penultimate post -- is that a presidential agreement equals a U.S. agreement and remains in force until revoked or superceded by another U.S. agreement. You and the senators are in complete agreement on this key point. What President Obama created with a stroke of his pen, President Cruz can alter or eliminate with a stroke of his pen. Surely you do not deny this?

I don't deny that as I have said that. What I do deny is that the Senators are in complete agreement with me. The letter reads "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.[/I]"

You have said as much in this thread too and that is simply not correct. It will be and congress will be forced to accept it as a legitimate international agreement between the governments of the US and Iran and it will remain in effect with the full force of law unless some future action is specifically taken to nullify the agreement, the same as any other.


This post was edited on 3/11 11:14 AM by naturalmwa

You'd better get the word to John F. Kerry as soon as possible. He thinks the agreement will not be legally binding.


This post was edited on 3/11 2:13 PM by Lone Clone

Kudos, thats a good rhetorical point. Did you notice that the article also buttresses mine that these agreements are between nations, not individuals and last as long as nations continue to heed them?

From everything I have heard or read, this is like and Executive Order but most call it an Executive Action and it sounds like it can be undone after the President leaves office.

Why not just try and work with congress and get something in place.

Thats true. Its also true that over 90% of our international agreements are done this way. This is normal. As to why you don't work with congress, well this stunt pretty much makes that clear.

Holy shit, natural, you are really struggling here. Nobody ever said this was an unusual situation. To the contrary, the letter points out how it works. Presidents have policies, including international policies, that are considered to be the position of the nation. THAT IS WHY THE LOGAN ACT WAS WRITTEN. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THESE POLICIES.

Sorry for the shouting, but simply citing rational, logical facts hasn't gotten through to you in this thread.

The president's policies remain in effect until he, or a subsequent president, changes them. Does Gitmo ring a bell? Blanket amnesty for immigrants? Declaration of Be Kind To HROT Posters Day?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by pablow:

Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Thanks for the response. Seems clear enough to me that even if one thought the act applies, the fight in the courts would be a loser. Let me pick your brain again. Do you think there is anything in this area that a senator(s) could do that would relate to this act or would it have to be strictly non lawmakers acting like f' tards?

First of all, I'm no genius - I just work in this area (constitutional law). Two, I don't have an informed opinion about these 47 Senators and whether they are DBs, for lack of a better word.

So, IMO, the Logan Act looks to be void for vagueness due to its imprecise language and potential to intrude into protected speech, and in particular, political speech. Nevertheless, I would think that the President and Senate should be entitled to an even larger comfort zone because the US Constitution assigns Treaty authority to each. A House member would have a harder argument. It sure would be interesting to see if a Jane Fonda could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I'd bet that she couldn't. The notion of "chilling effect" come in too - the law itself, whether enforced or not, can inhibit protective speech. When it comes to the First Amendment we don't ask citizens to error on the side of caution.

This whole issue would be a great assignment for a law school class.

I think I said I wouldn't be surprised if the Logan Act was unconstitutional. I think Jane Fonda could have been convicted of treason, and charges might have been brought....IF war had been declared. There was talk about this at the time.

In terms of Devil's question about whether there was anything a Senator might do that could relate do this act, my first candidate would be Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov in 1983. If that didn't qualify under the Logan Act, nothing would.

For those of you who missed the story, which is most people, Kennedy offered to help Andropov get the better of Reagan on disarmament talks if the Soviets would help the Democrats beat Reagan in '84. As one might imagine, most of the U.S. news media didn't consider this worth mentioning. But it's a matter of record. You can go to the Forbes story linked here, or simply Google to find other sources.

Tit for tat for Jimmy Carter I would guess.

If you're referring to Carter undermining Clinton's negotiations with North Korea -- for which a number of people in the Clinton camp wanted to invoke the Logan Act -- no, it isn't the same thing, but it's close.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Holy shit, natural, you are really struggling here. Nobody ever said this was an unusual situation. To the contrary, the letter points out how it works. Presidents have policies, including international policies, that are considered to be the position of the nation. THAT IS WHY THE LOGAN ACT WAS WRITTEN. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THESE POLICIES.

Sorry for the shouting, but simply citing rational, logical facts hasn't gotten through to you in this thread.

The president's policies remain in effect until he, or a subsequent president, changes them. Does Gitmo ring a bell? Blanket amnesty for immigrants? Declaration of Be Kind To HROT Posters Day?

