DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Apparently, without Senate approval, any treaty negotiated by President Obama isn't worth a whole lot.
Damn those checks and balances, eh?!?
That's not the issue, DS.
Yes, it is.
quote:
First, the Republicans are calling the Iranians 'total idiots'. Do you think the Iranians never set anyone to the United States to learn about our laws and political structure?
Reality is, many have come here, learned the whole thing. To be 'instructed' by these Republicans is an insult. That you can not understand it, is sad.
The wording may have left much to be desired, but, they're right. Just because the Iranians might come to some sort of agreement with the President, that doesn't make it a done deal. It still has to have 2/3 support of the Senate.
quote:
Second, the Senate confirms treaties; they dont make them. Its true, that past Senate's have helped the Executive branch in the final crafting process, but they do not interact with the foreign governments. This one wants to say "Ignore the President and only deal with us". THAT, is a violation of the Constitution.
Good Lord. They didn't say the Iranians had to deal with them. That's ludicrous bullshit, which I guess I expect out of you, so, congrats on being consistent!
quote:
Third, these Republicans have been hounding the administration since it started on....ANYTHING. Taking any action they could to undermine him, his abilities, and his office. Or are you like Kirata, and totally oblivious to reality and history?
Riiiiight, anything. 
It couldn't have anything to do with them representing their constituents in opposing the Democrats and the President, could it? I mean, it's not like they ran on tickets based on opposing the... oh, wait... strike that...
quote:
Fourth, these Republicans were elected to represent their states....NOT....the United States of America towards a foreign power. That would be the President whom gets elected to that job. Would you like liberal Democrats designing foreign policy that might impact you, irrelevant of the executive branch? Go ahead, say 'no'. I dare you! I double dog dare you!
To answer your question, no, I would not.
Now, I pose a question to you. Where in the letter did the Senators attempt to negotiate with Iran?quote:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: How is this not Treason? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread