Reply With Quote
ha ha, Congress is full of lawyers!
move by the Bagger-Friendly. 'em.
ha ha, Congress is full of lawyers!
Luckly, Iranian leaders probably know how the game works better than most of the GOP knucklheads in Congress..
Guess where the Iranian leadership was educated...
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/does-...ucated-2014-10
lol at the guy who went to a party school
despite the gaffe, Goldsmith thinks the Senators have a leg to stand on regarding Senatorial privilege:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/m...ing-iran-deal/In other words, under international law a nation can invoke its internal law to invalidate consent to a treaty (including a treaty made by Executive agreement) if consent to the treaty was a “violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties” and “that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.” This qualification of the rule of Article 27 points to a line of argument – at least under domestic law, though probably not under international law – against the impending agreement with Iran that I am surprised the Senate letter did not take.
That argument, in a nuts , is that the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Cons ution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement. Past presidents surely must have made minor arms control agreements pursuant to Executive agreement at some point (I have not researched the point), but at a minimum the scope of the President’s domestic cons utional authority to make a binding executive agreement with Iran on control of its nuclear weapons is an open question. It is also true that the Senate has long taken the view that at least major arms control treaties must pass through the Senate for its consent. A good statement of this view can be seen in a letter, co-written in 2002 by Senator Biden to Secretary of State Powell, outlining “Senate prerogative regarding international arms control agreements” in a context similar (though not identical) to the current one. (The context was President Bush’s nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia, which Biden, a lion of Senate prerogatives, insisted be approved via the treaty process.)
I am not saying that the President lacks the power to make a pure Executive agreement in this context (or to claim delegated authority from Congress to make such an agreement). The question of what must go to the Senate for approval as a treaty is contested. Nor am I saying that this domestic cons utional question is adequately manifest to be invoked as a reason to abrogate President Obama’s consent under international law — it almost certainly is not. But with those important caveats, it does seem to me that focusing on Senatorial prerogatives in the domestic cons utional context is a more fruitful direction for Senators who oppose the impending deal, especially since they are sure to find many, many statements about Senatorial prerogative in this context from now-VP and former Senator Biden.
All Repugs are s, all their moves are moves.
Iran's Foreign Minister responds to the letter from 47 Republican Senators
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Cons ution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran's peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that 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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...lican-Senators
It looks like Iran wants an agreement, probably because NON-MILITARY moves, aka sanctions, are hurting Iran seriously. The Sunni Saudis are also happy to pump oil and on Iran Shiites.
Repugs, and their lead asshole Tom Cotton
=================
Maher also had choice words for Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR), calling him “an asshole” for his statement that while “five jihadists have reached their targets” during President Barack Obama’s administration, none did so during Bush’s two terms — after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.“I love the way they count terrorism with Bush after 9-11,” Maher said. “‘Except for that one horrible thing.’”
Robert Traynham, dean of the school of continuing studies at Georgetown University, quickly agreed with Maher, calling Cotton’s attack ridiculous.
“What he’s insinuating is that President Obama’s soft on terror, as opposed to President Bush,” Traynham said of Cotton. “This doesn’t even pass the smell test. I mean, every president, obviously, wakes up every single day, looks at the threat assessment, says ‘What can I do to protect all of us?’”But Cotton’s statements were especially troubling, Avlon said, seeing as how he is a Harvard Law School graduate, a military veteran and Rhodes Scholar.
“Hyper-partisanship makes you stupid,” he told Maher. “You start playing to the cheap seats.” - Raw Story, 4/26/13
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...s-R-an-asshole
=================
Tom Cotton Is Now the Perfect Republican
(called out for his lies, and dropping his "principles")
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...epublican.html
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-10-2015 at 08:58 AM.
Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...-attacks-iran/
To see how thoroughly Democrats have adopted the GOP’s Bush-era authoritarian rhetoric about not “undermining the commander-in-chief,” and to see how craven is GOP behavior now on Iran, just look at what was being said in 2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.In April, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by right-wing law professor Robert Turner, headlined “Illegal Diplomacy,” declaring that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.”
Cheney called Pelosi’s trip “bad behavior” and said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: “The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House.” Writing in National Review, then-Minority Whip Eric Cantor complained that “Mrs. Pelosi usurped the executive branch’s time-honored foreign-policy authority”; “at such a critical moment in the volatile Middle East,” he inveighed, “this is no time for the United States to be sending out mixed signals to our enemies.” The right-wing extremist Congressman Steve King actually introduced legislation to bar Pelosi from traveling to “terrorist states,” arguing:
The Speaker of the House is not the President of the United States. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the Administration. In fact, her policy positions seek to contravene the foreign policy of the United States. Nancy Pelosi, by defying the specific request of the administration to refrain from traveling to Syria, blatantly infringed upon the Cons utional duties of the President. Additionally, I believe her trip was the most blatant violation of the Logan Act by a top elected official in the history of our country. . . . Nancy Pelosi thinks it’s her job to conduct foreign policy in defiance of the President. She is wrong on the Cons ution and wrong on the law.
