President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

_____________________________________________________________________

Wrong again.

The president, Sec. of State and others can negotiate a treaty but all treaties must be ratified by The Senate.

Your interpretation of the law is your opinion, not the law.

You can bet that obama will again by-pass The Senate and issue an exec. memorandum which can be easily undone by the next President.

I doubt Hillary will undo what Obama has enacted when she win in 2016. 😛

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

_____________________________________________________________________

Wrong again.

The president, Sec. of State and others can negotiate a treaty but all treaties must be ratified by The Senate.

Your interpretation of the law is your opinion, not the law.

You can bet that obama will again by-pass The Senate and issue an exec. memorandum which can be easily undone by the next President.

You know more about constitutional law than a Harvard Law professor? Really?

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

_____________________________________________________________________

Wrong again.

The president, Sec. of State and others can negotiate a treaty but all treaties must be ratified by The Senate.

Your interpretation of the law is your opinion, not the law.

You can bet that obama will again by-pass The Senate and issue an exec. memorandum which can be easily undone by the next President.

You know more about constitutional law than a Harvard Law professor? Really?

_______________________________________________________________________

obama is not a law professor.
He was hired as an instructor and lasted only one semester.
After that he was placed on permanent leave.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

_____________________________________________________________________

Wrong again.

The president, Sec. of State and others can negotiate a treaty but all treaties must be ratified by The Senate.

Your interpretation of the law is your opinion, not the law.

You can bet that obama will again by-pass The Senate and issue an exec. memorandum which can be easily undone by the next President.

You know more about constitutional law than a Harvard Law professor? Really?

_______________________________________________________________________

obama is not a law professor.
He was hired as an instructor and lasted only one semester.
After that he was placed on permanent leave.

Not Obama, Clueless Joe, I was talking about Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith who is quoted in my post.

I love it when you denigrate others education and then can't comprehend what you read. 😛 😛

I even made it bold so it would be easier to find. Yeah, attack others education.

[Edited on 3/11/2015 by jkeller]

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

I have asked you several times (nicely) to dispense with the namecalling in every post you make. It makes this place difficult to enjoy. If you think this guy is a liar, stop trying to discuss issues with him. Ignore him like you try to ignore me. So kindly cut it out or I'll bring it to the attention of someone that can stop it for us.

I think you are standing up for a guy, Muleman1994, who called me, "a racist piece of crap."

I assure you my opinion of Muleman is about as low as an opinion I've ever held for anyone on this Forum. I think he is reaping when he sows Perry.

I have no quarrel with you Mr. Boynton. I'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy in your outrage.

I have asked you several times (nicely) to dispense with the namecalling in every post you make. It makes this place difficult to enjoy. If you think this guy is a liar, stop trying to discuss issues with him. Ignore him like you try to ignore me. So kindly cut it out or I'll bring it to the attention of someone that can stop it for us.

I think you are standing up for a guy, Muleman1994, who called me, "a racist piece of crap."

I assure you my opinion of Muleman is about as low as an opinion I've ever held for anyone on this Forum. I think he is reaping when he sows Perry.

I have no quarrel with you Mr. Boynton. I'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy in your outrage.

Pay no attention to that guy. He has never once added anything to the conversation and just about all he does is attack people. He and muleboy are not much different.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

___________________________________________________________________

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

See the official Senate record for the text or many news sites for the video.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

___________________________________________________________________

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

See the official Senate record for the text or many news sites for the video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/republican-letter-to-iranian-leaders-on-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

He (Kerry) said that the United States would still have a “capacity for enforcement” under a presumptive deal, apparently an allusion to the administration’s argument that it could quickly reimpose sanctions on Iran if it failed to uphold the accord.

Dissecting the letter, Mr. Kerry said the authors were wrong when they said that Congress had the authority to modify the terms of an agreement negotiated by the president. He added that a future president would continue to honor the accord as long as Iran kept its part of the bargain and as long as the other negotiating partners — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — continued to support it.

“I’d like to see the next president, if all of those countries have said this is good and it’s working, turn around and just nullify it on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Kerry said sarcastically. “That’s not going to happen.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who did not sign the letter, sought to turn the tables on Mr. Kerry by highlighting the White House’s refusal to seek a congressional vote on the agreement.

“That’s a well-written speech,” Mr. Corker said dryly. “I’m very disappointed, though, that you’ve gone back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with Congress. The way we pass muster here is we vote. And I think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff-arming that is taking place.”

