Notifications

Clear all

Those 47 republican senators must hate America... where's Rudy?

Sang · 2015-03-09T23:58:34Z

As first reported by Bloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program. It was organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and advised the Iranian leadership that "anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement." The letter is brief, and can be read in full here. Republican lawmakers are opposed to the Obama administration's current overtures to Iran, a disagreement that was put into stark relief last week by the polarizing speech delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before a joint meeting of Congress. This is yet another tactic to scupper a potential deal. It starts with the patronizing premise that "you may not fully understand our Constitutional system" and goes on to explain, first, that any international treaty will need to be ratified by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and that, unlike the president of the United States, senators "may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms." The message to the mullahs: don't get comfortable with any deal, because we're going to scrap it as soon as we can. On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong: The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.” Dan Drezner, writing for Post Everything, adds that the letter may "paradoxically help Obama" by persuading Iran's leaders to hatch a successful bargain now with the United States rather than further down the road after Obama has departed. Some argue that a deal pushed through by the White House will not be that easy to overturn later, especially if it appears to be working. Whatever its effects in Washington, the letter is almost farcically condescending in word and tone. Iran's leaders are well aware of how the United States works. The country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, spent the better part of a decade as the Iranian envoy to the United Nations; like many others in the Iranian cabinet, he was partly educated in the United States. It reflects the willful ignorance on the part of many hawks in Washington who insist on seeing Iran purely as an irrational actor and a permanent regional threat. As WorldViews discussed earlier, Iran is problematic in many ways, and its regime plays a role in fueling proxy wars in parts of the Middle East. But one can argue that the same is true of Washington's chief Arab ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. On Monday, Zarif issued a statement through Iran's U.N. mission in New York, saying "the letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy." Zarif also takes the opportunity to play the pedant: I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations. The Obama administration and Israeli critics of Netanyahu seem to believe that it's possible to do business with the government of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Zarif's boss. Rouhani prioritized rapprochement with the United States after his surprise election in 2013. The Republican letter echoes the grimacing and stamping of feet of another set of hard-liners opposed to negotiations -- the ones in Iran.

Page 3 / 5 Prev Next

Whipping Post

Last Post by Bhawk 10 years ago

128 Posts

20 Users

0 Reactions

6,559 Views

RSS

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

Obama’s illegal executive orders/memoranda repeatedly stopped by the courts:

Court blocks President Obama's offshore drilling moratorium
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38855.html

Supreme Court rules against Obama on recess appointments
http://nypost.com/2014/06/26/supreme-court-rules-against-obama-on-recess-appointments/

US court blocks Obama, favors Chinese wind farm
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101837922

Court Blocks Obama's Stem Cell Regulations
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamastemcellresearch/2010/08/23/id/368205/

8th Circuit Blocks Obamacare Mandate
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8314/8th-circuit-blocks-obamacare-mandate/#

Justice Blocks Contraception Mandate on Insurance in Suit by Nuns
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/politics/justice-sotomayor-blocks-contraception-mandate-in-health-law.html?_r=0

Federal Appeals Court Delivers Serious Setback To Obama Health Care Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-del_n_5609440.html

Court Blocks Obama
http://on.aol.com/video/court-blocks-obama-517659246

Federal court blocks Obama Administration attempt to spy on cell phones without a warrant
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2011/01/federal-court-blocks-obama.html

Supreme Court AGAIN Blocks Obama’s Violation of Religious Liberty
http://conservativetribune.com/court-again-blocks-obama/

Court blocks Dem’s attempts to reveal donors
http://ice-custody.beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2015/02/court-blocks-dems-attempts-to-reveal-donors-2486806.html

Court blocks President’s plan to save illegal immigrants from deportation
http://www.9ijanews.com/news/barack-obama-court-blocks-presidents-plan-to-save-illegal-immigrants-from-deportation

Court blocks Obama's EPA war on fossil fuels

Posted : March 12, 2015 10:36 am

PhotoRon286

(@photoron286)

Posts: 1923

Noble Member

And the republiclowns will celebrate taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.

What a wonderful party!

Posted : March 12, 2015 12:12 pm

PhotoRon286

(@photoron286)

Posts: 1923

Noble Member

Lately I don't know who the bigger douche is here, mulefool or doug.

They seem to be neck and neck.

Maybe those two should join el porko in Costa Rica.

Posted : March 12, 2015 12:14 pm

Bill_Graham

(@bill_graham)

Posts: 2795

Famed Member

That was not the question Mule, Doug keeps claiming that the Supreme Court unanimously, 9-0, overturned "a remarkable number" of Obama's "actions" which is just plain false. It is nothing but BS being propagated by the GOP support their whining about him using his legal right to use executive orders when they block everything the Democrats propose.

Please try to address the question at hand instead of deflecting to some other point.

Posted : March 12, 2015 12:51 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

____________________________________________________________________

No deflection just fact.
The Supreme Court has ruled nine to zero slamming down illegal obama actions.

If you are unaware of those facts I suggest you be better informed.

The GOP has nothing to do with obama's illegal actions nor the court ruling.
These failures of obama are purely self-inflicted.

If the liberals would get off their knees before obama they would see the truth.
Blind faith is nothing more than blindness.

Posted : March 12, 2015 1:12 pm

Sang

(@sang)

Posts: 5754

Illustrious Member

Topic starter

Posted : March 12, 2015 1:39 pm

Bill_Graham

(@bill_graham)

Posts: 2795

Famed Member

Really?, please provide citation for all the "actions" they have overruled 9-0 against Obama that he started during his administration. The links you provided were not actions overruled by the Supreme Court but rather lower level Federal courts and in some cases the articles are just wrong and pushing the same information Doug was.

Or you could save yourself a lot of time and read the politfact link I provided which shows you are the one who needs to be informed.

Posted : March 12, 2015 1:45 pm

BillyBlastoff

(@billyblastoff)

Posts: 2450

Famed Member

I'm amazed. I can understand straight up ignorance. But the willful ignorance exhibited by Mule-E-O is astounding. Pitiful.

Posted : March 12, 2015 1:54 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

________________________________________________

I'm amazed you two are unable to do a basic information search.
But not surprised.

You two are the top of the low-information class.

Posted : March 12, 2015 2:57 pm

BillyBlastoff

(@billyblastoff)

Posts: 2450

Famed Member

Thank you!

That puts us in the top of the United States electorate. I must be an elite Harvard guy.

[Edited on 3/12/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

Posted : March 12, 2015 2:59 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

This is getting better by the day:

Obama, knowing full well Congress will never ratify a agreement with Iran that includes more relaxing of sanctions and a sunset clause has found a new way to bypass Congress (and the law).

Tonight obama administration senior officials are letting it be known that once he has a deal in hand, obama plans to take it to The U.N. for ratification.

Posted : March 12, 2015 5:56 pm

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

Since it is a multi-national treaty, it will be overseen by the UN. That is exactly where it should go. If Congress were to somehow vote against this, do you think all of the other countries involved will back out? This isn't a treaty between just the U.S. and Iran.

Posted : March 12, 2015 6:22 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

_________________________________________________________________

Your limited knowledge of international agreements and how they actually are enforced is typical of a low-information voter.

How you want thing to be do not make them so.

Posted : March 12, 2015 7:29 pm

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

OK, answer a question. All 6 countries agree to a treaty. Congress votes it down. What happens to the treaty?

Posted : March 12, 2015 7:33 pm

dougrhon

(@dougrhon)

Posts: 729

Honorable Member

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-supreme-court-term-hobby-lobby-mccutcheon-harris-2014-7
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+often+has+obama+been+reversed+9-0+by+Supreme+Court&start=10

http://volokh.com/2013/07/22/my-usa-today-op-ed-on-the-troubling-implications-of-cases-where-the-administration-loses-9-0-decisions-in-the-supreme-court/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

Posted : March 13, 2015 8:19 am

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

_____________________________

You are assuming that all six countries will vote for a treaty.
If they did and Congress votes it down then there is no treaty.

Congress will not vote for a treaty with Iran that has a sunset clause and does not stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

That is also exactly what The American People want.
_____________________

Posted : March 13, 2015 8:50 am

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

Wrong. The rest of the world is not beholden to the U.S. Congress. If they agree with Iran and sign the treaty, it will take effect no matter what Congress says.