National Review‘sAndrew McCarthy pronounced that “there isn’t much question that Speaker Pelosi has committed a felony violation of the Logan Act,” and that “it is settled beyond peradventure that the authority of the United States over the conduct of foreign relations rests exclusively with the executive branch.” He added:
So the Bush administration is in charge of foreign relations. It has a policy of attempting to isolate the rogue Syrian regime of Bashar Assad. Far from authorizing Speaker Pelosi’s visit with Assad, the president asked her not to go. Pelosi went anyway, and proceeded to embarrass herself and our nation by meddling ineptly in the Syrian/Israeli conflict, concurrently giving the de able Assad just the lifeline our policy has sought to deny him. As the Logan Act goes, it doesn’t get more black-and-white than that.
The New York Post concluded its scathing editorial attack on Pelosi’s trip, en led “Nancy’s Nonsense,” by declaring: “Negotiating with world leaders – particularly those at odds with the United States – should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.” USA Today headlined its editorial “Pelosi Steps Out of Bounds,” arguing that “she violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home,” and accused the Speaker of knowingly undermining Bush’s right to run U.S. foreign policy:
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker — third in the succession line to the presidency — her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
Even the New York Times editorial page, by then constant critics of Bush’s foreign policy, wrote: “there is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead.” They added: “Her job is to spur the Bush administration to pursue active diplomacy, not to attempt to conduct that diplomacy herself.”
More broadly, it became conventional wisdom that Pelosi’s trip was really about undermining Bush’s legitimate authority as president and creating a “shadow foreign policy” run by the Democrats. Sound familiar?
"The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad"
Yet another Repug strategy that worked wonderfully in the context the Repugs destabilizing the Middle East for oil.
While Pelosi didn't really hurt Repug strategy (women count for even less in Muslim world than they do in Repug world), and she shouldn't have done it, the Tom Cotton Klown Kar assholes are trying to destroy a very important diplomatic objective, which could reduce the horrendous pile the Repugs created next door to Iran.
Pretty ish move, I have to admit.
Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama
Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”
“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”
He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”
He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”
Hours after Iran made its offer,
President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the au es of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”
For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...NjQwODYyMTIxS0
Boutons satire above is not serious... this is:
Iran says GOP letter suggests US is 'not trustworthy'
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-gop-...112417036.htmlTEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday a letter from U.S. Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped once President Barack Obama leaves office suggests the United States is "not trustworthy."
"This kind of communication is unprecedented and undiplomatic," Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by a state-run TV website. "In fact it implies that the United States is not trustworthy," he added.
Zarif linked the letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress last week, in which the Israeli leader argued against the emerging agreement. "A propaganda campaign has begun with Netanyahu's speech before Congress and this is their second ploy," Zarif said. "While there is still no agreement, a group is commenting on its nature."
"It is unfortunate that a group is opposed to reaching an agreement. We insist that a possible deal should be one where our people's rights are observed and we are certain that there are measures to achieve such a deal," he said.
One of the least credible regimes on the planet, can now point to the US as not being trustworthy.
ing Republicans, placing party above country, yet again. The only thing missing is a government shutdown temper tantrum.
Between this, and the Bush era morass of torture, detainment and Gitmo, the US has suffered a few black eyes. Obama for his part and the "red line" that didn't actually get red... oi vey.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-10-2015 at 11:41 AM.
STOP CALLING TOM COTTON A TRAITOR
By Brian Beutler @brianbeutler
The 47 Republican signatories to an open letter discouraging the Iranian government from striking a nuclear deal with the Obama administration have been denounced for committing a broad spectrum of infractions: from the conceptual misdemeanor of embarrassing the president as he conducts U.S. foreign policy to genuine felonies like violating the Logan Act—which prohibits individuals from conducting freelance diplomacy with foreign governments—and outright treason.
These critics are so fixated on the form of the action these senators took that they’ve drowned out most substantive criticisms of its inept strategy and the GOP’s unspoken foreign policy objective—regime change in Iran. With respect to both the merits of the accusations, and the direction of their focus, they’re also wrong.
To see why, consider these two thought experiments.
