State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal not 'legally binding' - tells Congress butt out

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BrennanHuff

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

Regardless the deal was being adhered to so it was a deal.
What point walking away ?

So there is legally no deal, but we are "adhering" by it?

a reply to: BrennanHuff

The Nazis had a plan to render New York City uninhabitable with a "dirty bomb." Still a valid concept and ongoing concern. My internet is slow, but you should have no trouble googling it.

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BrennanHuff

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

Regardless the deal was being adhered to so it was a deal.
What point walking away ?

So there is legally no deal, but we are "adhering" by it?

Define "legal" in this context.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BrennanHuff

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

Regardless the deal was being adhered to so it was a deal.
What point walking away ?

So there is legally no deal, but we are "adhering" by it?

Define "legal" in this context.

I am not playing this game of back and forth, the deal was never signed by either party, that is a fact. Here in in America the Senate has to approve treaties by a 2/3rd margin.

I will ask again what legal deal are we speaking of?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Xcathdra

That info certainly explains why Obama official Ben Rhodes admitted to lying about the deal in order to sell it to the American people.


Kind of Like the Health Care Bill . For those 8 Years of Obama , I Noticed he would Say or Do Something that he Thinks is in the Best Interest of America , but in Reality , it is the Complete Opposite of what he Peddled . 8 Years of Utter Lies . I am Surprised the Country Survived that ......

Kind of like how Trump has come out with a program to cut drug costs, that does not cut drug costs.

a reply to: BrennanHuff

Here in in America the Senate has to approve treaties by a 2/3rd margin.

Correct. This was not a treaty. It was an Executive Agreement.

I will ask again what legal deal are we speaking of?

One enacted under the constitutional authority of the president. There are other examples. SOFAs for example, agreements concerning US troops deployed in other countries.

The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:

(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;

(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;

(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and

(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

fam.state.gov...

Congress could have stopped it in 2015. They did not do so. There were too many members in favor of it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The USA will soon discover, that its priorities do no rest on Iran or deals with North Korea, or anything outside of its borders. Soon it will be clear that the only thing that matters for the US is internal issues related to the bill of rights, the bible and silencing the wall street whims !

Foreign quests for regime change or attempts to end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan with a kind of "victory" for the US are as futile as they used to be under the Obama administration, but with more grave consequences for the west.

a reply to: Flanker86

The Bible?

Oh god no.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Kind of odd to say so since they say it does and it has not been enacted yet so you have no evidence they are wrong.

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BrennanHuff

But no one signed the "deal", and it wasn't presented to the Senate, so how is it a deal?

Regardless the deal was being adhered to so it was a deal.
What point walking away ?

So there is legally no deal, but we are "adhering" by it?

Define "legal" in this context.

I am not playing this game of back and forth, the deal was never signed by either party, that is a fact. Here in in America the Senate has to approve treaties by a 2/3rd margin.

I will ask again what legal deal are we speaking of?

Once again: what do you mean by "legal?" Phage explained the constitutional justification. What, therefore, is your " legal" objection?

a reply to: Phage

This was not an executive agreement either according to Obamas state department.


State Department says Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it's not 'legally binding' as it tells Congress to butt out of Obama's 'political commitments' - By J. Taylor Rushing, U.s. Political Reporter, For Dailymail.com Published: 17:46 EDT, 25 November 2015 | Updated: 18:50 EDT, 25 November 2015

The Obama administration has disclosed to Congress that this summer's controversial nuclear arms agreement with Iran was never signed and is not legally binding, according to a new report this week.

The State Department made the disclosures in a letter to Kansas congressman Mike Pompeo, a Republican, who had written the department to inquire why the agreement as submitted to Congress in July did not bear the signature of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

'The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,' Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote Pompeo last Thursday.

Congress did vote on it and they turned it down. When Obama didnt get congressional approval Obama ignored them and then illegally bypassed Congress.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Son of a gun. You're right. All that research was for nothing.

It was just an international agreement.

Now what?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Son of a gun. You're right. All that research was for nothing.

Now what?

Well I would say Trump could easily and legally withdraw from this sham of an agreement but it looks like he already did. I guess the ball is in the Iranians and Europeans court now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Son of a gun. You're right. All that research was for nothing.

Now what?

Well I would say Trump could easily and legally withdraw from this sham of an agreement but it looks like he already did. I guess the ball is in the Iranians and Europeans court now.

In other words, the United States is no longer taking a leading role. The price of oil has been steadily rising, which is good for Trump's Saudi friends and, of course, Russia.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

Son of a gun. You're right. All that research was for nothing.

Now what?

Well I would say Trump could easily and legally withdraw from this sham of an agreement but it looks like he already did. I guess the ball is in the Iranians and Europeans court now.

In other words, the United States is no longer taking a leading role. The price of oil has been steadily rising, which is good for Trump's Saudi friends and, of course, Russia.

And Texas. Really, really good for Texas. And North Dakota. Pennsylvania. Colorado. California. Louisianna. Oklahoma. So on and so forth.

The US has become an oil producing powerhouse. For better or worse. With barrel prices below 70 no one was drilling. Its just not really worth it, except the more shallow plays or ones that don't need fracking.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So you are okay if our NATO allies no longer look to us for leadership, provided Texas oil companies make more money?

Iran should put heavy sanctions on Royal Dutch Shell and forbid any activity of that company in Iran or in any Iranian related oil or gas project.

a reply to: DJW001

I would rather go in the right direction rather than lead in the wrong direction.

The EU is buying time ... before it will suddenly pullout of the JCPOA ... Trying to hide their faces before they lose it !

It's time that some of the EU tanker ships going to Iran to get oil, start to sink in the ocean.
The EU itself is full of untapped hydrocarbon resources that could last them hundreds of years, but they keep them
"secret" and blocked from drillng under the excuse of environmentalism ...
The real purpose of this is to create an artificial perception of resource scarcity to justify colonialism and other wars, including the current situation in Libya.