Obama wishes to bypass congress on Iran deal

[Texashiker]

it's how a republic is supposed to work.

Man elected by Electors is assigned the ability to do A by Other Group of Electors without further consent of the Other Group of Electors, does A without further consent of the Other Group of Electors, and then TH complains that Man does A without further consent of the Other Group of Electors. that's exactly how republics are supposed to work.

I respectfully disagree.

The constitution states treaties are supposed to be ratified by the senate.

Where do you get it is ok for a president to subvert senate ratification for years?

From the link in the opening post, and I quote,

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.

Years is not a short term treaty.

Under what situations can the president subvert the senate, and when should the president seek senate approval?

Where is the dividing line?

 

[thraashman]

I must recommend to everyone in this thread to do what I did. After a particularly mentally screwed up and bigoted post of Texashiker (in which he said a group of people who brutally physically assaulted some homosexuals "have morals"), I finally blocked him. Now, the only way I see his posts are when others quote him or I choose the view them. And I honestly cannot remember any threads in which it is not quickly proven that TH is a raging idiot and completely wrong. So we know he's fucktarded. We know he can't be fixed, saved, or helped. So why not just block him? If he gets ignored enough perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll leave!


While you're at it block nehalem too.

 

[Texashiker]

I must recommend to everyone in this thread to do what I did. After a particularly mentally screwed up and bigoted post of Texashiker (in which he said a group of people who brutally physically assaulted some homosexuals "have morals"), I finally blocked him. Now, the only way I see his posts are when others quote him or I choose the view them. And I honestly cannot remember any threads in which it is not quickly proven that TH is a raging idiot and completely wrong. So we know he's fucktarded. We know he can't be fixed, saved, or helped. So why not just block him? If he gets ignored enough perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll leave!

While you're at it block nehalem too.

It is ok you say all those hateful things about me, because I still love you.

Not a gay sex type of love, more like a human-to-human compassion type of love.

Even though will probably never see this post, know there are people out here who care about you and love you.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I must recommend to everyone in this thread to do what I did. After a particularly mentally screwed up and bigoted post of Texashiker (in which he said a group of people who brutally physically assaulted some homosexuals "have morals"), I finally blocked him. Now, the only way I see his posts are when others quote him or I choose the view them. And I honestly cannot remember any threads in which it is not quickly proven that TH is a raging idiot and completely wrong. So we know he's fucktarded. We know he can't be fixed, saved, or helped. So why not just block him? If he gets ignored enough perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll leave!


While you're at it block nehalem too.

Best advice of 2014.
:thumbsup:

About time I did it too.

 

[Thebobo]

Well the world gets boring if everyone agrees with you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well the world gets boring if everyone agrees with you.

There's enough intelligent conservatives on this site that you don't have to spend your time arguing with someone who legitimately believes that laws don't need a rational basis to exist or that the President isn't elected by the people. It's still an interesting exercise to see if you can make TH think, but I can certainly understand not wanting to waste your time with such nonsense.

 

[thraashman]

Well the world gets boring if everyone agrees with you.

I don't agree with Matt1970 or werepossum or quite a few others. But at least there's some semblance of a conversation there, some discussion. With TH you really are just talking to yourself because he is incapable of rational thought.

Nehalem on the other hand I think is just a genuinely bad person and I feel disgusted after interacting with him. Like how I assume sex crimes police must feel after interacting with child molesters.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Am I wrong?

We have a president who was appointed by the electoral college making decisions for the nation and not consulting our elected officials.

Is this how a republic is supposed to work?

Apparently, yes...

 

[ElFenix]

I respectfully disagree.

The constitution states treaties are supposed to be ratified by the senate.

Where do you get it is ok for a president to subvert senate ratification for years?

From the link in the opening post, and I quote,



Years is not a short term treaty.

Under what situations can the president subvert the senate, and when should the president seek senate approval?

Where is the dividing line?

the sanctions themselves are not a treaty, and give the president authority to modify them under certain circumstances. if the circumstances are met, why would a treaty be needed for the president to modify the sanctions, which, again, are not a treaty?

 

[Meghan54]

the sanctions themselves are not a treaty, and give the president authority to modify them under certain circumstances. if the circumstances are met, why would a treaty be needed for the president to modify the sanctions, which, again, are not a treaty?

The "problem" is that TH insists an agreement = treaty, which is incorrect.

True, all treaties with other countries are agreements, but TH seems unable to grasp the fact that all agreements with other countries are not treaties.

 

[Fern]

Does anyone know if this deal will substantially dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program?

Assuming Obama has the ability to modify/lift the sanctions this^ is the real question: Should sanctions be modified/lifted?

I've heard some proposals that were claimed to be from the Obama administration. I think we should wait to see what the final proposals are before judging, but the preliminary proposals I heard seemed so so weak as to be illusory. I.e., joke concessions by them with us letting them off sanctions.

I'm afraid Obama will let us be 'played' here in exchange for him declaring some political/foreign policy victory that will be anything but.

