How is this not Treason? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 9:50:49 AM)

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

The rightwing Nazi shiteaters are exporting their goons and thugs to the world, and as always trampling our constitution.




tj444 -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:09:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

The rightwing Nazi shiteaters are exporting their goons and thugs to the world, and as always trampling our constitution.

it makes the US look like a bunch of inept idjiots.. the US has become the laughing stock of the world.. who is to blame? who voted for these people?




Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:20:28 AM)


The letter is idiotic and insults Iran's intelligence. But your question is like asking how tears on a statue of Mary aren't proof that God exists. Do you have a case to make?

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. ~18 U.S. Code § 2381

K.




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:24:55 AM)

surely only dems are able to be guilty of treason, well with the death penalty part applied I mean.




mnottertail -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:31:59 AM)

You've made it, you can cry for the virgin mary fairytale all you like. I dont care.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

and the constitution, they are certainly usurping power.

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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.






Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:34:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

surely only dems are able to be guilty of treason, well with the death penalty part applied I mean.

If you say so. [:D]

(p.s., you have mail)

K.




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:38:52 AM)

oooh?




accublond -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 10:58:56 AM)

Of course that's EXACTLY what it is. It's as if Benedict Arnold wrote the British to say, "You know that Washington guy? Well... don't pay him any mind. He doesn't speak for me."

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the executive branch the exclusive power to negotiate treaties and prosecute foreign policy. But these tea party politicos have trampled that provision in their desperation to discredit a sitting President. Risking nuclear war and national security to score political points. It easily tops their Netanyahu invitation and makes Jane Fonda look like a piker.

Hopefully at the next election... if unlimited corporate money and GOP voter suppression have not stamped out what little remains of our democracy, most or all of these bastards will be expelled from office.




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 11:13:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

surely only dems are able to be guilty of treason, well with the death penalty part applied I mean.

If you say so. [:D]

(p.s., you have mail)

K.


Well, its not me saying it...thanks for the mail:)




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 12:41:32 PM)

How does this break the Logan act??? are they unauthorised citizens?

I mean I know they are a bunch of muppets and their plan is the most pathetic stunt they have pulled for a while, but not surprising after the netanyahoo clusterfuck they ballsed up.

Theres a petition on whitehouse gov
titled
Senator Tom Cotton's letter to Iran is a direct violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted.

Senator Tom Cotton and 46 others have written an Open Letter to the Iranian Government as an attempt to influence and interfere with our President's current negotiations.
This is a violation of the Logan Act, a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.




mnottertail -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 12:50:11 PM)

current USC from original Logan Act:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 12:53:00 PM)

Thanks Ron




joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:13:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-09/republicans-warn-iran-and-obama-that-deal-won-t-last

The rightwing Nazi shiteaters are exporting their goons and thugs to the world, and as always trampling our constitution.


Would any of the conservatives/libertarians have a problem with 47 Democrats doing the same action towards a Republican president?


The moment they say 'yes', they agree this action of the Republicans is wrong. But we know they will say 'yes' and try to manufacture some reason to worm they're way out of the corruption they created.

That we know, they will do this, before they even do it, should tell anyone how easy conservatives are to predict.

This action is more so, because Republicans *WANT* a war. When we have had a Republican as President, we always had a war in the Middle East. And ironically not to far from the Iran border. In fact, the last Republican president was on two of Iran's borders. Because when there is a war, its easier for Republicans to push fear out of its propaganda media systems (aka FOX 'news', Breitbart, and infowars.com).




mnottertail -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:24:26 PM)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-senators-violation-logan-act-attempting-undermine-nuclear-agreement/NKQnpJS9


sign the petition




joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:34:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The letter is idiotic and insults Iran's intelligence. But your question is like asking how tears on a statue of Mary aren't proof that God exists. Do you have a case to make?


First you would have to prove the tear's are Mary's. Then prove God exists. After which, you would need to prove that the tears Mary shed, come from God. You do have the three sections of extraordinary evidence on hand to cover all of these questions, right? All based on science?

The OP makes a clear case: Republicans in the Legislature of government trying to undermine the Executive branch, when the topic of 'nuclear proliferation' was on the table. Did you see....ANYONE....do that during the Cold War? Your nearly twice my age, so you did live through that era. So you would know who stepped out of line to say "Oh this President is an idiot, you should deal with us!". Not a single person.

These people have signed a letter stating they are taking over the executive branch's responsibilities. If Democrats did the same thing towards a Republican/Tea Party President, would you be angry? Oh fuck yeah! Would you call it treason? Oh fuck yeah....AGAIN!

So its far to say these individuals are disrupting things not for 'Whats in the best interest of the United States, and its people', but for petty political points. The only people that can not admit what these Republicans are doing are either intellectually dishonest, or totally stupid. Which group do you fall into?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.[/color] ~18 U.S. Code § 2381


How many times has President Obama been accused of Treason so far in the last seven years, by conservatives and libertarians, Kirata?

Go ahead, try to bullshit your way out of this one. These Republicans (and their supporters) are not on the side of the USA or Iran, but their own side. A side that did what ISIS and Al Qaeda could not accomplish: Partially shut the government down. And if the TRUE defenders of America, that would be the Democrats (and moderate Republicans), if your having trouble following, didn't do something, it would have been a full shut down. And who was gleefully happy to have this all accomplished, Kirata? The Republican/Tea Party.





Kirata -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:39:20 PM)


>Republicans in the Legislature of government trying to undermine the Executive branch

That isn't treason, bozo.

>These people have signed a letter stating they are taking over the executive branch's responsibilities

You're making shit up again.

K.




Lucylastic -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:40:10 PM)

Playing with fire: Senate GOP tries to sabotage nuclear talks

In a practical sense, when congressional Republicans invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a joint-session address, it was part of a larger sabotage campaign. GOP lawmakers, without so much as a hint of embarrassment, are openly trying to derail international diplomatic talks with Iran, and Republicans had no qualms about partnering with a foreign government to undermine American foreign policy.

The GOP gambit arguably marked a new low. But after hitting the bottom of the barrel, Republicans dug a hole and fell just a little further.
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office. […]

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system…. Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “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.”
Josh Rogin’s report makes clear that the signatories “hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval … the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice” about striking a deal with Americans and our negotiating partners.

The letter was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a right-wing freshman who has spent months bragging about his hopes of destroying any diplomatic agreement intended to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The list of the 47 GOP senators who signed on to the letter is online here. Note, that list features several presidential hopefuls, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. (Only seven Senate Republicans decided not to endorse the letter: Lamar Alexander, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, and Lisa Murkowski.)

Norm Ornstein noted this morning that he’s “flabbergasted” by the “astonishing breach of conduct.” That’s clearly the appropriate response. But I’m also struck by how dangerous the Republicans’ conduct is.

As we discussed back in January, when the broader sabotage campaign came into focus, there is no real precedent for this in the American tradition. The U.S. system just isn’t supposed to work this way – because it can’t. Max Fisher explained that we’re looking at “a very real problem for American foreign policy.”
The Supreme Court has codified into law the idea that only the president is allowed to make foreign policy, and not Congress, because if there are two branches of government setting foreign policy then America effectively has two foreign policies.

The idea is that the US government needs to be a single unified entity on the world stage in order to conduct effective foreign policy. Letting the president and Congress independently set their own foreign policies would lead to chaos. It would be extremely confusing for foreign leaders, and foreign publics, who don’t always understand how domestic American politics work, and could very easily misread which of the two branches is actually setting the agenda.
The United States and our allies have reached a delicate stage of diplomacy on a key issue, but as far as congressional Republicans are concerned, the United States isn’t really at the negotiating table at all – the Obama administration is. Republican lawmakers not only disapprove of the process, they also feel justified conducting their own parallel, freelance foreign policy, which includes partnering with foreign governments and sending a message to the very rival the United States and our allies are negotiating with.

In other words, for the first time anyone can remember, we’re watching American elected officials brazenly trying to sabotage American foreign policy.

Under the circumstances, it’s no longer ridiculous to wonder whether GOP lawmakers are violating the Logan Act.

As for the GOP’s legal argument to Tehran, Jack Goldsmith added, “It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.”

Unfortunately, that’s not the only thing they fail to understand. They seem equally confused about propriety, U.S. protocols, and how American foreign policy is supposed to work


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/playing-fire-senate-gop-tries-sabotage-nuclear-talks?cid=sm_fb_maddow




DesideriScuri -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:48:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: accublond
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the executive branch the exclusive power to negotiate treaties and prosecute foreign policy. But these tea party politicos have trampled that provision in their desperation to discredit a sitting President. Risking nuclear war and national security to score political points. It easily tops their Netanyahu invitation and makes Jane Fonda look like a piker.


Thanks for showing you don't understand the US Constitution.

Article II Section 2
    Clause 2 Text:
    quote:

      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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    ...
    The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.[9]


I left the citation # in there on purpose. The citation links to HERE, in case you don't think the wiki is accurate.
    quote:

    The Constitution provides that 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" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.
    The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).


Apparently, without Senate approval, any treaty negotiated by President Obama isn't worth a whole lot.

Damn those checks and balances, eh?!?




mnottertail -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 1:55:17 PM)

There are less than treaties, and the approval is after negotiation, by a vote, they do not have the power to negotiate.

Thank you for your demonstration of not understanding the constitution.




joether -> RE: How is this not Treason? (3/9/2015 2:03:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
>Republicans in the Legislature of government trying to undermine the Executive branch

That isn't treason, bozo.


Oh, because you say so, it must not be. Sorry to explain reality to you Kirata....

But because you say something, doesn't make it true. The actions the Republicans have taken are in violation of the law. Your going to have me believe that 47 lawyers didn't know they over stepped the law?

Good Luck....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
>These people have signed a letter stating they are taking over the executive branch's responsibilities

You're making shit up again.


I want you to go to this LINK and tell me these people didnt sign a document.

I want you to PROVE to me that Mr. Tom Cotton....DIDN'T....sign that letter. Go ahead, I love hearing BULLSHIT from you. Its all you shovel.

Whose making shit up...again? YOU!




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875