I didn't dispute any of this, but you had and the letter did. Thanks for finally admitting the executive agreement doesn't end with the administration. We are now on the same page.

 

[tWarnerHawk]

Originally posted by llhcatsports:
What amazes me is how the Congress has not impeached and convicted Barack Hussein Obama when he has gone against the Constitution more times than I can count. I agree with aflachawk. And yet they impeached Bill Clinton so quickly for just a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky which was just a small thing compared to the acts/inactions by Barack Hussein Obama. This guy BHO has done more to send this country down the proverbial toilet than any President in our history as far as I am concerned. Any deal with Iran is not worth the paper upon which it is written. You cannot trust Iran at all. I guess some of you will be surprised when the next attack on our soil by these extremist jihadist terrorists based in Iran, however, I will not be the least bit surprised when this happens. People here seem to think the US is now safer than ever (according to the libs), but with all of the terrorists just pouring into this country from both the north and south borders, it is inevitable that we will see more attacks like 9/11/2001 or Pear Harbor. Go ahead and hate on me and aflachawk all you want, I do not care.

The message this letter sent is that we cannot be trusted because any agreement won't last after Obama is gone. Think about it...

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by llhcatsports:
What amazes me is how the Congress has not impeached and convicted Barack Hussein Obama when he has gone against the Constitution more times than I can count. I agree with aflachawk. And yet they impeached Bill Clinton so quickly for just a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky which was just a small thing compared to the acts/inactions by Barack Hussein Obama. This guy BHO has done more to send this country down the proverbial toilet than any President in our history as far as I am concerned. Any deal with Iran is not worth the paper upon which it is written. You cannot trust Iran at all. I guess some of you will be surprised when the next attack on our soil by these extremist jihadist terrorists based in Iran, however, I will not be the least bit surprised when this happens. People here seem to think the US is now safer than ever (according to the libs), but with all of the terrorists just pouring into this country from both the north and south borders, it is inevitable that we will see more attacks like 9/11/2001 or Pear Harbor. Go ahead and hate on me and aflachawk all you want, I do not care.

Probably a good reason to continue to finance Home Land Security. I hope my con / Repubber friends here read this post, too.

 

[wildcatdad]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by llhcatsports:
What amazes me is how the Congress has not impeached and convicted Barack Hussein Obama when he has gone against the Constitution more times than I can count. I agree with aflachawk. And yet they impeached Bill Clinton so quickly for just a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky which was just a small thing compared to the acts/inactions by Barack Hussein Obama. This guy BHO has done more to send this country down the proverbial toilet than any President in our history as far as I am concerned. Any deal with Iran is not worth the paper upon which it is written. You cannot trust Iran at all. I guess some of you will be surprised when the next attack on our soil by these extremist jihadist terrorists based in Iran, however, I will not be the least bit surprised when this happens. People here seem to think the US is now safer than ever (according to the libs), but with all of the terrorists just pouring into this country from both the north and south borders, it is inevitable that we will see more attacks like 9/11/2001 or Pear Harbor. Go ahead and hate on me and aflachawk all you want, I do not care.

Probably a good reason to continue to finance Home Land Security. I hope my con / Repubber friends here read this post, too.




I cannot quite discern if the pubs want to withdraw from the world and put a fence around the USA or if they want to blow it up and kill anyone who disagrees with them. I am leaning towards the latter Neanderthal Con thinking.

I think the Cons have finally lost it and we are seeing how they will conduct our government, for our own good you understand.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lindsey-graham-as-president-i-would-deploy-the-military-against-congress/ar-AA9F1fS

This post was edited on 3/12 2:01 AM by wildcatdad

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Holy shit, natural, you are really struggling here. Nobody ever said this was an unusual situation. To the contrary, the letter points out how it works. Presidents have policies, including international policies, that are considered to be the position of the nation. THAT IS WHY THE LOGAN ACT WAS WRITTEN. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THESE POLICIES.

Sorry for the shouting, but simply citing rational, logical facts hasn't gotten through to you in this thread.

The president's policies remain in effect until he, or a subsequent president, changes them. Does Gitmo ring a bell? Blanket amnesty for immigrants? Declaration of Be Kind To HROT Posters Day?

I didn't dispute any of this, but you had and the letter did. Thanks for finally admitting the executive agreement doesn't end with the administration. We are now on the same page.

Amazing. Simply amazing. And with the comments readily available for review. You clearly have lost it on this topic.