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

originally posted by: queenofswords

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?

You mean the congress that did everything Bush wanted? The congress that was in office in no way showed the contempt towards Bush that the congress we have has shown towards Obama. When Obama first took office congress came right out and said we are going to do everything we can to make sure he doesn't get elected to a second term. When did Bush's congress do anything close to this?

double post

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

IMO you nailed it here. Just wish I didn't feel the need to have a shower now.

a reply to: intrepid

It's nothing compared to what the Reagan campaign worked out with the Mullahs holding American embassy staff hostage in 1980.

The arms started flowing to Iran in Reagan's first term.

No fire but one hell of a lot of smoke.

The great Satan. They must have worked with Rummy.

originally posted by: buster2010
double post

Very true. I've never seen this much disrespect for the office of the president of the United States. It's pathetic.

More so because of the internet and the rise of talk radio and all of that. Most people are brainwashed by this right/left propaganda. People still think that President Obama has destroyed American and shredded the constitution is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood, is not a US citizen and is going to run for a third term, well because he's a dictator right, and that's what he'll do. Oh, I forgot to mention that he's the antichrist too. LOL

Stop drinking the Koolaide people and start researching and thinking for yourselves. Whatever, idiots like Rush Limbaugh say, millions of his followers believe. They don't realize that he's being paid to say those things.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: intrepid

Yes BUT are they "authorized" to be in these discussions? I haven't seen anything like this before, from either parties.

All treaties need their ratification. If they have no intention of ratifying it they are saving everyone the time of doing a Kabuki Dance to craft one.

This is all assuming that the GOP will win the WH and hold the House. That isn't a given. I can only think what this says to the world. Unity isn't a word I'd use.

the republicans don't care....they want to run the entire government....they have both houses of congress, the supreme court, and now they've decided to run the state department

originally posted by: amazing

Stop drinking the Koolaide people and start researching and thinking for yourselves.

It's too late for them to stop, and it can't be un-drunk. The only silver lining would be if their hate drives them so crazy that they utterly ruin their own party and take the 1% with them.

👣

Wow. Wonder what the other countries involved in the negotiations are going to make of this. Talk about undermining your own government.

[Source]

Hard to decide if these people are bullies, treasonous, or just flat out stupid. Or if this is just part two of trying to influence the Israeli election.

ETA:

"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday ahead of a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk.

Unusual, indeed.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

1. Executive agreements aren't legally binding and incoming presidents can, at their choosing,m either honor their predecessor's agreements of nullify them. Tradition shows most are generally honored... but traditions don't take precedence over law and the good of the nation.
2. The Logan Act argument doesn't apply here because members of Congress are absolutely granted the power of international negotiation, including in opposition to the seated administration, and especially when it involves multiple representatives involvement.
3. On inauguration day, and through his first 2 years, the man had a fully pliant Democrat majority House and Senate. To suggest that he wasn't handed a wallet stuffed with credit cards and signed blank checks is disingenuous at best, revisionist at worst. In those two years the country's biggest accomplishments were 5 trillion in debt, the largest tax increase in American history, passage of a horrible health bill, and laying the foundation for full-on failure in Iraq. He can proudly own those achievements because he didn't have a disagreeable Congress to "obstruct" his mistakes before they reached the books.

IMO, the justice dept. should have every one of them arrested and charged with treason. I'd invite all the MSM news sources to witness the perp-walk and all.

Win or lose, at least they'd be forced to defend themselves in court.

Their actions are unbelievable, despicable and pathetic.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

1. I didn't say they were or that he couldn't. What constitutes "the good of the nation" is obviously entirely subjective.
2. Really? From where is this authority derived?
3. What does this have to do with members of Congress expressing their contempt for the President? Nothing at all.

a reply to: intrepid

Where was the outrage in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi met with Assad?

The visit is being seen as a strong signal of reengagement with Syria by the United States, which in recent years has sought to isolate the country diplomatically, and appears to have raised the profile of Mr. Assad internationally. But it remains unclear how the development is being received by other countries in the Middle East that have uneasy relations with Syria.

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

Ms. Pelosi, who left Damascus this afternoon on a flight to Saudi Arabia for the next stage of her trip to the region, took pains her news conference to insist that she was not contradicting the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East.

On Tuesday, President Bush said the visit sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Assad’s government.

Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader

More political BS, and tit for tat acting like children, while we defend their incompetence as leaders!

a reply to: seeker1963

Meh, it looks like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

👣

originally posted by: buster2010

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.

So what part of the Logan Act have they violated by saying, 'If we do not ratify a treaty, there is no treaty'?

You need a super-majority to ratify treaties, the 47 are enough to prevent a super-majority and are stating that point.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

So they are basically stating the obvious, which is not a negotiation, just clarifying the way laws and treaties function in regards the Legislative and Executive branches.

By telling the Iranians, 'This is how it works', what are they negotiating?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Did the Iranians not know how it works?

👣

originally posted by: BlueMule
Did the Iranians not know how it works?

Most likely they did.

It is obviously posturing and grandstanding but those two things do not make it illegal. Just juvenile.

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: seeker1963

Meh, it looks like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

👣

Just making a comparison of the fake outrage being presented in this thread and making a point that the only people outraged our those that are willingly defending those who have no interest nor desire to represent them.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, but it is what it is. I was just pointing out the obvious tactics that now has our country so divided.

a reply to: seeker1963

The OP didn't reply to my example either...

Seems like a "gang posting thread"...a T&C violation...a Mod too.