Posted on 03/11/2015 9:47:21 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
Guess that bullet in the brain he got while celebrating Christmas in Cambodia finally killed his last brain cell ?
The President negotiates. The Senate approves. So Kerry is correct that the Senate cannot 'modify' the agreement, other than by getting the president to add terms the Senate will find acceptable. But it is nothing more than a suggestion or opinion until approved by the Senate. So the 47 are correct that the next president will not be bound by anything unless it is approved by the Senate. IMHO
Article 2 Section 2 "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...
” If the US signs an “agreement” which amounts to a treaty “
You need to learn more about civics and actually READ the Constitution.
The President CANNOT make agreements with foreign countries, and no such agreements he tries to make “amounts to a treaty”.
The people of this country are sovereign and can through their elected representatives do anything they damn well please.
Actually, there was no modification, as such, to the outlines of the treaty that have been proposed. It was a warning shot across the bow of the Current Regime that the Senate shall in no measure support ratification of the proposed agreement, and that any written agreement returned shall not be considered until it meets with the approval of three-fifths of the Senators (to close a filibuster), and is ratified by a two-thirds vote.
Mere majority is no longer enough.
Good explanation. Thanks.
Anyone two parties can agree to do something, there may be funding limitations and/or other constraints that effectively prevent the agreed upon terms from being a reality.
There is one thing that congress can do that cannot be argued or overridden by and executive order, that is to declare war. Congress should declare war with Iran and then see if the executive agreement means anything.
“The President negotiates. The Senate approves.”
Actually the “Advice” part provides that the Senate provides input into the treaty and not merely acts for ratification.
“without authority of the United States”. Senators have authority of the United States.
Besides they did nothing more than to remind Iran of the way our treaty process works. The Senate has to ratify a treaty negotiated by the Executive before the treaty becomes valid.
the Logan Act deals with an ordinary citizen, not an elected official. keep that in mind. Kerry wants to discourage people. But remember kerry was involved with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war as a soldier. hey ceremoniously throw his dog tags over the fence(weren’t his dog tags though) Kerry is an ass and if this was so than kerry could be arrested too. What about Jane Fonda (Vietnam), Dennis Rodman (N. Korea). The Logan Act should have applied o them!
Kerry, a horse, and Hillary walk into a bar.
Bartender says I’ve never seen a horse with 2 asses.
It appears to me that the senate needs to stop any agreement/treaty right now by declining to concur with it.
Were they to concur with it in order to appease Obama now, I do not think a later senate has the power to go back and "unconcur" at a later date (unless of course a later president agrees to abandon the treaty/agreement).
At least that is the way I read the Consitution.
Exactly.
No, I don’t. You need to read and comprehend better. Nowhere did I say Obama or the President. I said, “The US”. That implies we, as a country, with Congressional sign off, become party to an agreement. And I presumed that would be some sort of treaty.
If that’s the case, it won’t be that easy to reverse.
If Obama & Kerry are allowed to get away with this, a very dangerous precedent will be set that will permit them to do whatever they please. There will be no constraints on them. We will be ruled by a pen and a phone.
There is no treaty unless and until senate gives 2/3 approval. Obama can still try to “honor” any “agreement” he strikes up with his islamonaxi comrades in Teheran. Congress can try to stop him in several ways depending what KO does, but it would probably be cat and mouse The biggest problem is time and obama has run out six years of the nuclear bomb clock for iran already. Obama doesn’t need a treaty or agreement to run out the next two years for them. And so far congress has proven impotent at even trying to stop him from arranging the $$ for the iranian nuclear bomb and icbm buildup And congress didn’t even say Boo when he threatened “war” against anybody trying to stop the iranian bomb project. So my conclusion is that a treaty is impossible for obama to secure now - and unnecessary for his main project of arming the rise and expansion of the islamonazi dictatorship The treaty is actually a diversion from the problem — the clock keeps ticking while the media’s yacking about a treaty — and the Iranian islamonazis keep building up their arsenal - and taking over more of their neighboring countries - with each passing day. The treaty proposal is a red flag to divert our attention from the real problem. The problem is the mad bull just behind the flag.
Please point out the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution which empowers the president to enter in to “executive agreements” with other countries.
What ever happened to ADVISE & CONSENT?????
I thought that was a major part of Congress actions.
Are executive agreement with foreign nations even in the Constitution?
I guess there is a line the GOP will not allow him to cross.
That is, the GOP save seven absolutely worthless squishes who ought to immediately be thrown out on their cowardly asses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.