Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 153
  1. #26
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller
    Follow

    WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.
    11:46 AM - 9 Mar 2015


    Seems to think he has more power than he really does.
    Worse yet, most lib s believe it too.

  2. #27
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    If there's no commitment by USA, it's not a treaty requiring Senate approval.

    AFAIK, the West, not just USA, is looking for serious inspections of Irans' nuke stuff as being enough to keep Iran honest.
    The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.

    Look what happened.

  3. #28
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Worse yet, most lib s believe it too.
    Well, Bushy did too -- where were you cons utional scholars then?

  4. #29
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    This really is the thick of it. If anything, it's being vocal about their disdain for the President, and a complete lack of respect for the office he holds.

    Which really isn't anything new to certain current Congressmen, even if deplorable from a decorum standpoint.
    What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US cons utionality of it?

    Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

    That can and likely will lead to war.

  5. #30
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    the letter suggests that the US cannot be relied on to keep its side of any negotiated deal that Congress disagrees with.

    it's a bad precedent to set. weakens the President, makes the USA look unreliable. and I can hardly imagine the GOP will like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
    There are reasons why we have the government we have rather than a monarchy.

  6. #31
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    The treaties signed with the Indian nations didn't require senate approval either.

    Look what happened.
    You sure about that?

  7. #32
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Eh, the last three president have been making deals with North Korea without Congress.
    Were they treaties?

  8. #33
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US cons utionality of it?

    Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

    That can and likely will lead to war.
    Probably don't even need to sign anything tbh.

  9. #34
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Were they treaties?
    Nope. That's the point. The agreements don't have to be treaties.

  10. #35
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    What if it is a matter of disagreement with what Obama plans to sign, and simply pointing out the US cons utionality of it?

    Do you want the president to sign an unenforceable treaty?

    That can and likely will lead to war.
    It's not a treaty. lol war

  11. #36
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You sure about that?
    Not absolutely, but to my knowledge there never has been a treaty with the Indian Nations prior to wiping them out, that was ratified by the senate. Best I know, 63% was the highest vote achieved.

  12. #37
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Nope. That's the point. The agreements don't have to be treaties.
    Then don't call them treaties.

    A treaty has a specific meaning, as addressed in our cons ution.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons ution/articleii

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

  13. #38
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    They can call it whatever they want. Treaties are still called treaties even before the Senate ratify them, even if the Senate never does. They simply don't have the force of law in the US if not ratified by the US Senate.

    There's plenty of treaties that the US never ratified, but other countries did and enforce amongst themselves.

  14. #39
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    They can call it whatever they want. Treaties are still called treaties even before the Senate ratify them, even if the Senate never does. They simply don't have the force of law in the US if not ratified by the US Senate.

    There's plenty of treaties that the US never ratified, but other countries did and enforce amongst themselves.
    So, question...

    Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?

  15. #40
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    The letter itself is a bunch of condescending paragraphs about a well know situation. Even the US has reneged from past ratified treaties and modified them unilaterally (ie: jurisdiction under the International Court of Justice).

    Which is why the letter itself is more about melodrama than substance.

  16. #41
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    So, question...

    Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?
    In what books? Do you even know what you're talking about?

  17. #42
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Then don't call them treaties.
    I never did, genius.

  18. #43
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    So, question...

    Do you think it's wise having an unratified treaty on the books involving nuclear arms?
    Don't call it a treaty!

  19. #44
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    another angle: the group negotiating the deal includes the five permanent members of the UN security council, of which the UK and France are NATO allies. it's one thing for adversaries like Iran to question our commitment and reliability because of the GOP letter, the UN Security council and NATO allies doing so would be a tad more serious.

  20. #45
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Obviously the GOP does not care about the special relationships we share with our allies.

  21. #46
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    It's an expression.

  22. #47
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I never did, genius.
    Then you are arguing outside the OP.

    Goodbye.

  23. #48
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Obviously the GOP does not care about the special relationships we share with our allies.
    or, they've deemed it to be electorally expedient to make a big show of pretending not to while the other party holds the presidency.

  24. #49
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    The Repugs are saying: nobody should trust America's word, agreement, contract, etc., because the next administration can ignore, annul, violate all of it.

    eg, Repugs violating Geneva conventions by torturing at Gitmo, black sites, etc, etc.
    The president's word is not the word of America!

    Do you think he's a dictator or king?

  25. #50
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    Then you are arguing outside the OP.

    Goodbye.
    Actually, the OP clearly states it is not a treaty and even boutons said a treaty would have to be ratified.

    What are you trying to argue with this definition that everyone has already agreed upon?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •