And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, .
Who would that be exactly? Looking up i see not treason, not reason to cite a civics class, slightly more treasonous than the dixie chicks (ie, not), not the definition of treason because treason has a specific definition.
A whole lot of not treason.
Is Ted Kennedy the same as 47 republicans? Is that a fat joke?Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:
Don't. Just don't.
And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.
Hey, that can be a serious matter. In 1679, the English Parliament held a vote on whether to define and strengthen Habeas Corpus. The following occurred:
Lord Grey and Lord Norris were named to be the tellers: Lord Norris, being a man subject to vapours, was not at all times attentive to what he was doing: so, a very fat lord coming in, Lord Grey counted him as ten, as a jest at first: but seeing Lord Norris had not observed it, he went on with this misreckoning of ten: so it was reported that they that were for the Bill were in the majority, though indeed it went for the other side: and by this means the Bill passed.
So, because some lord made a fat joke, Habeas Corpus was strengthened.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:
Don't. Just don't.
And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.
Now, THAT'S the kind of treason I can get behind!
[Watches The Falcon and the Snowman]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it turns out that some sitting U.S. senators decided to write a letter to Iran to basically tell them that the President can't back up any treaty he might make with them.
This was probably an illegal act, but is it treason?
It's "probably" illegal? So, it's not enough of a crime that anyone can actually call it out as a crime or show evidence of what crime it is, they can only say it's "probably" illegal.
Good to know.Apparently, if one's opposition does something you don't like, just call it "probably an illegal act" and hey, whip up some indignation by using loaded words like 'treason', despite a lack of such.
It also turns out that Iran is aware of the flaws of this argument.
Actually, it turns out that Iran is as in the dark about the details as those crying "Treason!" and "Illegal!" If you read the commented bits in your link, it shows how then Iranian authors don't understand that, in legally binding treaties among civilized nations, the treaty isn't fully binding UNTIL it's ratified by the Legislative branch. Exactly as the original letter writers expressed. Incidentally, other nations, such as Great Britain, have to do the same process.
Have we really gotten to the point politically where members of a party are willing to break the law, try to go behind the president's back, and have to be schooled in both constitutional and international law by foreign officials?
No. You've yet to present an example of where this actually happened. The members of the party you accuse have not broken the law with a letter. They have not gone behind the President's back, as this is quite public. And, finally, they have not been schooled in either Constitutional nor International law, because their opposition is terrible at understanding it (opposition from home and abroad, it seems).
Good try, though.Me, I'd view enabling (via a removal of restrictions and then enhancing a 'trust' that they'll let inspectors make a difference) a hostile tyrannical state with a proven track record of deception , terrible human rights, and a desire to develop weapons of mass destruction to use on their neighbors as 'treasonous'. But I'm not accusing the President of that--doing such doesn't fall under his powers, just as he deserves neither praise nor hatred for signing off on laws passed by the Legislature.
--- --- --- --- ---
The Dixie Chicks were called traitors for making some comments at a concert.
Oh, the ones who were upset when people decided to boycott their records because they made unflattering commentary about the President at the time? And THEN got upset, saying they were having their rights trampled on?
Yeah, they're about on the level of the Iranians when it comes to understanding how things work here.In any case, neither group are 'traitors', so this is just amusing theater.
majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as “mere executive agreements” and not treaties ratified by the Senate. He reminded them that “their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such ‘mere executive agreements’ that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.”
Casually breaking such agreements has consequences.
Perhaps. And yet, the letter writers are still correct.
Personally, I think it would be preferable for all such 'executive agreements' to be forced into the proper channel of Legislative approval, exactly as they were meant to be originally, but that just might be my bias.
Almost every one of these paragraphs listing the Islamic Republic of Iran's crimes makes me have to back up and make sure I'm reading about Iran.
Anyway, not a big fan of the ayatollahs, but, given the chance, I'd totally sell state secrets to Obama's latest bogeyman, Venezuela.
Well, actually, I'd probably just give them away for free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is treason. Someone was going to say it. :)
Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:
Don't. Just don't.
And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.
Shoulda known Kennedy was good-for-nuthin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe not.Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you some advice here:
Don't. Just don't.
And for those of you who are raging about those 'treasonous' Republicans, you might want to consider the actions of a certain Ted Kennedy. He had actively contacted the Soviet Union to assist in derailing then-President Reagan's policy. THAT is damn close to the legal definition, right there.
Indeed.
"We knew senators were doing this sort of thing all the time and we ignored it," Adelman said. "We didn’t think it was important, and it wasn’t. The administration didn’t care about it."
Damn it, the suspense is killing me! Was he good for nuthin' or wasn't he?
Actually, even if he wasn't he was. I mean, if he was really good for somethin', he would have been channelling the sites of CIA weapon drops to Nicaraguan contras and Afghan proto-al Qaedans to the KGB instead of deregulating trucking decimating the Teamsters.
F$#%in' Kennedys.
It gets better.
What's next?
And? Why is the thought of our policy makers working with or receiving information from foreign intelligence services disconcerting?
I don't see the logic behind someone receiving materials from a party dictating their actions after their receipt.
Also, how is it a crime? I'm not calling you a liar. I'm unfamiliar with how it would be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not treason.
It's a foolish move that backfired, and it may have been "illegal" but nobody would ever enforce it, even to undermine their political opponents.
The fact that it can simply discussed as illegal in addition to a breach of protocol is enough for the President to win this round, and that's all the punishment required for this transgression.
But, political theater demands that partisans of one side or another get to retain their pipe dreams of legal action against their opponents. Many republicans openly fantasize about impeachment on flimsier legal ground than this.
Let the dems enjoy the farce.
Treason? No.
A silly tantrum? Definitely.
The President may win the round. But given that unquestioned support of Israel is a sacred cow that even Democrats give way for, he's not going to win the war.
Agreed. And I should note I don't really have a horse in this race.
But as far as this attempted PR coup, I'd say this one goes to the president. And that serves to underscore just how poorly conceived the plan was to begin with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it wasn't a big deal if Senators did that in the 80's with Russia, why is it a big deal now?
If it wasn't a big deal if Senators did that in the 80's with Russia, why is it a big deal now?
No 24 hour news services for one, explosion of money in politics for another...
They want a war so bad, they don't even care how it gets started.
If it wasn't a big deal if Senators did that in the 80's with Russia, why is it a big deal now?
It's not; I just shook my head. But anything you can use to smack the other guy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a foolish move that backfired, and it may have been "illegal" but nobody would ever enforce it, even to undermine their political opponents.
Is that actual illegal or "scare quotes" illegal? Cause I'm still not seeing any evidence of broken laws here.
The fact that it can simply discussed as illegal in addition to a breach of protocol is enough for the President to win this round, and that's all the punishment required for this transgression.
No, the fact that it can be falsely called illegal is enough to demonstrate we have a working First Amendment which protects such speech. Not seeing how pointing out how the government works is an illegal transgression or how attempting to call it out as something else is a 'punishment'.
But, political theater demands that partisans of one side or another get to retain their pipe dreams of legal action against their opponents. Many republicans openly fantasize about impeachment on flimsier legal ground than this.
Indeed. It is quite similar to the madcap ramblings of the extreme left and their crusade to impeach Bush back in the day. Silly popcorn theater for those of us who see it for what it is.
But as far as this attempted PR coup, I'd say this one goes to the president. And that serves to underscore just how poorly conceived the plan was to begin with.
You can say it, but doing so merely shows that you have a horse in this race, at least in spirit if not in law. The only poorly conceived plan is one which allows Iran to get ahold of nuclear weapons, or one that involves ignoring the branch of government that can actually sign the treaty you desire into law.
---
Because by definition those foreign intelligence services operate on the orders of a foreign government and in the interests of said foreign government. Plus if the contacts are undisclosed it's a crime.
That sounds neat and all. Sure wish the article wasn't behind a paywall.
---
1. Admit to being an atheist.
2. Advocate reducing, much less cutting off aid to Israel.
Not seeing how the first one is a problem. For those who have a hate-on against atheists, there's much 'worse' (from their point of view) running around and getting elected.
The second one is interesting, since the President seems determined to spite Israel as much as possible. Got rather grumpy when their PM had to speak to Congress since he kept ignoring him, and the frustration when he was re-elected was amusing to see.I guess, from the President's point of view, when you're on your second of two terms, though, there's nothing left for your opponents to ruin.
---
They want a war so bad, they don't even care how it gets started.
Which 'they'? This seems horribly generic.
It's illegal under a law that has never been enforced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like predictions of "Obama winning the round" were premature.
I'm just glad Bergdahl didn't sign the letter. The administration might claim that that he didn't serve with honor and distinction.
Looks like predictions of "Obama winning the round" were premature.
I'm just glad Bergdahl didn't sign the letter. The administration might claim that that he didn't serve with honor and distinction.
Do you not see a difference between writing a letter to the president and writing a letter to a foreign head of state undermining the president?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "undermining of the President".
If the POTUS would like to make any kind of agreement with any other country, it is simply not binding unless it is approved by the US Senate, and only the Senate. His signature is not required for anything.
In fact, a Senator could arrange an agreement with some other country, which the Senate could then ratify, with absolutely zero input from the POTUS.
The Senate can advise and consent to whatever diplomacy the POTUS is negotiating at any time. He is not required to consider any of it. But then if he doesn't, he should be prepared for the Senate to flush all his hard work down the drain.
Members of Congress, both the House and Senate, as well as Supreme Court Justices, and even the Vice-President are not prohibited from contacting any Officials of another country except in a very few instances. Nor are they required to report such contact to anyone, as they are Elected Government Officials and Supreme Court Justices not Government Employees or Appointed Officials who are required to disclose such contact.
