goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Institutional Control on March 10, 2015, 10:06:32 AM
-
https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/575108862438674432
Is this not taking partisanship to the next level?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
-
The Repubs love defending the Logan act - will be interested to see their take here
-
agree or disagree, those senators pulled some straight frank underwood style HoC back channeling. i admire their sand.
-
Looks like they are warning Iran that an executive agreement is not legally binding, must be a treaty ratified by the senate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
You should be more terrified than ever if the DOJ even hints it is considering criminal charges. This is a leftist police state fantasy.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I am actually curious about the right answer here. Can we move out of pit for real discussion or is it doomed?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So why wouldn't a President sign a treaty with some idiot country then not do what w agreed to (while idiot country does) then when you get caught say "hey, not ratified sorry" kind of like having your fingers crossed?
-
So why wouldn't a President sign a treaty with some idiot country then not do what w agreed to (while idiot country does) then when you get caught say "hey, not ratified sorry" kind of like having your fingers crossed?
That wouldn't be ethical.
-
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.
Well it is kind of like saying that getting engaged is the same thing as getting married, which most of the time works out but not always.
As to stone's point---
Nothing, but it would undermine the credibility of the president to negotiate any other agreements treaty or otherwise.