• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the GOP Senators commit a Treason act against Obama and the Country?

Did the GOP commit a Treason acted, against Obama and the Country ?


  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
So Congressional Republicans making it known the oppose Obama not only is racist, but now treason too?

How is what Republicans did any different than Obama pre-announcing he would veto legislation? Republicans have announced they will not ratify the current deal being negotiated. That is entirely proper.
 
Well maybe you can enlighten us as to which law may have been broken.
Well I guess have a nice day. I'm really not interested in playing stupid word games.
 
The President has the power to negotiate treaties. But only our legislative branch has the power to ratify it and make it binding. Per the US Constitution. Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2.

:thumbs:

Make perfect sense, since any other reading of this would allow the President to make law since treaties become the law of the land. So Congress is within their rights to comment on this entire matter.
 
Well I guess have a nice day. I'm really not interested in playing stupid word games.

So think they broke a law, but haven't a clue what law that might be.
 
Quite the dumb move. It opens up another avenue of negotiations and allows Iran to play one branch of gov't off of the other.
Why would Iran negotiate if they get a letter delivered that says:

To Whom it May concern:
Just a quick civics lesson since you guys probably never saw School House Rock.
Ya know, any deal that you sign just might be null and void if we can get hold of that White House.
We're just sayin'
Signed, Your Friends in Congress, The Mighty GOP, et al.

Iran can nix the whole deal saying that they don't know who their negotiating with.
They can then press full ahead, sanctions be damned. Someone is always willing to circumvent them to make a buck.
Just keep a record of everyone who signed the letter and watch them back away when the election is in full swing.
And while we're at it, let's invite Bibi over here.
We can fawn all over him, and remove any pressure he might feel to stop the settlements, and help him get re-elected.
What a bunch of Maroons!
The whole thing is stupid when looked at from more than just one angle.

Here's another fictional letter from the Hardliners in Iran.

Dear GOP Lawmakers:

Seriously. I don't care if we dealt with a Republican President. We would be the first to break the agreement anyways. Please use the enclosed gift you idiots.

ClueCardBack.jpg
 
The fact that Dems are saying this, using the word Treason after all Obama and his merry band of scumbags have done, is laughable to the point of being absurd.
 
So think they broke a law, but haven't a clue what law that might be.

I've never really had an issue with you before, but this kind of stuff is beneath a moderator. Obviously we're talking about the Logan Act. Obviously you know this.

Shrug, have a good day.
 
I've never really had an issue with you before, but this kind of stuff is beneath a moderator. Obviously we're talking about the Logan Act. Obviously you know this.

Shrug, have a good day.

What does the Logan Act have to do with immigration reform?









:cool:
 
I've never really had an issue with you before, but this kind of stuff is beneath a moderator. Obviously we're talking about the Logan Act. Obviously you know this.

Shrug, have a good day.

The Logan Act does not apply to representatives of the government.
 
It's not treason or probably even illegal, it will fuel the American are arrogant stuff and piss a lot of people off though. It comes across as "we think you are idiots, so we'll explain basic facts so you stupid Iranians are better informed! Aren't we so nice?"
 
A valiant attempt at misdirection. Failed but valiant. At issue is whether congress has a place inserting itself into foreign affairs. Clearly there is evidence that they have. In addition, the treaty clause in the constitution states, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Therefore, congress has a rightful place in the negotiations with Iran which Obama has taken on unilaterally.

Who's misdirecting?

The Senate has long waited until after negotiations were completed and a bill was presented to them before they got so deeply involved in the treaty ratification process. Whether you or anyone else would characterize the end result of such negotiations as a treaty or an executive agreement, the ratification process is still the same. Furthermore, the Senate would still be afforded the opportunity to weight in on the bill through the normal governing process. That is why I firmly believe these 47 Republican Senators over stepped their bounds here. Yes, the process they laid out in their letter was correct from a constitutional point of view, as far as the separation of power, tenure and nullification process is concerned, but that still does not mean that these Senators get to interfere with ongoing negotiations in an obvious attempt to undermine a sitting President.

Many of us are so concerned about these ongoing efforts to undermine the negotiations which many of us believe will ultimately get to where we all want to get to, which is an Iran that is divorced from any nuclear ambitions.

There will be a time and a place for Congress to weigh in. But that time and place is after a deal is agreed upon. Congress will always have the ability to defund that deal, to cancel it out through legislation, but let’s not undermine negotiations, because all of us agree that the better path to stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a negotiated settlement, rather than a military option, which would be perhaps our only option should these negotiations fail.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/senators-go-around-president-iran/

Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has already called out these 47 Republican Senators for both their attempt to undermine negotiations and in their apparent lack of understanding how international law works.

The Iranian minister said that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy."

Saying he hopes to "enrich the knowledge of the authors," Zarif said:

"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been "mere executive agreements," and not full treaties that received Senate ratification.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...r-propaganda-ploy-offers-to-enlighten-authors

But bringing the matter back down to the domestic, yes, the Senate does have a place in these negotiations. It is "advised" if not directly then indirectly through various Senate Committees, i.e. the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, where each committee is allowed to provide their input. Notwithstanding the roles of each aforementioned Senate Committees, it is not until after negotiations have been hammered out and the framework of such is presented to the full Senate that their "consent" is required and even then the Senate can make changes to the bill via the amendment process before passage.
 
Last edited:
I believe its under directive 10-289

An executive order issued in 2012 by Obama which allows him to do anything he likes with no questioning allowed from anyone? What a dreamer. Why don't we discuss how a dictator operates?
 
Who's misdirecting?

The Senate has long waited until after negotiations were completed and a bill was presented to them before they got so deeply involved in the treaty ratification process. Whether you or anyone else would characterize the end result of such negotiations as a treaty or an executive agreement, the ratification process is still the same. Furthermore, the Senate would still be afforded the opportunity to weight in on the bill through the normal governing process. That is why I firmly believe these 47 Republican Senators over stepped their bounds here. Yes, the process they laid out in their letter was correct from a constitutional point of view, as far as the separation of power, tenure and nullification process is concerned, but that still does not mean that these Senators get to interfere with ongoing negotiations in an obvious attempt to undermine a sitting President.



Why did senators go around the president on Iran?

Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has already called out these 47 Republican Senators for both their attempt to undermine negotiations and in their apparent lack of understanding how international law works.



Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors : The Two-Way : NPR



But bringing the matter back down to the domestic, yes, the Senate does have a place in these negotiations. It is "advised" if not directly then indirectly through various Senate Committees, i.e. the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, where each committee is allowed to provide their input. Notwithstanding the roles of each aforementioned Senate Committees, it is not until after negotiations have been hammered out and the framework of such is presented to the full Senate that their "consent" is required and even then the Senate can make changes to the bill via the amendment process before passage.

The good presidents used to consult with congress during treaty negotiations because they were smart enough to know they had to have a deal the Senate would approve of. I hope we can get a good president some time in the near future.
 
IF I were any civilized nation , particularly Iran, I'd be highly offended and disrespected by this letter.
Talk about being "talked down upon", or patronized" !
Was it that new Congressman, Cotton, who wrote it ??
And he is an "educated" man ???
Where is the Respectful Troll, C., now that the GOP needs him ?

:shrug: Iranians (and many other countries) consistently assume that our Executive is more powerful than it is, mirror-imaging from their own. Obama is not a Supreme Leader, and if he does not get the approval of Congress for any deal he makes, then it rests only on Executive Authority, which can be indeed overturned easily by the next POTUS.
 
YES: earthworm, Jesse Booth, OKgrannie, oncewas, reinoe, Unitedwestand13

Personally, I appreciate the self-identification of the intellectually unserious.
 
What I am fed up with the the BS. Both from politicians who play fast and loose with the truth with their ultimate goal being political gain and those here who defend them because they are on their "side".

:lamo

Oh-the-Irony.jpg
 
Somewhere I remember a guy named Murtha showing somewhere in a foreign land to speak out against Bush. This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the disingenousness, short memory and hypocrisy of the Left. Had Reid retained control of the Senate, it's doubtful this thread or issue would be of any concern.

Precisely. This is the foreign policy equivalent of the debate over the filibuster - for so many, where they stand depends entirely on whose ox is being gored.
 
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?

It's only treason when the Republicans say it's treason, remember. Just like they can say when the president is Kenyan/Muslim/Nazi/Socialist/Whatever.
 
It's only treason when the Republicans say it's treason, remember. Just like they can say when the president is Kenyan/Muslim/Nazi/Socialist/Whatever.

Point taken, but........this doesn't approach treason.
 
I've never really had an issue with you before, but this kind of stuff is beneath a moderator. Obviously we're talking about the Logan Act. Obviously you know this.

Shrug, have a good day.

You're being totally ridiculous, that act has zero to do with the letter.
 
Seriously. This is the dumbest thing I have seen the GOP do yet. But I am prepared to see them top this one. Full steam ahead. :roll:


Dumb and dangerous.....very dangerous ....shall we talk about a new precedent here? WOW!

Just when you think the GOP has gone off the rails entirely, they find a new set of rails to go off...historically unprecedented recklessness !

If Lincoln , Teddy Roosevelt or even Ike could see today's Republican Party they would never stop vomiting.
 
Dumb and dangerous.....very dangerous ....shall we talk about a new precedent here? WOW!

Just when you think the GOP has gone off the rails entirely, they find a new set of rails to go off...historically unprecedented recklessness !

If Lincoln , Teddy Roosevelt or even Ike could see today's Republican Party they would never stop vomiting.

I'll tell you what is dangerous, a president that is so unwilling to work with Congress and has pretty much told the Congress to Go To Hell as he goes alone. He has shown time and time again he is willing to legislate from the Executive branch. Lift sanctions that were put into place by Congress, in regard to Cuba and Iran. Who behind the backs of Congress makes deals with terrorists. Now that is truly dangerous. What the Senators sent amounted to a civics lesson to Iran telling them how our government works and any deal this president makes with Iran will not necessarily hold once he is gone.
 
1. Which is entirely irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which is whether or not they committed treason.

2. There's legitimate questions regarding the "authority of the United States" when it comes to an elected official as opposed to a normal citizen

3. Precedence suggests that such actions are either, at best, not a violation of the Logan Act or, at worst, not compelling enough to justify charges being brought when it relates to an elected federal official engaging in the correspondence.

That case in controversy has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

Per SCOTUS:
"Not only . . . is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." United States v Curtiss-Wright Exp Corp, 299 US 304, 319; 57 S Ct 216, 220; 81 L Ed 255 (1936))
 
It's only treason when the Republicans say it's treason, remember. Just like they can say when the president is Kenyan/Muslim/Nazi/Socialist/Whatever.

Greetings, Glen Contrarian. :2wave:

Although I am fairly certain that Iran knows exactly how our government functions, what is treasonous about sending them an explanation about what possibilities to expect in the future as far as our laws go? We didn't tell them anything untrue, nor did we tell them what to do - that choice is still theirs to make, so how is that acting against this administration?
 
That case in controversy has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

Per SCOTUS:

What kind of negotiations has Congress conducted?
 
Back
Top Bottom