Posted : March 13, 2015 8:58 am

Bill_Graham

(@bill_graham)

Posts: 2795

Famed Member

No research on my part required Mule as I already proved your claim to be false from a nonpartisan fact checking website. If you are so sure what your claim is true why not provide citation from a nonpartisan website instead of the usual conservative propaganda sites you always quote.

Of course unless you were lying? 😉

Posted : March 13, 2015 9:27 am

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

______________________________________________

Wrong.
There is not "rest of the world".
Only six nations are negotiating with Iran. Six nations do not make up "the rest of the world".

There will be no treaty.

Even the obama administration has dropped the word treaty after the public agreed with The Congress that a congressional ratification is needed otherwise the treaty is invalid.
Now the obama administration is using words like "an understanding" or agreement or anything other than the word treaty.
In this case whatever comes about it will have no affect of law.

obama is desperate to get something done in foreign affairs so that he can go running to the TV cameras.
So far, he, hillary and kerry have accomplished nothing in the over six years of his administration.

Posted : March 13, 2015 9:28 am

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

You skirted the question. So I will answer it for you. If Iran reaches agreement with the other nations, it will take effect. The US will have no say in it going forward if we don't sign it. In other words, what Congress does or does not do means nothing.

Posted : March 13, 2015 1:13 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

_____________________________________________________________

And obama and kerry will have failed to stop yet another terrorist threat.
Good job obama.

Posted : March 13, 2015 3:00 pm

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

That made no sense. I am not surprised.

Posted : March 13, 2015 3:05 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

________________________________________________________________

I answered your question.

Was your universal translator confiscated?

Posted : March 13, 2015 5:45 pm

Jerry

(@jerry)

Posts: 1842

Noble Member

Except that with the US not being a signatory to the treaty, it will not be binding on the US. It will not be a treaty with the US.

Posted : March 13, 2015 6:00 pm

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

Yes, but does that really matter? The only thing the treaty means is that Iran must stop its nuclear program. if other countries approve, what would the US do? Continue with the sanctions? I doubt it. Mule is saying that if Congress does not approve it, there will be no treaty. That is not necessarily true.

Posted : March 13, 2015 6:09 pm

DougMacKenzie

(@dougmackenzie)

Posts: 582

Honorable Member

And we still have lots of influence around the world. If it is not a good treaty for us, it probably ain't so hot for the rest of the countries either. At any rate, that would allow us to continue sanctions or take military action if we saw fit. IMHO, if Iran wants the sanctions to end, they are going to have to play ball and allow us to inspect and verify the nature of their nuclear program. I'm good with that.

Posted : March 13, 2015 6:12 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

_-_____________________________________________________________

There will be no treaty as has already been posted here and stated by kerry.
They are working on an "agreement" to hopefully take to the U.N.
For the U.N. to bless such an agreement the security council would have to unanimously approve it and there is no way in hell Russia will.

End of obama and kerrys attempt.
Another obama foreign policy failure.

Posted : March 13, 2015 6:47 pm

jkeller

(@jkeller)

Posts: 2961

Famed Member

Don't be so sure. A nuclear Iran is too close to Russia's border. And if Chechen Islamic militants get ahold of a nuke, they would not hesitate to use it.

Posted : March 13, 2015 6:56 pm

DougMacKenzie

(@dougmackenzie)

Posts: 582

Honorable Member

That's why I don't think the Ruskies or the US will sign off on a treaty we don't believe will allow us access and verification to the Iranian's nuclear program. I could really see this going the way of Iran, only hopefully with much better intel....

Posted : March 13, 2015 7:24 pm

muleman1994

(@muleman1994)

Posts: 4923

Member

_________________________________________________________________________

Russia does business with Iran, sanctions or not.
Long before the Chechen Islamic militants get a hold of a nuke, Putin would crush them. End of problem.

This is all a mute point as a resolution in the U.N. Security Council is not going to happen.

Obama fails again.

Posted : March 14, 2015 8:17 am

Page 3 / 5 Prev Next

75 Forums
15 K Topics
192 K Posts
9 Online
24.7 K Members

Forum Icons: Forum contains no unread posts Forum contains unread posts

Topic Icons: Not Replied Replied Active Hot Sticky Unapproved Solved Private Closed