First, imagine that Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote the offending do ent, had written it as an opinion column rather than an open letter. Senate Republicans didn’t send the Iranian government any private correspondence as far as we know. They didn’t “send” anything at all, really, except perhaps to select reporters. They issued a press release, and then slapped the equivalent of “Dear Sirs” on top of it. If 47 Republican senators had instead co-bylined an op-ed containing all of the same factual information that appears in the letter, and with Iranian officials as its intended audience, nobody would’ve doubted its legality or legitimacy.
The letter begins, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our cons utional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Cons ution.” This is a genuinely preposterous supposition. But imagine it appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section rendered as, “It has come to our attention while observing nuclear negotiations between our government and the government of Iran that some of the parties may not fully understand our cons utional system. Thus, we are writing to raise awareness of two features of our Cons ution.”
This would have been a terrible, tedious op-ed. Its subversiveness might have caused a stir. But I can’t imagine anyone would have called it treasonous.
Cotton’s execution here was reckless and feckless in equal measure. And yes, it’s unconventional for a partisan congressional caucus to undermine a sitting president’s foreign policy like this. But you can’t untangle his tactics from his goals unless you’re willing to accept a certain level of congressional abdication from foreign policy under all cir stances. What makes Cotton reckless isn’t so much that he’s willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve his purpose. Its that his purpose is extremely unwise.
Not everyone in Congress has such bad ideas. In 2003, too many Democrats voted to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. This was a generational error. We’d all be better off today if they’d refused, and that wouldn’t have violated any vaunted foreign policy norms. But what if convincing fellow Senate Democrats to resist the Bush administration required extraordinary interference? If a Democrat had read conflicting weapons of mass destruction intelligence into the record on the Senate floor and warned the British government and other allies that Bush was manipulating them into war. This would’ve ruptured the normative foundations of foreign policy like an earthquake. It also would have been protected by the Cons ution, and worth the damage.
An alternate history in which a meddling Democrat derails (or merely disrupts) war with Iraq must also include the fact that Republicans like Tom Cotton would have called him a traitor. And that they’d probably have destroyed his political career—especially if the effort had been successful, and thus never vindicated by a disastrous war. But hypocrisy is beside the point. What matters is whether Republicans today are acting out of a sense of public duty, and whether their objectives are wise and achievable.
I think scuttling a deal to clear the path to regime change is both irresponsible and far-fetched. I also think the atmospherics surrounding the letter itself—that it was written by an ambitious Republican freshman, that GOP presidential hopefuls signed the letter but moderates and experienced foreign policy hands did not, that Cotton is hoping to recruit Republican signatories outside the Senate—suggests Cotton is engaging in intra-coalition politics, rather than solely advancing his substantive foreign policy goals.
But that’s what makes his actions reckless. The point isn't to trivialize procedural objections but that the goals you pursue and meet when you take a step like this should determine how it's judged. If the answer to these same above questions was yes, it would put Cotton's unorthodox tactics in a much different light.
-------
Pretty good take, imo.
Republicans Blame Obama For Tom Cotton Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000003
"We have, and will continue to OBSTRUCT, DESTROY EVERYTHING n!gg@ boy has done or tried, BUT we expect you to co-operate (masta says: "know yer place, n!gg@ boy") with us Repugs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...disagreements/Indeed, according to a 2007 study by political scientists Kiki Caruson and Victoria Farrar-Myers in Political Research Quarterly, between 1977 and 1996, presidents negotiated nearly 4,000 executive agreements but only 300 treaties, making agreements 92.9 percent of the whole.
http://www.law.asu.edu/library/RossB...greements.aspxExecutive Agreements follow much of the same process as treaties. They are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement [Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. § 112b)].
not too different from Republicans wanting to charge Nancy Pelosi and and Jesse Jackson with Logan Act violations, tbh. was silly then, is silly now.
Pretty much. I agree.STOP CALLING TOM COTTON A TRAITOR
By Brian Beutler @brianbeutler
The 47 Republican signatories to an open letter discouraging the Iranian government from striking a nuclear deal with the Obama administration have been denounced for committing a broad spectrum of infractions: from the conceptual misdemeanor of embarrassing the president as he conducts U.S. foreign policy to genuine felonies like violating the Logan Act—which prohibits individuals from conducting freelance diplomacy with foreign governments—and outright treason.
These critics are so fixated on the form of the action these senators took that they’ve drowned out most substantive criticisms of its inept strategy and the GOP’s unspoken foreign policy objective—regime change in Iran. With respect to both the merits of the accusations, and the direction of their focus, they’re also wrong.
To see why, consider these two thought experiments.
