Obama’s deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

9/10/15 | johnwk

[JOHN W K]

.

If Obama’s deal with the terrorist government of Iran is a treaty, then, by our Constitution, it needs a two thirds approval vote in the Senate to be finalized.

In discussing this issue, it is important to note a fundamental rule of constitutional construction:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)

So, in determining if Obama’s deal with a terrorist government is a treaty, we must determine what the meaning of a treaty is as expressed by our forefathers during the time of our Constitution’s framing and ratification process.

In Federalist No. 64 John Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”

And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” And he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

And James Wilson, who attended the Convention of 1787 says the following during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:

“Treaties, sir, are truly contracts, or compacts, between the different states, nations, or princes, who find it convenient or necessary to enter into them.” ___ 11 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:505--7

And our very own Supreme Court, in FOSTER v. NEILSON, (1829) Chief Justice Marshall says:

“A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, not a legislative act”.

Now that we know what a treaty is, as expressed by our forefathers and our very own Supreme Court, what power has been granted to Obama with regard to him making deals with foreign government?

The President “… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”


To pretend Obama has power to make a deal with Iran’s terrorist government without the various States approval by the required two thirds vote, is a narfarious outright lie and attempted subjugation of our written Constitution.

Keep in mind what Hamilton warns, which is especially applicable to Obama and why a two thirds vote is required:


Obama “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

Obama has consorted with the enemy, is attempting to finalize a deal with a terrorist government which will help to finance this terrorist government’s activities and the building of a nuclear war machine. And those who support this attack on America’s general welfare pretend this is not a treaty to avoid the two thirds vote threshold necessary to approve Obama’s treachery.


JWK

When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

[JOHN W K]

Congress cannot change the terms of our Constitution, and that includes the two thirds approval requirement for a treaty.

JWK

[joethedrummer]

It’s a “deal”/ it’s a “treaty”; it’s a “tax”/ it’s a “fine”...

They’ll call it whatever works for THEM to ram it through and get their money out of it. -SCREW the American public and screw Israel.

We are finished as a nation.

[JOHN W K]

Stop mixing apples and oranges. Our founders specifically intended, by the wording of our Constitution, to forbid any deals or agreements made by the president with a foreign government to be finalized unless approved by a two thirds vote.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Did you read the OP carefully?

JWK

Obama’s nuke deal, if finalized, will guarantee our children and grandchildren will live under the fear of nuclear war like America did under the cold war with the Soviet Union.

[joethedrummer]

Great post!

Yep, between financing Iran to strike us with nukes, flooding our population with hostile and illegals AND stirring up blacks against whites and cops, obama IS succeeding in bringing this nation down for good.

My big beef is with the complicit Republicans who just stood by and/or helped. They should be drawn and quartered.

[JOHN W K]

I agree with that completely!

JWK

[JOHN W K]

You are spot on! We were warned about submitting to despotism as follows: ”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787

I think it's time to post every Senators home address on the internet who is in favor of this traitorous deal.

The ball is in our court!

JWK

We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

[Vermont Lt]

John,

It’s not a treaty. The Republican led Congress abdicated and allowed them to not make it a treaty.

Plus the agreement is not just between us and Iran, but five other counties/entities. A treaty of that nature would never be approved by the Senate. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson could not make that happen.

You can call it a treaty all night long. Just as I can call myself handsome.

Saying it doesn’t make it so.

[JOHN W K]

Congress cannot alter the terms of the Constitution, especially that part which requires a two thirds approval vote for ANY DEALS cooked up by the president. To believe Congress has such power is to assume ”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.

Aside from that, how can any patriotic American support Obama's nuke deal which requires America to defend a terrorist government if that government's nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities are attacked? Why on earth would Obama obligate the United States to defend a terrorist government?

See Kerry Admits U.S. Will Help Protect Iran’s Nuclear Program From Sabotage

” Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.”

JWK




When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

[Ray76]

> We are finished as a nation.

Thank a Republican. Obama couldn’t do it without them.

[joshua c]

Congress cannot give away the Constitution. They are bound by an oath to uphold it.

[Vermont Lt]

Well, I will go along with the pitchfork and torches. But that isn’t going to change anything, any time soon.

The people in this country are too worried about whether Caitlyn will have its penis removed. And whether Donald Trump called another candidate ugly.

I’ve seen Carly in jeans. For a woman her age, she has nothing to be ashamed of.

But, your are correct to be angry. But you are riding a dead horse. Have a wonderful weekend.