If I were a journalist I would be thinking 'follow the money' and start investigating. If/when sanctions are lifted some people are going to make a lot of money.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

I love the smell of a Texashiker thread in the morning.

 

[MongGrel]

TH still seems to be trying to figure out how the government works and is constantly amazed at how much he doesn't know in reality, it seems to me.

While still posting a lot of BS.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't agree with Matt1970 or werepossum or quite a few others. But at least there's some semblance of a conversation there, some discussion. With TH you really are just talking to yourself because he is incapable of rational thought.

Nehalem on the other hand I think is just a genuinely bad person and I feel disgusted after interacting with him. Like how I assume sex crimes police must feel after interacting with child molesters.

That's the nicest thing anyone has said about me all week 🙂

 

[squarecut1]

I love the smell of a Texashiker thread in the morning.

Did you mean stink?

 

[Texashiker]

if the circumstances are met, why would a treaty be needed for the president to modify the sanctions, which, again, are not a treaty?

Reason 1:

Members of the obama administration are in negotiations with iran, right?

If they come to an agreement, then that meets the definition of a treaty.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treaty

an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : private treaty (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state

As per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the president is to purpose agreements to the senate to be ratified.

Jefferson stated with short term treaties there was no need for senate ratification.

From the linked article from the opening post, which I have quoted at least twice, the obama administration is not going to ask congress for legislation for years.

Obama has a little over 2 years left in office. Which means he is probably not going to ask the senate to ratify this agreement with iran during his tenure in office.

Obama is going to reach an agreement with iran, of which the details will not be known until he leaves office.

I ask you again, is this how a republic is supposed to work?


Reason 2:

Iran is under international sanctions.

If those sanctions change, then those changes should be approved by the senate.

Bypassing the senate makes us look like a laughing stock of a republic. To the international community, obama run Bartertown.


Reason 3:

If the president can bypass congress at will, where is the checks and balances the founding fathers envisioned?

What is to keep the president from abusing his office?


Reason 4:

Where is this transparent and open government?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

Bring the terms of the iran agreement to the senate. Let there be public hearings for everyone to see. Let our elected officials vote to ratify the agreement so that our government has a system of checks and balances.

 

[Jhhnn]

^^^

Dimness. If Congress granted the President to power to temporarily lift some sanctions, which they apparently did, then any President could do so.

If Iran can reach an agreement with the IAEA to which the US is amenable, then there need be no treaty between the two countries at all. Congress would, of course, have to act to work towards full normalization by either rescinding sanctions or by granting that power to the Executive.

 

[Thebobo]

I my not like TH politics but I would sit down and drink a beer with him. Maybe get to see some cute little chicks.

 

[fskimospy]

Reason 1:

Members of the obama administration are in negotiations with iran, right?

If they come to an agreement, then that meets the definition of a treaty.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treaty


As per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the president is to purpose agreements to the senate to be ratified.

Jefferson stated with short term treaties there was no need for senate ratification.

From the linked article from the opening post, which I have quoted at least twice, the obama administration is not going to ask congress for legislation for years.

Obama has a little over 2 years left in office. Which means he is probably not going to ask the senate to ratify this agreement with iran during his tenure in office.

Obama is going to reach an agreement with iran, of which the details will not be known until he leaves office.

I ask you again, is this how a republic is supposed to work?


Reason 2:

Iran is under international sanctions.

If those sanctions change, then those changes should be approved by the senate.

Bypassing the senate makes us look like a laughing stock of a republic. To the international community, obama run Bartertown.


Reason 3:

If the president can bypass congress at will, where is the checks and balances the founding fathers envisioned?

What is to keep the president from abusing his office?


Reason 4:

Where is this transparent and open government?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment

Bring the terms of the iran agreement to the senate. Let there be public hearings for everyone to see. Let our elected officials vote to ratify the agreement so that our government has a system of checks and balances.

This thread is a sign that Texas desperately needs improved civics education.

Or less lead in the water.

Something.

 

[Vic]

Self-ownage thread of the year

 

[ivwshane]

This thread is a sign that Texas desperately needs improved civics education.

Or less lead in the water.

Something.

Or more lead😉

 

[zinfamous]

I my not like TH politics but I would sit down and drink a beer with him. Maybe get to see some cute little chicks.

seriously. He may be an ignorant plains-folk, But I would eat smoked meat and shoot guns with this moronic bigot any day.

I think conversations would be, if not hilarious, somewhat entertaining.

 

[theeedude]

What happened to politics stopping at the water's edge?

 

[JEDIYoda]

the monarch president strikes again.

two bad for you the Republicans will not win the white house..hahahaaa

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Texashiker
You are so full of crap.

Explain to me how the electoral college could vote the will of the people when the polls were not even closed, much less counted?

2012 election, as soon as voting started in California the electoral college results were posted. The polls were still hours from being closed.

Texashiker is still crying about Obama winning the presidency???