First, imagine that Senator Tom Cotton, who wrote the offending do ent, had written it as an opinion column rather than an open letter. Senate Republicans didn’t send the Iranian government any private correspondence as far as we know. They didn’t “send” anything at all, really, except perhaps to select reporters. They issued a press release, and then slapped the equivalent of “Dear Sirs” on top of it. If 47 Republican senators had instead co-bylined an op-ed containing all of the same factual information that appears in the letter, and with Iranian officials as its intended audience, nobody would’ve doubted its legality or legitimacy.
The letter begins, “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our cons utional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Cons ution.” This is a genuinely preposterous supposition. But imagine it appeared in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section rendered as, “It has come to our attention while observing nuclear negotiations between our government and the government of Iran that some of the parties may not fully understand our cons utional system. Thus, we are writing to raise awareness of two features of our Cons ution.”
This would have been a terrible, tedious op-ed. Its subversiveness might have caused a stir. But I can’t imagine anyone would have called it treasonous.
Cotton’s execution here was reckless and feckless in equal measure. And yes, it’s unconventional for a partisan congressional caucus to undermine a sitting president’s foreign policy like this. But you can’t untangle his tactics from his goals unless you’re willing to accept a certain level of congressional abdication from foreign policy under all cir stances. What makes Cotton reckless isn’t so much that he’s willing to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve his purpose. Its that his purpose is extremely unwise.
Not everyone in Congress has such bad ideas. In 2003, too many Democrats voted to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. This was a generational error. We’d all be better off today if they’d refused, and that wouldn’t have violated any vaunted foreign policy norms. But what if convincing fellow Senate Democrats to resist the Bush administration required extraordinary interference? If a Democrat had read conflicting weapons of mass destruction intelligence into the record on the Senate floor and warned the British government and other allies that Bush was manipulating them into war. This would’ve ruptured the normative foundations of foreign policy like an earthquake. It also would have been protected by the Cons ution, and worth the damage.
An alternate history in which a meddling Democrat derails (or merely disrupts) war with Iraq must also include the fact that Republicans like Tom Cotton would have called him a traitor. And that they’d probably have destroyed his political career—especially if the effort had been successful, and thus never vindicated by a disastrous war. But hypocrisy is beside the point. What matters is whether Republicans today are acting out of a sense of public duty, and whether their objectives are wise and achievable.
I think scuttling a deal to clear the path to regime change is both irresponsible and far-fetched. I also think the atmospherics surrounding the letter itself—that it was written by an ambitious Republican freshman, that GOP presidential hopefuls signed the letter but moderates and experienced foreign policy hands did not, that Cotton is hoping to recruit Republican signatories outside the Senate—suggests Cotton is engaging in intra-coalition politics, rather than solely advancing his substantive foreign policy goals.
But that’s what makes his actions reckless. The point isn't to trivialize procedural objections but that the goals you pursue and meet when you take a step like this should determine how it's judged. If the answer to these same above questions was yes, it would put Cotton's unorthodox tactics in a much different light.
-------
Pretty good take, imo.
Cotton and the other Senators aren't traitors. Idiots and hyper-partisan, but not traitors.
Agreed.
Hillary tweets
"GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on."
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...35894386216960
Lol @ some of the people responding to her
straight from the asshole of the Unitary Executive himself:
Cheney: Congress must not interfere with the president's Iran policy
Cheney didn't just denounce the majority's findings as "clearly cast in such a partisan tone," but insisted President Reagan had the cons utional authority to ignore the congressional ban on aid to the Nicaraguan Contras:
"Judgments about the Iran-Contra Affair ultimately must rest upon one's views about the proper roles of Congress and the President in foreign policy. ... [T]hroughout the Nation's history, Congress has accepted substantial exercises of Presidential power -- in the conduct of diplomacy, the use of force and covert action -- which had no basis in statute and only a general basis in the Cons ution itself. ... [M]uch of what President Reagan did in his actions toward Nicaragua and Iran were cons utionally protected exercises of inherent Presidential powers. ... [T]he power of the purse ... is not and was never intended to be a license for Congress to usurp Presidential powers and functions."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...?detail=email#
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-11-2015 at 04:33 PM.
Sen. Tom Cotton, a very ambitious man:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-but-a-fiasco/While in the House in 2013, Cotton introduced an amendment to prosecute the relatives of those who violated sanctions on Iran, saying that his proposed penalties of up to 20 years in prison would “include a spouse and any relative to the third degree,” including “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.” Forget about the fact that the Cons ution expressly prohibits “corruption of blood” penalties — just consider that Cotton wanted to take someone who had violated sanctions and imprison their grandchildren.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
