And you really think these actions are the same thing?
That sort of partisan knee jerk response is not even worthy of a serious analysis.
That would make those people complete and utter fools.
If a good deal is there to be had, it should be taken, but not taking the time to find out is absolutely foolish because the only other alternatives are further sanctions which will not work and war.
Which one are you comfortable with?
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
How am I moving any goalposts here? You might want to educate yourself as to what that phrase means.
The letter implies that Obama doesn't have the authority to make a binding deal.
Your last sentence is exactly why there is no point in Obama trying to involve congress in the negotiations. The party that controls the congress he would have to involve in such negotiations has a base that is so crazy they believe that Obama wants Iran to go nuclear because of his "Muslim sympathies". Given the choice of having the president negotiate an agreement or allowing the input of a bunch of nutjobs, I think we are better off with leaving it to the president. If the deal is bad, the next president can simply ignore it.
That Obama, or any other president, does not have the authority to make a binding deal is a fact, not in implication.
Yeah, its totally unprecedented for a president to negotiate a deal with an foreign government without congressional approval.... I mean its only happened hundreds of times. As the letter points out, if the Republicans don't like the deal they can simply ignore it if they win the presidency in 2016.
Your last sentence is exactly why there is no point in Obama trying to involve congress in the negotiations. The party that controls the congress he would have to involve in such negotiations has a base that is so crazy they believe that Obama wants Iran to go nuclear because of his "Muslim sympathies". Given the choice of having the president negotiate an agreement or allowing the input of a bunch of nutjobs, I think we are better off with leaving it to the president. If the deal is bad, the next president can simply ignore it.
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
The SCOTUS disagrees: "Not only . . . is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."{emphasis added} United States v Curtiss-Wright Exp Corp, 299 US 304, 319; 57 S Ct 216, 220; 81 L Ed 255 (1936))Senators and Congressmen act in the best interest of the people they represent (theoretically). They do not have to act in Obama's best interest, not are they subservient to the executive branch.
1. Obama is not King. There is no ability to commit "treason against Obama".
2. This is not in any way, shape, or form grounds for a charge let alone a conviction of treason.
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.
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
But there is cause to charge them with violating the Logan Act
I don't think what they did was terribly professional. But I also don't think that what they did was illegal. And it most definitely does not qualify as an "act of treason".
Right, no nutjobs on the left. Like it or not, those people were elected just as the president was. You're saying it's ok to just bypass whoever disagrees with you? Remember you said that because you better be consistent about it. Your unwavering loyalty to Obama and the Democrats is admirable, I suppose.
,
And this is a common deflection when it's been pointed out to someone that they lack outrage when it's done by someone on their "side" and just looking at your first line, your kneejerk reaction was, in essence, "it's not the same thing".
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
Per the U.S. Constitution, who has the enumerated power to make treaties with a foreign country?
They stopped short of any legal violation of the law. But what they did was certainly a serious and even radical departure from the traditional support for the nations foreign policy as it has been carried out over the last few centuries. The blatant disrespect some of the right wing GOP has for our President is beyond disgusting. One can exercise their opposition rights in a responsible manner that would not have been as blatant as this.
Tell us, if you will, what your opinion of the congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi to go see President Assad to relieve pressure being placed on him by the Bush Administration while he was still aiding in the killing of American servicemembers, secretly attempting to develop nuclear weaponry, and supporting global terrorist organizations was? How full of "blatant disrespect" or "disgusting" would you find those actions?
Yeah, yeah, the usual "traitor" crap.
By no reasonable definition do illegal immigrants constitute an invading army or an enemy. But please, continue to piss into the wind. It's amusing.
No, I think Pelosi's actions are atrocious, abusive, and enabled someone who was killing American soldiers, sailors, and Marines, while the Republicans actions simply informed the Iranian leadership about US Constitutional order.
But both would count as the Legislature inserting itself into the foreign policy debate in a way that (broadly) opposed the intents of the Executive (in Bush's example the intent to put pressure on Assad to get him to stop, in Obama's example the intent to be able to wave a piece of paper and declare Peace In Our Time), which is what seems to be so incensing you.
So... basically.... no. You are unable to either admit that your own "team" has done far worse, or admit your hypocrisy, and so you choose to try to ignore. How astonishing.
I have but one question on this matter:
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;
The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?