The exchange occurred during a hearing that had been called to focus on another subject, the congressional approval the White House is seeking for its military campaign against the Islamic State.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

___________________________________________________________________

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

See the official Senate record for the text or many news sites for the video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/republican-letter-to-iranian-leaders-on-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

He (Kerry) said that the United States would still have a “capacity for enforcement” under a presumptive deal, apparently an allusion to the administration’s argument that it could quickly reimpose sanctions on Iran if it failed to uphold the accord.

Dissecting the letter, Mr. Kerry said the authors were wrong when they said that Congress had the authority to modify the terms of an agreement negotiated by the president. He added that a future president would continue to honor the accord as long as Iran kept its part of the bargain and as long as the other negotiating partners — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — continued to support it.

“I’d like to see the next president, if all of those countries have said this is good and it’s working, turn around and just nullify it on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Kerry said sarcastically. “That’s not going to happen.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who did not sign the letter, sought to turn the tables on Mr. Kerry by highlighting the White House’s refusal to seek a congressional vote on the agreement.

“That’s a well-written speech,” Mr. Corker said dryly. “I’m very disappointed, though, that you’ve gone back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with Congress. The way we pass muster here is we vote. And I think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff-arming that is taking place.”

The exchange occurred during a hearing that had been called to focus on another subject, the congressional approval the White House is seeking for its military campaign against the Islamic State.

____________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant and old.

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

No teeth, no solution but run out the clock.

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

___________________________________________________________________

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

See the official Senate record for the text or many news sites for the video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/republican-letter-to-iranian-leaders-on-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

He (Kerry) said that the United States would still have a “capacity for enforcement” under a presumptive deal, apparently an allusion to the administration’s argument that it could quickly reimpose sanctions on Iran if it failed to uphold the accord.

Dissecting the letter, Mr. Kerry said the authors were wrong when they said that Congress had the authority to modify the terms of an agreement negotiated by the president. He added that a future president would continue to honor the accord as long as Iran kept its part of the bargain and as long as the other negotiating partners — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — continued to support it.

“I’d like to see the next president, if all of those countries have said this is good and it’s working, turn around and just nullify it on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Kerry said sarcastically. “That’s not going to happen.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who did not sign the letter, sought to turn the tables on Mr. Kerry by highlighting the White House’s refusal to seek a congressional vote on the agreement.

“That’s a well-written speech,” Mr. Corker said dryly. “I’m very disappointed, though, that you’ve gone back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with Congress. The way we pass muster here is we vote. And I think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff-arming that is taking place.”

The exchange occurred during a hearing that had been called to focus on another subject, the congressional approval the White House is seeking for its military campaign against the Islamic State.

____________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant and old.

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

No teeth, no solution but run out the clock.

Old? It was from today. Read the article, if you did you might have learned something?

President Hillary R. Clinton has a nice ring to it.

Sure that's not Hillary Milhous Clinton?

Since 47 of your beloved Republican Senators have apparently violated the Logan Act by sending a letter to Iran about what they will do about any treaty that Iran enters into with the U.S., perhaps you should stop making jokes and worry about your party's traitorous act.

___________________________________________________________________________

Your ignorance of the law continues to shine brightly.
First, why do you think so few treaties have been signed since WWII?

I'll even give you a hint:
The Congress must approve all treaties otherwise any treaty without is invalid.
America was set up with three equal branches of Government. The founding fathers foresaw a situation where an out of control ego maniac president would need to be stopped from doing damage by Congress.

The law is clear.
See The Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.

Read it again, genius. The Senate does not ratify the treaty, they give him permission to seek a treaty, but do not ratify it.

From another thread:

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.”

You know what is funny? You ranted over the fact that when Hillary was SecState, she negotiated no treaties. Now you point out that she wasn't legally able to do so. 😛

[Edited on 3/10/2015 by jkeller]

______________________________________________________________________

Already answered.
If you are relying on a liberal Harvard opinion you need more help.

Today, John Kerry stated than any agreement he reaches with Iran would "not be legally binding".

I'll take the word of an expert from Harvard over a fat redneck who lies, pulls "facts" out of his butt, can't read or comprehend and refuses to actually discuss anything.

_______________________________________________________________________

What makes this Harvard dude Goldsmith's opinion fact?

It smells like he interprets The Constitution in the same way as obama; to fit his opinion.

Actually, no, he is right on the money. Read that article from the Constitution. It does not say that 2/3 majority is needed to ratify a treaty, it says that 2/3 majority is needed for the President to initiate a one on one treaty. This is not a one on one, this is 6 countries negotiating with Iran. It really doesn't matter if we agree or not. If the other 5 countries agree and our GOP somehow gets it rejected, it will still go into effect. The Senate has no power over England, France, Russia et al.

