UN Security Council endorses Iran nuclear deal

Only in the case of ratified treaties. There are several types of treaties that have historically upheld by SCOTUS including a "sole-executive" form.

 

We must have quite different definitions of proof.

 

Actually - it is an impeachable offense..............

- - - Updated - - -

Can't have a treaty or an agreement like that without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate - they say no, it is a no go...........

 

So, the administration ignores the congress and somehow the GOP is to blame? How does that work?

 

How would a rational person not ignore the congress rabble. Rabble have no leadership and no direction.

 

By going straight to the UN, Obama can now place the blame on this obvious worthless agreement on them.

Now Democrats can vote against it with immunity. Obama has let them off the hook. They can go home and tell people they voted against rewarding Iran for their bad behavior. After all, the UN approved it. Congressional approval, or disapproval is purely symbolic now.

Besides, it's not like Iran was ever planning on abiding by it anyway.

Watch what happens when Iran refuses access the first time the atomic agency commission orders an inspection.

 

He expects you to know history.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you please site the provision of the Constitution to which you are referring?

 

Can you describe what you mean by "fair share?"

- - - Updated - - -

Any Arms-Control Treaties?

 

He is really scary because he has become a dictator...

 

Doing whatever the President wants is not "compromise". Perhaps you have spent to much time in London and are used to idiots wearing crowns.

 

Not good enough reason to ignore the Constitution sorry. You also know Obama hardly has full support of his own party on this as well right?

 

It's not a treaty. It's an agreement and yes, the president has that power.

Back to the OP - local political cartoonist had this one on Sunday:

 

NAFTA was an "Agreement" as well but i could have sworn the Senate voted on it.

 

Thats false.

US congress will effect how much the US deals with Iran.

obama doesnt run the world, and i doubt iran will get the money obama promised them.

 

Don't give Obama any credit. He didn't spend a year negotiating to do that. I often wonder how Obama and his ego are ever able to fit into the same room. No, he thinks that he can circumvent Congress again. He is a dictator gone mad. NOW Democrats have a HUGE decision. Do they vote with Obama or do they vote their conscience and do what is right for Americans for a change? Republicans will vote against this bad deal. Will Dems have the courage to defy the Messiah enough to override his veto.? The well being of America depends on it. There is a lot of pressure on Schumer go voted nay.

 

You of course realize nuclear experts are excited about the "wretched agreement" ; http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis What is it about the "wretched agreement", that you seem to know more about than the experts?[/QUOTE]

You read this in "Vox"? Ezra Klein's hyperlib blogosphere? Gee, why am I not too overwhelmed with confidence in anything written by that pack of "journalists"...?

Nevertheless, just as it is with the whole "global warming" circus, I don't doubt that "experts" can be found on both sides of a nuclear-Iran issue, some of whom may be credentialed, and well-intentioned. The overriding issue is whether we can prevent the Islamo-Nazi theologians from developing nuclear bombs and deploying them atop ballistic missiles. The technology for doing this has been around for longer than any of us has been alive -- that's NOT the point. Simply put, just about anybody can build nuclear weapons today if they have the right materials and the right environment to assemble them in. And that is why unrestricted inspections are absolutely VITAL to making any kind of "agreement" work.

As it turns out, we aren't going to be able to conduct unrestricted inspections, so, the whole effort is not only futile, but Iran gets billions upon billions of dollars in commerce, and they'll also get ballistic missiles in the lifting of the weapons embargo.

"Experts" were certain that all the "West" had to do was give Hitler the Sudetenland, and then Nazi Germany would behave itself and act as a bulwark against any aggressive expansion of Communism under the Soviet Union. The "experts" were wrong....

 

You read this in "Vox"? Ezra Klein's hyperlib blogosphere? Gee, why am I not too overwhelmed with confidence in anything written by that pack of "journalists"...?

Nevertheless, just as it is with the whole "global warming" circus, I don't doubt that "experts" can be found on both sides of a nuclear-Iran issue, some of whom may be credentialed, and well-intentioned. The overriding issue is whether we can prevent the Islamo-Nazi theologians from developing nuclear bombs and deploying them atop ballistic missiles. The technology for doing this has been around for longer than any of us has been alive -- that's NOT the point. Simply put, just about anybody can build nuclear weapons today if they have the right materials and the right environment to assemble them in. And that is why unrestricted inspections are absolutely VITAL to making any kind of "agreement" work.

As it turns out, we aren't going to be able to conduct unrestricted inspections, so, the whole effort is not only futile, but Iran gets billions upon billions of dollars in commerce, and they'll also get ballistic missiles in the lifting of the weapons embargo.

"Experts" were certain that all the "West" had to do was give Hitler the Sudetenland, and then Nazi Germany would behave itself and act as a bulwark against any aggressive expansion of Communism under the Soviet Union. The "experts" were wrong....

[/QUOTE]


Obama wants a nuclear event to occur in the middle east and it's becoming increasingly apparent that radical leftists do as well. Why these people want to see such a horror unleashed is anyone's guess.

 

From what I've found by digging around a bit, it appears that NAFTA was an agreement, but I also found this on Wiki:

The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

That could have been part of the agreement, but I haven't looked any further. If you want to chase it, be my guest.

 

Thank you for backing up my point.

 

oh thats easy, its for the exact same reason hitler did it.

so they can remake the world as they see fit.

 

True or not, it does not mean the President of the United States circumvents the Senate on treaties.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I agree and have "caught on" for many years. The Establishment Republicans are in bed with the Democratic Party. The ONLY source with any bit of power outside the establishment at this time are the TEA Party representatives. You can find them in your state house, some congressmen, very few senators, and a few governors. I wish the Liberals had something similar, but they are drones to the Democratic Party and the scumbags that rule them.

- - - Updated - - -

Our Congress and Senate are gutless. They have allowed Barack Obama to trample all over the Constitution with executive orders, the Justice Department, the EPA, the IRS, and there have been zero consequences. Vote out incumbents. Replace lifelong politicians.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like, smells like, is written like, is a treaty. Today, people like you are willing to play semantic games in the name of ideology. It's a sad statement for these United States.

TREATY: A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations.

 

I don't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) what the UN likes. They have always worked against the US on nearly everything. One of the few things they supported us on was the sanctions against Iran, but now they and Obama want to throw all that out the window for a deal that gives us crippled inspection rights while it gives Iran billions of dollars. (*)(*)(*)(*) the UN and the horse it rode in on.

 

Yeah but it's more fun to leave it up in the air since that way I can hear all those leftist brain cells fizzle.

 

I think both parties wanted to have a deal with Iran. It's all about oil,money and ammo.

 

I'm thinking you and I agree

- - - Updated - - -

We have no leadership in the White House either. What's your point?