Even the Vice-President could disagree with the POTUS and negotiate an agreement that the POTUS is dead set against, and there would be squat that the POTUS could do about it.
Generally though, everyone tries to be polite about it and let the POTUS do all the work, assuming that the POTUS will also be polite.
If the POTUS would like to make any kind of agreement with any other country, it is simply not binding unless it is approved by the US Senate, and only the Senate. His signature is not required for anything.
This is simply untrue. A treaty is no more and no less binding than an executive agreement. Here's the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual on the subject
11 FAM 723.2-2 International Agreements Other Than
Treaties
(CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)
International agreements brought into force with respect to the United
States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of
the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term
“sole executive agreement” is appropriately reserved for agreements made
solely on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President.) There
are three constitutional bases for international agreements other than
treaties as set forth below. An international agreement may be concluded
pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:
(1) Treaty;
(2) Legislation;
(3) Constitutional authority of the President.
In fact, a Senator could arrange an agreement with some other country, which the Senate could then ratify, with absolutely zero input from the POTUS.
Again, wrong. The Senate can no more do that than it can appoint a Supreme Court justice who has not been nominated. Without the President putting an agreement before the Senate, there's literally nothing to ratify.
Treaties are international law.
Executive Agreements are regulations.
1. Requires Senate approval.
2. Requires Congressional and Presidental approval.
3. Can be declared not binding by the Senate, a deliberate vote against such, Congress may also Legislate the agreement away, overriding a veto if need be.
4. The State Dept manual is mostly a collection of regulations, not laws.
There are no restrictions for a Senator to submit a Treaty for ratification by the Senate.
Supreme Court Justices are nominated only by the POTUS, so your example fails.
Do you not see a difference between writing a letter to the president and writing a letter to a foreign head of state undermining the president?Looks like predictions of "Obama winning the round" were premature.
I'm just glad Bergdahl didn't sign the letter. The administration might claim that that he didn't serve with honor and distinction.
The audience was the same for both letters: the American public, seeking to put pressure on the administration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The audience was the same for both letters: the American public, seeking to put pressure on the administration.Do you not see a difference between writing a letter to the president and writing a letter to a foreign head of state undermining the president?Looks like predictions of "Obama winning the round" were premature.
I'm just glad Bergdahl didn't sign the letter. The administration might claim that that he didn't serve with honor and distinction.
I'll take that as a "no," I guess.
There was a time when this kind of domestic politics stopped at the water's edge.
Before the telegraph?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The letter pointed out facts about our US constitution and the political realities of an Iranian treaty. It was an open letter not hidden from anyone and the minority party will do many things to be noticed and get their share of camera time when a president is weak.
The letter was done for a political purposes and will be criticized for political purposes. Don't hate the players hate the game. John Kerry dumped someone else's medals into a garbage can claiming they were his to protest the Vietnam war and get his camera time. Ted Cruz seems to say the most controversial things to get in the news.
Roughly 60 of the 100 US Senators are lawyers. So I am pretty sure the letter was legal. Just think next time before you vote for your senator--do you want him to be a lawyer?
Only 60/100 Senators are lawyers? I'm impressed that the number is that low.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between "pointing out how government works" and promising not to honor any agreement the government makes.
Good thing they didn't do the latter, then.
He's right though. In the sense that it's all internal politics. It's not even so much putting pressure on the administration to make a better deal with Iran as painting the administration as soft on Iran.
Too bad that reality has shown that the Administration to be soft on Iran. Check the current deal for emphasis.
---
It's illegal under a law that has never been enforced.
Which one?
I'll take that as a "no," I guess.
Of course there's a difference. Whether it's meaningful or not is another story.
---
Roughly 60 of the 100 US Senators are lawyers. So I am pretty sure the letter was legal. Just think next time before you vote for your senator--do you want him to be a lawyer?
Don't care if they're lawyers, cobblers, or homeless bums under a bridge. Are they placing votes for what I support and against what I don't? Cool.
The Logan Act was intended to limit the interference of private citizens in foreign relations.
No sitting member of Congress has ever been charged with violating it, thus the legality of its authority over members of Congress has never been tested.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit diplomacy to the executive.
No court has ever ruled that a sitting member of Congress or Supreme Court Justice is prohibbited from conducting diplomacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jesse Jackson went on missions to conduct diplomacy, so have FORMER presidents. I reject the notion that sitting senators that will ratify any treaty have less diplomatic status than the aforementioned.
But, as I said, it is internal politics. Most will judge it from their own perspective. Tell me what movie you like better, Fahrenheit 9/11 or American Sniper, and I can probably tell you whether you are liberal or conservative.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where the Curtis-Wright Export Corp has a seat in Congress or the Supreme Court, so why are you bringing them into this discussion?