It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this an offense under the Logan Act? GOP's message to Iran.

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which is all good and well IF you guys kept your dicks in your pants BUT much dick swinging in other countries. THAT is why non-Americans are interested in your politics. Because your politics pollutes our countries.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Congress lacks the authority to negotiate treaties (or executive agreements) so members of Congress not otherwise authorized by the President would implicitly fall under the category of "without authority of the United States."


To me they are not negotiating a treaty, only stating (which they have done before) that they will not ratify one.

The Senate is Constitutionally tasked to ratify treaties and if they have publically stated (which it appears many of them have) that they will not ratify the treaty what is the negotiation?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This is confirmation that both Parties are campaigning for 2016.

If the Logan Act is violated, I'm sure the Justice Department will be making an announcement any time now.

And even *IF* any "deals" are reached with Iran, the question is will the Senate ratify?

Hmmm.

Iran has already rejected some of the nuclear negotiations.




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
But they are not acting as the government. They are 47 people who wrote a letter. This was not an act of Congress.


They are elected members of the United States Senate and are certainly members of the government.

Whether they all individually publically affirm that they do not like a proposed treaty or affix their signatures to a letter stating as much are the same thing.

Also, even in the ultra-rare instance that they are charged (making them the first since 1803) the cases would need to make its way to the Supreme Court to be adjudicated on as it has never received any legal challenges or precedential support.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
He has real big cojones to pull the stunts he does and get away with it..a reply to: intrepid



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which is all good and well IF you guys kept your dicks in your pants BUT much dick swinging in other countries. THAT is why non-Americans are interested in your politics. Because your politics pollutes our countries.



The I'd think you'd be joining the GOP in telling Obama GTFO of Iran. Oh wait, you only mean our politics which you don't agree with? Gotcha.

American politics isn't about baking two cakes. There always is and always will be a choice to be made regarding either having a nice cake sitting on your counter or eating that cake. The world CANNOT simultaneously look at us for help everytime they get a boo-boo while also pointing at us and bitching about the US being involved in stuff outside our borders. THAT is the American conundrum. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. In the interim, I'd suggest the world simply enjoy the ride with entertainment in the form of political satire being provided by Obama and Co.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If it is an offense or not I do not know but, it is stupid. The US is not going back out of international deal if the other side is following it. It would been seen as heavily provactive and a disaster to US leadership in the world. No policticsl party has ever stepped this low because it would be a disaster. Some of the people in the GOP today think that playing to a less educated audience in its base is not some how going to end up biting themselves in the rear. They could not be more wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

If it is an offense or not I do not know but, it is stupid. The US is not going back out of international deal if the other side is following it.


That is the entire point of the Senator's letter.

They are saying, 'If we do not sign this treaty, there is no deal'.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

The only catch is Senator John Kerry secretly met with Manual Noreaga during the Panama Canal crisis during Reagan's presidency arranged thru leftest DC thinktank.

So what's good is "Logan Act"?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
American politics isn't about baking two cakes.


Yes it is. And please keep telling yourselves differently IF you leave the rest of us alone. America is a child with a HUGE weapon.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Has a sitting president ever shown so much contempt towards Congress and gone to such great lengths to bypass their position as the only American body which can ratify international treaties? I'd argue Obama has violated the Logan act, to be honest. The Treaty Clause of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the POTUS may only negotiate and agree to treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Last time I checked, Obama was far from holding a supermajority of approval in that body, making any attempts at negotiating treaties and any contracts he attempts to agree to null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.


Executive agreements are not treaties. Sole-executive agreements do not require ratification by the Senate. You may find page 5 of this PDF enlightening. So your argument based on the process for ratifying treaties is null and void.

No Congress has ever shown so much contempt towards the President and they've done so since the day he was inaugurated.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
American politics isn't about baking two cakes.


Yes it is. And please keep telling yourselves differently IF you leave the rest of us alone. America is a child with a HUGE weapon.


What does that say about the rest of the world, constantly looking to a "child" for help and support, then?

What I said before stands. It is hypocritical for the world to bitch about American involvement in global matters when it is the rest of the world that demands we participate in those matters in the first place.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Congress lacks the authority to negotiate treaties (or executive agreements) so members of Congress not otherwise authorized by the President would implicitly fall under the category of "without authority of the United States."


To me they are not negotiating a treaty, only stating (which they have done before) that they will not ratify one.

The Senate is Constitutionally tasked to ratify treaties and if they have publically stated (which it appears many of them have) that they will not ratify the treaty what is the negotiation?


The Senate is not doing this just 47 members of the Senate are doing this. So they are acting as citizens not as the Senate because the Senate has not voted on this so they are in violation of the Logan act.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Don't make such a big deal of it, it is a typical tit for tat response from members of Congress that are more than tired of Obama trying to do things without consulting Congress. They are merely showing him how they can reply in kind. It's politics.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

NO! We are asking you to back off and let the world evolve as it should. Not the way that Jefferson thinks it should. Yes, I get the joke that this Father was a liberal.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The Treaty Clause of the Constitution is abundantly clear that the POTUS may only negotiate and agree to treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. Last time I checked, Obama was far from holding a supermajority of approval in that body, making any attempts at negotiating treaties and any contracts he attempts to agree to null and void in the eyes of the Constitution.


This is a political move to undermine the foreign policy of the country.


You mean the foreign policy of Obama and his advisors.

If he was all he promised he would have worked at a non partisan deal. Tough to do? yes. Impossible? no.

He has never attempted to put the work in required to reach any non partisan deal.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   


No Congress has ever shown so much contempt towards the President and they've done so since the day he was inaugurated.


Are you serious? Are you serious? Were you in a gave during George Bush's presidency?



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

NO! We are asking you to back off and let the world evolve as it should. Not the way that Jefferson thinks it should. Yes, I get the joke that this Father was a liberal.



Funny you should say that because Jefferson didn't want America to be allies with any nation. As he said "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: intrepid

Don't make such a big deal of it, it is a typical tit for tat response from members of Congress that are more than tired of Obama trying to do things without consulting Congress. They are merely showing him how they can reply in kind. It's politics.


Sad display though, right? What's that telling the world? If I was leading a country the first question I would ask of someone is, "Who am I talking to?" That actually makes sense.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There only needs to be a treaty if the results of the negotiation are a rollback of the sanctions imposed by Congress. Anything that is within the power of the President can be handled with a sole-executive agreement. The second paragraph of the GOP's letter acknowledges the distinctions between treaties, congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. The third paragraph of the letter recognizes the potential for a sole-executive agreement and basically seeks to undermine the bargaining power of the President by saying that the President will be gone in two years, but they won't be and that the next President can opt out of the sole-executive agreement.

No matter how I look at it, it's Congressional overreach which is hardly any less deplorable than Presidential overreach.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join