as a Non America i would be interested in hearing a defence of this

[RichD]

Well it would be the only way to explain a so-called Presidential hopefuls and especially a Libertarian such a Rand Paul adding his fingerprints to the Letter.
But if war and profiteering from war is such a central component in the plans of the GOP Presidency it makes you wonder if they have not learned from G.W.'s time in Office?

Is Troika Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld grand fail, only a lesson for Liberals?

I think they really don't care.

For Paul the libertarian mind set is i got mine screw you.

There was a article on slate last week talking about the f...ed up minds of conservatives...look it up its worth a read.

[lonewolf]

While Iran has been a U.S. enemy for some time, no official war declaration exists. It's hard to see how the negotiation of a nuclear deal, or the opposition to one, would rise to the level of treason. What has been perfectly clear since the start of the year is that Congress and the president see the Iran issue through different lenses. From the invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in the House of Representatives without first consulting Obama, to the letter sent to Iranian leaders on Monday, the level of distrust between the two parties has reached new levels.

Bingo...much to do about nothing. It's not treason...no different than when others wanted to impeach Obama.

More partisan posturing and non co-operation by both parties. Again, they both act like spoiled children.

Personally, on the subject of Iran? Why would anyone want Iran or another country in that region to have the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon? Seems foolish to me.


But, I digress...

Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."

The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as United States vs. Belmont (1936), United States vs. Pink (1941), and Dames and Moore vs. Regan (1981).

"Presidents since Washington have concluded such agreements, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has the authority to conclude such agreements," said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service.

The upside of pursuing an executive agreement is that they are easier to negotiate -- they don’t require approval from Congress, which (as the current episode makes clear) removes a major obstacle. The downside of an executive agreement, however, is that it’s easier to reverse.

"It is clear, constitutionally, under internal law, that a future president could do this," said Jeffrey S. Peake, a Clemson University political scientist. Arend concurred that such an action would likely be constitutional.

As for Congress, "what it can do is legislate, and a valid federal statute will prevail in a conflict with an executive agreement," said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania legal scholar. This stems from the Supreme Court decision in Whitney vs. Robertson (1888), which held that a treaty is placed on the same footing as an act of legislation, and that if they cannot coexist, "the one last in date will control the other."

"So in that sense, the senators are right," Roosevelt said.

It’s worth noting that the design of the potential deal with Iran would seem to include a role for Congress in any case. The deal in the making is widely believed to include a temporary lifting of sanctions in the short term, and a permanent lifting of sanctions in the longer term. The temporary easing could be accomplished by the administration, but a permanent easing will most likely require congressional action.

We’ll also note that there is some debate among legal scholars about whether the president alone has the power to negotiate something as major as a deal over nuclear weapons without any say by Congress. However, the senators’ letter suggests they don’t quarrel with the fact that he can do so, at least for an agreement that doesn’t extend beyond his term in office.
The process isn’t so simple

But while there’s support for the senators’ claims, most of our experts added that the letter oversimplified the matters at hand. Here are a few reasons why:

• It is an exaggeration to say that future Congresses could "modify" an agreement "at any time." The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off, Peake said -- something that is hardly a sure thing.

Instead, Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language suggests. "It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority -- two-thirds to override a veto -- for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions," Peake said. "It is very complex."

Cotton's letter was signed by 47 senators, significantly less than the 67 senators needed to override a presidential veto. The 2016 elections are months away, but given the electoral map, it seems unlikely Republicans would be able to pick up that many more seats. Of course, the GOP could win the White House, in which case they may not need to override, but given the typical Senate threshold for taking up legislation, they would still need 60 votes, a challenging task.

• Going back on an executive agreement may violate international law. While Congress has the power to violate international law -- and the ability of the international community to punish a violation is debatable -- "the real question, which I think both sides are missing, is whether overriding would violate international law," which requires compliance with binding agreements, said Michael D. Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego.

• Going back on an executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic credibility. Retreating from one executive agreement would be a pretty radical step historically and could endanger the nation's ability to both ensure that old agreements stand and to strike new agreements.

"For the president to vacate an executive agreement would be quite problematic," Peake said. It "would be largely unprecedented and cause the U.S. a great deal of grief in diplomacy, especially since 95 percent of international agreements are done via executive agreement rather than the constitutional treaty process." Indeed, Peake said, "It could call into question America’s commitment to the vast majority of her international agreements."