___________________________________________________________________

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

See the official Senate record for the text or many news sites for the video.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/republican-letter-to-iranian-leaders-on-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0

He (Kerry) said that the United States would still have a “capacity for enforcement” under a presumptive deal, apparently an allusion to the administration’s argument that it could quickly reimpose sanctions on Iran if it failed to uphold the accord.

Dissecting the letter, Mr. Kerry said the authors were wrong when they said that Congress had the authority to modify the terms of an agreement negotiated by the president. He added that a future president would continue to honor the accord as long as Iran kept its part of the bargain and as long as the other negotiating partners — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — continued to support it.

“I’d like to see the next president, if all of those countries have said this is good and it’s working, turn around and just nullify it on behalf of the United States,” Mr. Kerry said sarcastically. “That’s not going to happen.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who did not sign the letter, sought to turn the tables on Mr. Kerry by highlighting the White House’s refusal to seek a congressional vote on the agreement.

“That’s a well-written speech,” Mr. Corker said dryly. “I’m very disappointed, though, that you’ve gone back on your statement that any agreement must pass muster with Congress. The way we pass muster here is we vote. And I think all of us are very disappointed with the veto threat and the stiff-arming that is taking place.”

The exchange occurred during a hearing that had been called to focus on another subject, the congressional approval the White House is seeking for its military campaign against the Islamic State.

____________________________________________________________________

Irrelevant and old.

Sec. of State John Kerry, testifying before Congress today said that any agreement he negotiates with Iran will have no legal binding.

No teeth, no solution but run out the clock.

Old? It was from today. Read the article, if you did you might have learned something?

______________________________________

The discussion is worthless.

obama's inability to negotiate a good agreement will allow Iran to get the bomb while the rest of the civilized world does not.

[Edited on 3/12/2015 by Muleman1994]

I gotta quit feeding those buggers.

jkeller or muleman? or both? 😛

_-______________________________________________

No way to tell.
This is Sang's usual contribution to a discussion.

jkeller or muleman? or both? 😛

_-______________________________________________

No way to tell.
This is Sang's usual contribution to a discussion.

A pretty funny one too! He never actually directed it at you which says quite a bit about how you view yourself and your actions.

The WP was the downfall of this forum.

Back on the thread:

Do any of the liberals here believe that obama and kerry will actually get a signed by all agreement which will stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

____________________________________________________________

It went off the rails in the second post by Ron which, yet again, had nothing to do with the thread.

This is a common occurrence.
When the liberals here can not or are not willing to comment on the thread they post something completely off topic.

Oh well.

Back on the thread:

Do any of the liberals here believe that obama and kerry will actually get a signed by all agreement which will stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

It went off the rails in the second post by Ron which, yet again, had nothing to do with the thread.

This is a common occurrence.
When the liberals here can not or are not willing to comment on the thread they post something completely off topic.

Oh well.

And there it is, folks. One of the all time great "shoot oneself in the foot" moments in forum history with a total lack of self awareness.

😛

Back on the thread:

Do any of the liberals here believe that obama and kerry will actually get a signed by all agreement which will stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

It went off the rails in the second post by Ron which, yet again, had nothing to do with the thread.

This is a common occurrence.
When the liberals here can not or are not willing to comment on the thread they post something completely off topic.

Oh well.

And there it is, folks. One of the all time great "shoot oneself in the foot" moments in forum history with a total lack of self awareness.

😛

__________________________________________________________________

What does that have to do with the question asked and the answer given?

Answer: nothing.
You never have anything to post relevant.

Back on the thread:

Do any of the liberals here believe that obama and kerry will actually get a signed by all agreement which will stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

It went off the rails in the second post by Ron which, yet again, had nothing to do with the thread.

This is a common occurrence.
When the liberals here can not or are not willing to comment on the thread they post something completely off topic.

Oh well.

And there it is, folks. One of the all time great "shoot oneself in the foot" moments in forum history with a total lack of self awareness.

😛

__________________________________________________________________

What does that have to do with the question asked and the answer given?

Answer: nothing.
You never have anything to post relevant.

It's ok. It went over your head. Don't worry, the rest of us got it.

Back on the thread:

Do any of the liberals here believe that obama and kerry will actually get a signed by all agreement which will stop Iran's nuclear weapons program?

What does that have to do with Ben Carson?

It went off the rails in the second post by Ron which, yet again, had nothing to do with the thread.

This is a common occurrence.
When the liberals here can not or are not willing to comment on the thread they post something completely off topic.

Oh well.

And there it is, folks. One of the all time great "shoot oneself in the foot" moments in forum history with a total lack of self awareness.

😛

__________________________________________________________________

What does that have to do with the question asked and the answer given?

Answer: nothing.
You never have anything to post relevant.

