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

[Tuff Gong]

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?

I beg to differ. In this matter you clearly did not/still don't understand it.

[Tuff Gong]

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

In this matter the negotiations with Iran on Nuclear Enrichment and Weapons programme. What Law did the current President Of the USA make?

[RichD]

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.

so since its so clear to you


here is the actual wording

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

what exactly are they saying? base don your reading where is the president in violation of this section?

he is negotiating..when does a negotiation become a treaty?

[RichD]

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/...icans-in-2016/

your reading choices are very interesting...

[lonewolf]

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that was not dependent upon congressional delegation.

You are basing your opinion on a supreme court decision, not on constitutional authority. The president of the United States is bound by the Constitution. I'm basing my opinion on constitutional authority.

In this matter the negotiations with Iran on Nuclear Enrichment and Weapons programme. What Law did the current President Of the USA make?

I'm using "law of the land" as a metaphor, as you used the word "king" as how Obama had the power in making deals with Iran. If he was "king" he would be one man making "law of the land". This is exactly what the founding fathers of our country wanted to eliminate. No king or one man would have absolute power. Show me where "executive agreements" are mentioned in the Constitution. The president cannot make "executive agreements" or "international agreements". Therefore they are invalid.The president has the right to negotiate treaties and that's it, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. If it's not in the constituion, it's not valid. The president is bound by the Constitution, he has no authority except what is delegated by the Constitution.

[lonewolf]

your reading choices are very interesting...

It's an op/ed piece with an opposing view. I read both sides of an arguement and posted this to provoke or provoke thought. It does not mean I agree or disagree with all that it is in the article.

Who else on this site is going to post an opposing view about Obama...LOL Ya know with you and Tuff having the huge man crush on Obama that you both have.


I did not question your reading choice of the op/ed piece below calling Americans stupid?

Do you agree with the article you posted. Like you I found it very interesting?

Originally Posted by RichD
GOP Iran Letter Was A Push For A Regime Change War And Defense Industry Profits


By: Rmusemore from Rmuse
Wednesday, March, 11th, 2015, 9:37 am.

[Tuff Gong]

You are basing your opinion on a supreme court decision, not on constitutional authority. The president of the United States is bound by the Constitution. I'm basing my opinion on constitutional authority.

You are a joke.
Before you reply.
Please get some knowledge of how the USA Government works.
What is the document called the USA Constitution
What is the SCOTUS
How can decisions of the SCOTUS act to interpret/expand/constrain the actions of the Executive based on the USA Constitution.

[lonewolf]

You are a joke.
Before you reply.
Please get some knowledge of how the USA Government works.
What is the document called the USA Constitution
What is the SCOTUS
How can decisions of the SCOTUS act to interpret/expand/constrain the actions of the Executive based on the USA Constitution.

And you are clueless idiot that refuses to post any information from the constitution to back up your arguement because you know you can't, because it does not exist.

You are stalling to try to save face. Asking me questions that you cannot answer does not support your cause.
Here is a novel approach. You answer your own questions and present that as a rebuttal....LOL imagine that?

So, either put up or your shut up...you are good at insults but lousy at backing up your arguements with any qualifying information.

LOL You are F'N mental case, without any skills to debate. If you are so sure of yourself, and that I'm wrong, POST PROOF SUPPORTING YOUR CASE...It's really that simple...Maybe you should stick to fixing mopeds?

[Tuff Gong]

And you are clueless idiot that refuses to post any information from the constitution to back up your arguement because you know you can't, because it does not exist.

You are stalling to try to save face. Asking me questions that you cannot answer does not support your cause.
Here is a novel approach. You answer your own questions and present that as a rebuttal....LOL imagine that?

So, either put up or your shut up...you are good at insults but lousy at backing up your arguements with any qualifying information.

LOL You are F'N mental case, without any skills to debate. If you are so sure of yourself, and that I'm wrong, POST PROOF SUPPORTING YOUR CASE...It's really that simple...Maybe you should stick to fixing mopeds?

I am stalling to save face?
What case am I supposed to be supporting?

This is your claim:

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?

On all counts you are wrong.

A. The President has not bypassed Congress many times. He has used Executive Orders less than any Post-War President.

B. You clearly did not up to this point understand how the USA Government works since you seem to saying that the President's negotiations with Iran has unconstitutionally bypassed Congress and are illegal?

C. On the Three Branches of Government you clearly do not understand that decisions in the SCOTUS are the Law of the Land and the the SCOTUS has the power to interpret the Constitution as in the case of: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

So how am I a stalling when I am merely questioning you on what you have posted here and have posted facts to show you don't know jack what you are talking about?

[lonewolf]

TuffGong, I'm not disputing the historical facts as they stand.(United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) or that past presidencies have also violated Constituion)

I'm simply stating, regardless, THAT IT IS WRONG. And, using President Obama's past statements(He is on the record) that he is in agreement with me. But, he says one thing and he does another.


President Obama said...

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

“

I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

“

“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

[Tuff Gong]

TuffGong, I'm not disputing the historical facts as they stand.(United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) or that past presidencies have also violated Constituion)

I'm simply stating, regardless, THAT IT IS WRONG.
“

Are you serious?
(United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, is settled Law Of the Land. President Barack Hussein Obama has plenary authority to negotiate with Iran on Nuclear Enrichment and Nuclear Arms. It is as simple as that!

[lonewolf]

Are you serious?
(United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, is settled Law Of the Land. President Barack Hussein Obama has plenary authority to negotiate with Iran on Nuclear Enrichment and Nuclear Arms. It is as simple as that!

Well, yeah...it's the present day interpretation of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp that I have a problem with... Do you know where I'm going with this?

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, Congress issued a Joint Resolution that authorized the President, to prohibit the sale of arms to Bolivia. So, congress was involved and agreed in the decision.

In my opinion, the Iran Nucs deal is abusing this United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp supreme court decision, because congress is not involved with (and against) the Iran decision, as Congress was directly involved and in agreement with President Roosevelt in stopping Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. from selling machine guns to Bolivia.

Now, whether you agree with me or not, you have to at least understand my point.

[Tuff Gong]

Well, yeah...it's the present day interpretation of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp that I have a problem with... Do you know where I'm going with this?

In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, Congress issued a Joint Resolution that authorized the President, to prohibit the sale of arms to Bolivia. So, congress was involved and agreed in the decision.

My friend to paraphrase Jerry Brown: You betoken a level of ignorance unseen and unheard of in all my lifetime.
Dude, it does not matter where the original resolution re Curtiss-Wright Export Corp originated. The fact it it ended up in SCOTUS. The majority decision rendered byJustice Sutherland, is the POTUS has Plenary Authority to negotiate with Foreign Governments. So the next any POTUS wants to talk to Iran, he or she does not need to go to Congress. It is not unconstitutional.

[lonewolf]

My friend to paraphrase Jerry Brown: You betoken a level of ignorance unseen and unheard of in all my lifetime.
Dude, it does not matter where the original resolution re Curtiss-Wright Export Corp originated. The fact it it ended up in SCOTUS. The majority decision rendered byJustice Sutherland, is the POTUS has Plenary Authority to negotiate with Foreign Governments. So the next any POTUS wants to talk to Iran, he or she does not need to go to Congress. It is not unconstitutional.

Your refusal discuss the case speaks volume. You it bring up from popular liberal article op/ed postings as a defense, but you refuse to discuss the meat of the subject. I would bet that you did not know anything of what the case entailed until I explained it to you.

Obama can talk all he wants, any deal/executive agreement he makes won't be worth diddly squat, without the support of the political powers that exist in Washington, future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time, or the next president could nullify the agreement.

And you quote Jerry Brown? Your admiration for failed liberal US politicians is at least consistent.


California Governor Jerry Brown was famously dubbed 'Governor Moonbeam'

[Tuff Gong]

Your refusal discuss the case speaks volume. You it bring up from popular liberal article op/ed postings as a defense

My refusal to discuss the Case?
Are you drunk? I have posted the synopsis of the Case found in WikiPedia as a rebuttal to this assertion(s). made by you:

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?

So I used the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) as an rebuttal to your assertions. I had briefly remembered the Case from looking at USA Landmark Cases.


As for Liberal Articles and Op/Ed. can you point out which one I used, for I don't read Blogs and Online Postings. except for this site and the trending news column on Facebook. When I do click a link to a trending article, it just as likely to be from InfoWars or Daily Kos. I really don't have the Bandwidth to read Blogs at leisure and if I did it certainly would not be Liberal since I already share the viewpoints. When I read, I read the enemy not the friend.


In any case you quote Liberally (LOL) from Rightmost Blogs, Articles and/or Op-Eds to illustrate, enhance, reinforce your arguments, why should not the same option be extended to other members of this forum?