Our ruling

The letter written by Cotton said that if Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran, "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 found broad agreement among experts that a future president or a future Congress could indeed undo or modify the kind of agreement that’s currently being negotiated with Iran, but the senators’ letter makes the process sound more clear cut and easier than it actually is.

The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

LOL The plot thickens...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/11/tom-cotton/letter-iran-47-republican-senators-correct-about-c/

[kia027]

Simply put there is a list of 47 people who need to be voted out of congress. Cruz, Rubio, Paul, McConnell & Graham are potential 2016 republican candidates for the position of POTUS. That gives me a lot of people to vote out in the primaries

[lonewolf]

Simply put there is a list of 47 people who need to be voted out of congress. Cruz, Rubio, Paul, McConnell & Graham are potential 2016 republican candidates for the position of POTUS. That gives me a lot of people to vote out in the primaries

I say vote everybody out. Dems and Repubs. Put all new blood in Washington. FIRE THEM ALL!

We have a president without any leadership skills and a congress that refuses to act like adults, and they all put their political party ahead of what's good for the american citizen.

[RichD]

I say vote everybody out. Dems and Repubs. Put all new blood in Washington. FIRE THEM ALL!

We have a president without any leadership skills and a congress that refuses to act like adults, and they all put their political party ahead of what's good for the american citizen.

I wonder how a man with now leadership skills got 50+% of the voting population to follow him? maybe he lost those skills after he got into office?

[kia027]

We have a president without any leadership skills and a congress that refuses to act like adults, and they all put their political party ahead of what's good for the american citizen.

I wonder how a man with now leadership skills got 50+% of the voting population to follow him? maybe he lost those skills after he got into office?

The president does have excellent leadership skills. He does not have time to banter with Congress and people mistake his non involvement in congressional antics as weakness.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008?page=2

[Tuff Gong]

Why does it not sound crazy to you when Obama bypasses congress, which he has done many times?

Do you understand how the American government works, or in this instance how it does not work?

Do you understand the three branches of government, the supposed balance and separation of power under the US constitution?

If you do, could you please explain it to Obama?

Have you finished your homeschooling on the USA Government and the Constitution yet?

We have a president without any leadership skills.

Here is the next Leader Of The Free World:

Huh? Tom Cotton says Iran must be stopped because ‘they already control Tehran’

[COLOR=#999999 !important]DAVID EDWARDS
15 MAR 2015 AT 14:14 ET

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/huh-tom-cotton-says-iran-must-be-stopped-because-they-already-control-tehran/

[/COLOR]

[lonewolf]

Tuff, many, many years ago...what can I teach you? You obviously don't understand it, just like Obama.

Let me give you your first lesson.

US Constitution Article 2 Section 2

With permission from two-thirds of the senators present, the president can make treaties (agreements) with other countries. With the approval of a majority of senators, the president makes a number of key appointments. These include U.S. ambassadors and foreign consuls, Supreme Court justices and federal judges, U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, Cabinet officers, independent agency heads, and members of regulatory commissions. To ensure that the president can fill vacancies when the Senate is not in session, the president can make any of these appointments without Senate approval, but these “recess appointments” end at the end of the next Senate session.

It's cut and clear...GOT IT?

[lonewolf]

The president does have excellent leadership skills. He does not have time to banter with Congress and people mistake his non involvement in congressional antics as weakness.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0141008?page=2

Ahem! The same Rolling Stone that brought us the UVA Rape story?

Rolling Stone Destroyed Its Credibility With Bogus UVA Rape Story ...
https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/....8206;CachedDec 5, 2014 ... Rolling Stone Magazine has lost a good deal -- if not all to many in the media -- of
their credibility publishing a bogus story of a UVA campus

[lonewolf]

It's an OP/ED piece...MEANING OPINION, but based on one's interpretation of the US Constitution.

Obama’s UN Gambit on Iran Deal Trashes the Constitution

Earlier this week, 47 Senate Republicans sent a letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that a nuclear deal struck with their country by President Obama that was not submitted to Congress for ratification would not have the force of law. For this act of lèse-majesté toward the president, Democrats and the mainstream media labeled them as traitors, law-breakers, and obstructionists. There wasn’t much doubt that, as the secretary of state has now admitted, they were right about the deal not being legally binding if went unratified by the Senate. But it now appears their attempt to sound the alarm about the president making an end run around the Constitution’s requirement that treaties be ratified by Congress downplayed the problem. Rather than merely ignoring Congress, the administration will be taking the issue to the United Nations where Security Council votes could not only dismantle the international sanctions imposed on Iran but also impose legal obligations on the United States that might well be binding. In doing so the president is not only displaying contempt for Congress, he’s realizing the worst fears of those who worry about the UN impinging on American sovereignty and the Constitution.


It’s important to clarify what is at stake in this argument about whether Congress should vote on an Iran deal. The administration claims that Congress’s only role in the process would be to eventually vote to eliminate sanctions on Iran if it is deemed in compliance with any arrangement agreed to by the president. Some go even further. Think tank scholar Jeffrey Lewis, who has argued that a bad nuclear deal with Iran that allowed it to become a threshold nuclear power and perhaps eventually a possessor of a weapon is better than no deal at all, told the Daily Beast that “Congress is inventing a role for itself that it doesn’t have” and that the fuss about the UN’s role is just the province of those with “extremist views” about sovereignty.

Lewis is proof that ignorance of the Constitution is no bar to attaining eminence as an “expert” about this issue. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the founding document of our republic is actually quite clear about the “invented” role of the Congress in this business:

[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…

The administration may claim the Iran deal is not a treaty but something else–but that is sheer sophistry, especially given the importance of the issue. Lest there be any doubt about the authority of the executive to act on its own without the advice and consent of the Senate, The Federalist Papers, written by the authors of the document, explain the issue. In Federalist No. 75 written by Alexander Hamilton, the issue is made clear. The Founders believed that it was not wise to let treaties be solely the business of the legislative branch but neither should the president be left on his own to make deals with foreign powers without being held accountable:

However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years’ duration.

This is very much to the point for a president who believes he can override the will of Congress by using executive orders to legislate or to order that laws may not be enforced on immigration. President Obama is not a monarch but an “elective magistrate” whose powers derive from and are constrained by the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold in his oath of office.

But how much more egregious is an action that not only seeks to marginalize or ignore Congress but which empowers international bodies with no accountability to the American people or their Constitution and laws to override the will of the legislature? You don’t have to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist that fears that the United Nations will soon rule in place of the U.S. government to see the problem here. As Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith explains at the Lawfare blog, the decision to use the UN Security Council as the engine for the dismantling of sanctions prior to any vote in Congress on an Iran deal “transforms a non-binding agreement with Iran into a binding obligation under international law.”

Seeking approval of the United Nations rather than that of Congress for an agreement with Iran isn’t merely the act of a partisan who fears that a Republican-controlled Senate will disagree with him. It is a rank act of disrespect for the Constitution and is of a piece with Obama’s theory of government in which the president (so long as his name is Obama) may govern on his own without the restraints the law and our political traditions have imposed on all of his predecessors.

Under these circumstances, all the arguments, pro and con, about the merits or the political utility of the letter by the 47 Senate Republicans are rendered irrelevant. The president has done everything possible to make Iran a partisan issue in which Democrats will feel obligated to support him regardless of their personal convictions about his push for détente with the Islamist regime or the way this endangers Israel and America’s moderate Arab allies. But his decision to go to the UN rather than Congress transforms this from a partisan football to a matter on which all Senators, regardless of party, need to step up and make it clear that they will not let the president trash the Constitution in order to get his way on Iran. Congress must be allowed an up-or-down vote on the Iran deal before it is put into effect. Not the UN

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/13/obamas-un-gambit-on-iran-deal-trashes-the-constitution-congress-senate-letter/

[Wahalla]

Tuff, many, many years ago...what can I teach you? You obviously don't understand it, just like Obama.

Let me give you your first lesson.





It's cut and clear...GOT IT?

Not quite that cut and dry.... Given that the president was set by Jefferson one of the Framers of the constituion was the first to ignore the senate ratification... He did the Louisiana purchase and treaty without he approval of the Senate... He then did a treaty woith the North African Pirate states without approval...