It's ok. It went over your head. Don't worry, the rest of us got it.

___________________________________________________________

you forgot to post the link to your assertion.

The discussion is worthless.

obama's inability to negotiate a good agreement will allow Iran to get the bomb while the rest of the civilized world does not.

Nuclear arsenals

Nine countries together possess more than 16,000 nuclear weapons.

The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A single nuclear warhead, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.

The failure of the nuclear powers to disarm has heightened the risk that other countries will acquire nuclear weapons. The only guarantee against the spread and use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them without delay.

Although the leaders of some nuclear-armed nations have expressed their vision for a nuclear-weapon-free world, they have failed to develop any detailed plans to eliminate their arsenals and are modernizing them.

COUNTRY NUCLEAR PROGRAMME SIZE OF ARSENAL
United States

The first country to develop nuclear weapons and the only country to have used them in war. It spends more on its nuclear arsenal than all other countries combined.
7,315 warheads

Russia

The second country to develop nuclear weapons. It has the largest arsenal of any country and is investing heavily in the modernization of its warheads and delivery systems.
8,000 warheads

United Kingdom It maintains a fleet of four nuclear-armed submarines in Scotland, each carrying 16 Trident missiles. It is considering whether to overhaul its nuclear forces or disarm. 225 warheads

France

Most of its nuclear warheads are deployed on submarines equipped with M45 and M51 missiles. One boat is on patrol at all times. Some warheads are also deliverable by aircraft.
300 warheads

China

It has a much smaller arsenal than the US and Russia. Its warheads are deliverable by air, land and sea. It does not appear to be increasing the size of its arsenal.
250 warheads

India

It developed nuclear weapons in breach of non-proliferation commitments. It is steadily increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal and enhancing its delivery capabilities

90–110 warheads

Pakistan

It is making substantial improvements to its nuclear arsenal and associated infrastructure. It has increased the size of its nuclear arsenal considerably in recent years.
100–120 warheads

Israel

It has a policy of ambiguity in relation to its nuclear arsenal, neither confirming nor denying its existence. As a result, there is little public information or debate about it.
80 warheads

North Korea

It has a fledgling nuclear weapons programme. Its arsenal probably comprises fewer than 10 warheads. It is not clear whether it has the capability to deliver them.
<10 warheads

Total 16,400 warheads

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

The discussion is worthless.

obama's inability to negotiate a good agreement will allow Iran to get the bomb while the rest of the civilized world does not.

Nuclear arsenals

Nine countries together possess more than 16,000 nuclear weapons.

The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A single nuclear warhead, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.

The failure of the nuclear powers to disarm has heightened the risk that other countries will acquire nuclear weapons. The only guarantee against the spread and use of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them without delay.

Although the leaders of some nuclear-armed nations have expressed their vision for a nuclear-weapon-free world, they have failed to develop any detailed plans to eliminate their arsenals and are modernizing them.

COUNTRY NUCLEAR PROGRAMME SIZE OF ARSENAL
United States

The first country to develop nuclear weapons and the only country to have used them in war. It spends more on its nuclear arsenal than all other countries combined.
7,315 warheads

Russia

The second country to develop nuclear weapons. It has the largest arsenal of any country and is investing heavily in the modernization of its warheads and delivery systems.
8,000 warheads

United Kingdom It maintains a fleet of four nuclear-armed submarines in Scotland, each carrying 16 Trident missiles. It is considering whether to overhaul its nuclear forces or disarm. 225 warheads

France

Most of its nuclear warheads are deployed on submarines equipped with M45 and M51 missiles. One boat is on patrol at all times. Some warheads are also deliverable by aircraft.
300 warheads

China

It has a much smaller arsenal than the US and Russia. Its warheads are deliverable by air, land and sea. It does not appear to be increasing the size of its arsenal.
250 warheads

India

It developed nuclear weapons in breach of non-proliferation commitments. It is steadily increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal and enhancing its delivery capabilities

90–110 warheads

Pakistan

It is making substantial improvements to its nuclear arsenal and associated infrastructure. It has increased the size of its nuclear arsenal considerably in recent years.
100–120 warheads

Israel

It has a policy of ambiguity in relation to its nuclear arsenal, neither confirming nor denying its existence. As a result, there is little public information or debate about it.
80 warheads

North Korea

It has a fledgling nuclear weapons programme. Its arsenal probably comprises fewer than 10 warheads. It is not clear whether it has the capability to deliver them.
<10 warheads

Total 16,400 warheads

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals//blockquote >
____________________________________________

What does a list from The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) have to do with the discussion and what is this worthless organization doing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb?

 

Mashed potatoes.

Without gravy?

Commie.