Author Topic: Traitors?  (Read 3436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Traitors?
« on: March 10, 2015, 10:06:32 AM »
https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/575108862438674432

Is this not taking partisanship to the next level?


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2015, 10:14:46 AM »

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2015, 10:15:38 AM »
The Repubs love defending the Logan act - will be interested to see their take here

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39042
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2015, 10:31:48 AM »
agree or disagree, those senators pulled some straight frank underwood style HoC back channeling. i admire their sand.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2015, 11:43:22 AM »
Looks like they are warning Iran that an executive agreement is not legally binding, must be a treaty ratified by the senate.

Offline AbeFroman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8330
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2015, 11:44:13 AM »
I doubt that anyone will get in trouble. Nobody has been indicted since 1803 even though people have "allegedly" violated it since. Would be pretty big if they were though.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2015, 12:31:01 PM »
I appreciate that the liberals have finally found an old law dating back to darn near the country's founding that they think should actually be literally enforced. Unfortunately, the letter would not be found to be in violation of the Logan Act, but I still appreciate the effort. I'm also enjoying the claims that the senators are traitors and committed treason.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2015, 02:55:49 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

I love wikipedia!

Earlier today:

"In March 2015, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter to the government of Iran in an attempt to sabotage President Barack Obama's negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. Several media sources speculated whether their actions violated the Logan Act or came close to doing so."

Now:

"In March 2015, 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter to the government of Iran.[9] Several commentators alleged that the letter violated the Logan Act."

 :lol:

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2015, 03:10:05 PM »

Looks like they are warning Iran that an executive agreement is not legally binding, must be a treaty ratified by the senate.

That is not how it works actually.  But don't blame yourself, half the senate doesn't know that either.

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2015, 05:18:36 PM »
They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2015, 06:26:56 PM »
They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30240
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2015, 06:38:40 PM »
Hillary Clinton used her personal email to communicate state department business and you clowns want to talk about a letter to iran.  I've now seen it all.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2015, 08:38:15 PM »
They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2015, 10:29:16 PM »
I appreciate that the liberals have finally found an old law dating back to darn near the country's founding that they think should actually be literally enforced. Unfortunately, the letter would not be found to be in violation of the Logan Act, but I still appreciate the effort. I'm also enjoying the claims that the senators are traitors and committed treason.
I think this might me my favorite post so far.  :lol:
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2015, 11:07:33 PM »
You should be more terrified than ever if the DOJ even hints it is considering criminal charges. This is a leftist police state fantasy.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2015, 12:10:04 AM »
They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Pretty sure they do.

Offline Headinjun

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2015, 01:54:49 AM »
I appreciate that the liberals have finally found an old law dating back to darn near the country's founding that they think should actually be literally enforced. Unfortunately, the letter would not be found to be in violation of the Logan Act, but I still appreciate the effort. I'm also enjoying the claims that the senators are traitors and committed treason.
I think this might me my favorite post so far.  :lol:

Doesn't KSU mumble about the constitution (old law) and immigrants all the time?

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2015, 07:13:15 AM »

They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Pretty sure they do.

Check your stats!

First the treaty must be signed by the president or an authorized representative of the U.S. Govt then the senates 2/3rds vote as their advice and consent, then the president ratifies it.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2015, 08:16:55 AM »
I appreciate that the liberals have finally found an old law dating back to darn near the country's founding that they think should actually be literally enforced. Unfortunately, the letter would not be found to be in violation of the Logan Act, but I still appreciate the effort. I'm also enjoying the claims that the senators are traitors and committed treason.
I think this might me my favorite post so far.  :lol:

Doesn't KSU mumble about the constitution (old law) and immigrants all the time?
18th century relics only apply when needed.  imagine what these faux 'I'm not a religious fundamentalist but I sure act that way' will do when they read the Treat of Tripoli. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2015, 08:55:37 AM »

They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Pretty sure they do.

Check your stats!

First the treaty must be signed by the president or an authorized representative of the U.S. Govt then the senates 2/3rds vote as their advice and consent, then the president ratifies it.

Can it be a legally binding treaty if the senate doesn't give its consent, or would it be a multilateral agreement?

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2015, 09:07:47 AM »
I am actually curious about the right answer here.  Can we move out of pit for real discussion or is it doomed?

Offline AbeFroman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8330
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2015, 10:05:48 AM »
I am actually curious about the right answer here.  Can we move out of pit for real discussion or is it doomed?

Nope. It's already been designated a partisan issue.

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2015, 11:17:41 AM »
Found it - it was the bilderberg thread that 'pubs were up in arms over supposed violations of the Logan act.  http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27856.0
One of the better pit threads.  Really impressive how the Logan Act lasted for so long but then went irrelevant in the past couple of years.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2015, 01:48:17 PM »

They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Pretty sure they do.

Check your stats!

First the treaty must be signed by the president or an authorized representative of the U.S. Govt then the senates 2/3rds vote as their advice and consent, then the president ratifies it.

Can it be a legally binding treaty if the senate doesn't give its consent, or would it be a multilateral agreement?

American law?  International law?  If the UN Security council passes a resolution that is binding and does not need Senate approval.  If the US makes a multi-lateral agreement it is as binding as the parties that signed it want it to be. 

For something to be ratified, it must have a 2/3rds vote of approval from the Senate, but that is only the 2nd of 3 steps and will not result in ratification by itself.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Traitors?
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2015, 03:09:47 PM »

They are saying we trust this President as far s we can throw a truckload of wild eyed crazed nut mullahs from Iran.  Did Congress quit ratifying treaties and agreements when it comes to nukes?

This isn't a treaty. Obama is the master of doing whatever the hell he wants by just calling things by other names.

You're right.  There is a multi-lateral agreement about sanctions in place and negotiations are ongoing for a multi-lateral agreement.  No treaty.  The Senate still doesn't ratify treaties.

Pretty sure they do.

Check your stats!

First the treaty must be signed by the president or an authorized representative of the U.S. Govt then the senates 2/3rds vote as their advice and consent, then the president ratifies it.

Can it be a legally binding treaty if the senate doesn't give its consent, or would it be a multilateral agreement?

American law?  International law?  If the UN Security council passes a resolution that is binding and does not need Senate approval.  If the US makes a multi-lateral agreement it is as binding as the parties that signed it want it to be. 

For something to be ratified, it must have a 2/3rds vote of approval from the Senate, but that is only the 2nd of 3 steps and will not result in ratification by itself.

So, consent of the senate is needed for any treaty to be ratified and legally binding as far as the US is concerned, and any agreement a president might sign can be revoked at any time by the current president. Basically, there is no treaty ratification without consent of the senate. Semantics, wow.