Roosevelt did a number of treaties without prior approval, so did Reagan, Salt Treaties approved post signing...

If the Senate pulls a negotiated treaty then the US would lose all credibility worldwide future. treaties, trade agreements with the US would become impossible and Presidents would never be able to negotiate with any other country...

The US needs to engage with Iran.... And this is the best relationships has been with Iran for the past forty years....

(I actually got what scott said when he badly phrased that quote)

[RichD]

Tuff, many, many years ago...what can I teach you? You obviously don't understand it, just like Obama.

Let me give you your first lesson.





It's cut and clear...GOT IT?

is is not actually as cut an clear as you pretend it to be.

does the president require the consent of the senate to negotiate? when does a agreement become a treaty?

if the agreement involes multiple parties does the president need to consent of the senate to enter the discussion?

[lonewolf]

is is not actually as cut an clear as you pretend it to be.

does the president require the consent of the senate to negotiate? when does a agreement become a treaty?

if the agreement involes multiple parties does the president need to consent of the senate to enter the discussion?

You make a point, if it was clear cut to everyone, we would not be having this discussion...and I don't pretend anything. If you read it as written without taking the liberty to invent something else, it does not pretend to be anything different, but what is written.

So, that said, it's clear cut to me. It's a slippery slope when one man starts to make law of the land.

The American ideal is that we are “a nation of laws, not of men,” as John Adams
put it.

[lonewolf]

Given that the president was set by Jefferson one of the Framers of the constituion was the first to ignore the senate ratification... He did the Louisiana purchase and treaty without he approval of the Senate... He then did a treaty woith the North African Pirate states without approval...

Roosevelt did a number of treaties without prior approval, so did Reagan, Salt Treaties approved post signing...

That may be true, but it does not make it right.

If the Senate pulls a negotiated treaty then the US would lose all credibility worldwide future. treaties, trade agreements with the US would become impossible and Presidents would never be able to negotiate with any other country...

Im not concerned about that. I'm more concerned about the president circumventing congress. The law is about checks and balances. It's there for a reason.

[lonewolf]

Hmmm....

Why Netanyahu Victory Augurs Well for Republicans in 2016
March 18th, 2015 - 9:07 am


Read more: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/...#ixzz3UmF6Yapf

Why has Barack Obama been reluctant to congratulate Bibi Netanyahu for his surprising and smashing electoral victory in this week’s Israeli elections, aside from the obvious childish personal enmity?

It couldn’t be more obvious. Obama — never a gracious man — is seeing the bad handwriting on the wall. Israel, like America, has a “silent majority” and they have stood up tall in opposition to so-called liberalism/progressivism and defeatism against Islamic terror. That same “silent majority” is very likely to stand up again in this country in 2016 for similar reasons. They already did in 2014 — and they could go further, unraveling all of Obama’s policies and destroying his legacy.

The astonishing size of the Likud victory — the party was predicted in polls to lose by 3-4 Knesset seats and ended up winning by 5-6 — suggests the “silent majority” phenomenon of people quietly becoming fed up with being force-fed by liberal elites. If you read mainstream media coverage today, you see those same media having quasi-nervous breakdowns. Suddenly they are disenchanted with democracy.

And this all happened despite Obama’s get-out-the-vote henchmen being sent over to Israel — with a yet unclear degree of administration backing — to support the Zionist Union (i. e. Labor Party) opposition to Likud with all their modern electoral techniques that were so successful in 2012. This makes their failure all the more glaring — and disturbing to the administration.

Another loser in all this is Obama’s Iran deal, assuming that would ever happen anyway. It makes the 47 senators who sent an open letter to Khamenei seem more than ever the deliverers of simple truth.

As for all the brouhaha about a Palestinian state — Bibi apparently pledged no Pal state in the final days of the election — this is irrelevant. As of now, and as of the last 25 or so years since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have shown no real interest in a two-state solution, other than for propaganda purposes. When discussions get serious, they always run for the proverbial hills. The idea that Obama and Kerry are going to solve this in 20 months of their administration is somewhere south of silly.

This election is good news. Time for the GOP to redouble their efforts for 2016.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/03/18/why-netanyahu-victory-augurs-well-for-republicans-in-2016/