• 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 .
The only people I've seen upset about this are liberals (whom I suspect are rather ready for the headlines to shift away from Hillary's email servers)

But here is the text of the letter:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.​


Please feel free to point out to us the parts that you feel are particularly controversial.

1. Yes, shockingly enough, conservatives are not upset, since they hate Obama on an almost subatomic level.

2. The fact that the letter even exists is the most controversial thing. The intent is clear.
 
They stopped short of any legal violation of the law. But what they did was certainly a serious and even radical departure from the traditional support for the nations foreign policy as it has been carried out over the last few centuries. The blatant disrespect some of the right wing GOP has for our President is beyond disgusting. One can exercise their opposition rights in a responsible manner that would not have been as blatant as this.
 
The only people I've seen upset about this are liberals (whom I suspect are rather ready for the headlines to shift away from Hillary's email servers)

But here is the text of the letter:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.​


Please feel free to point out to us the parts that you feel are particularly controversial.


You didn't think he would actually come up with anything from what was written, did you CPW? :2wave:
 
1. Yes, shockingly enough, conservatives are not upset, since they hate Obama on an almost subatomic level.

2. The fact that the letter even exists is the most controversial thing. The intent is clear.

Look at those goalposts run!!! You said the letter itself got it wrong. Ok, so where is it wrong?
 
1. Yes, shockingly enough, conservatives are not upset, since they hate Obama on an almost subatomic level.

You are projecting. Conservative dislike for President Obama is nowhere near (for example) the vitriolic Liberal hatred for President Bush (W).

2. The fact that the letter even exists is the most controversial thing.

Oh. So Republicans are free to think that any action Obama takes on his own can be undone by a future President, so long as they don't say so? How very generous of you.

The Controversial Thing, apparently, is not that we are slowly (well, not so slowly) and surely abandoning our position that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, the Controversial Thing, apparently, is that Republican Senators have the effrontery to sign a public letter noting that Treaties that don't go through the Senate rest only on Executive Authority. :roll:

The intent is clear.

Oh yes, and it's so clear that only people who are desperate for it to mean something bad can discover it? :roll:


No, you are correct. The intent of this letter is clear. The intent is clearly to lay out the US Constitutional order on international agreements. Do you think that the Obama Administration has been lying to the Iranians about the extent of it's Constitutional authority? Because otherwise, this doesn't make the slightest difference in negotiations other than to make clear the Legislative's Branch that Executive Decisions that do not seek Legislative Approval only have Executive Authority backing them.


But I find it interesting that you are so upset.... and yet.... can't actually find anything in the document to be upset about...... :)
 
Last edited:
They stopped short of any legal violation of the law. But what they did was certainly a serious and even radical departure from the traditional support for the nations foreign policy as it has been carried out over the last few centuries. The blatant disrespect some of the right wing GOP has for our President is beyond disgusting. One can exercise their opposition rights in a responsible manner that would not have been as blatant as this.

This from someone who thinks that being in any opposition to Obama is fundamentally wrong. I'm sure your belief is that their "opposition rights" are to STFU and roll over on everything.
 
You didn't think he would actually come up with anything from what was written, did you CPW? :2wave:

No. :) Liberals are desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill that isn't even a molehill in anything except their imagination - desperate to knock the news cycle over continuing revelations of the unethical and potentially (but not probable) criminal activities of their nominal front-runner for POTUS. :)

If it hadn't been this it would have been shock and horror over how Scott Walker Parts His Hair Like A Racist Or how Rand Paul Referenced A Pickup Truck Which Is Sexist, or something else stupid.
 
They stopped short of any legal violation of the law. But what they did was certainly a serious and even radical departure from the traditional support for the nations foreign policy as it has been carried out over the last few centuries. The blatant disrespect some of the right wing GOP has for our President is beyond disgusting. One can exercise their opposition rights in a responsible manner that would not have been as blatant as this.

Tell us, if you will, what your opinion of the congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi to go see President Assad to relieve pressure being placed on him by the Bush Administration while he was still aiding in the killing of American servicemembers, secretly attempting to develop nuclear weaponry, and supporting global terrorist organizations was? How full of "blatant disrespect" or "disgusting" would you find those actions?
 
Look at those goalposts run!!! You said the letter itself got it wrong. Ok, so where is it wrong?

How am I moving any goalposts here? You might want to educate yourself as to what that phrase means.

The letter implies that Obama doesn't have the authority to make a binding deal.
 
You are projecting. Conservative dislike for President Obama is nowhere near (for example) the vitriolic Liberal hatred for President Bush (W). )

I stopped reading at this rock-stupid comment.
 
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?

Things are being done through the White House that have never been done before. You have an issue with that?

Seriously, please point to where in the United States Constitution it restricts any member(s) of Congress from sending a letter that details the process involved in ratifying a treaty.
 
No. :) Liberals are desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill that isn't even a molehill in anything except their imagination - desperate to knock the news cycle over continuing revelations of the unethical and potentially (but not probable) criminal activities of their nominal front-runner for POTUS. :)

If it hadn't been this it would have been shock and horror over how Scott Walker Parts His Hair Like A Racist Or how Rand Paul Referenced A Pickup Truck Which Is Sexist, or something else stupid.



Did you hear what Hillary had to say about the Senators that sent this letter? Now while all were focused on that bloated windbag and her lies and excuses over the emails. Seems some missed what she said about those who wrote this letter.

Which her lameass needs to be called out over what she said. Each one of those Senators should send her letter and tell her never to open that Big mouth of hers again questioning any of their Patriotism.

Yes desperation does become part of the lefts DNA nature.....especially when they can't run and hide.
 
How am I moving any goalposts here? You might want to educate yourself as to what that phrase means.

The letter implies that Obama doesn't have the authority to make a binding deal.

Ok, fair enough, it does imply that and you're right, there is no doubt as to the intent of the letter. It's to undermine and even attempt to prevent a deal being reached with Iran. I just think you may be over estimating how much people in the US want that deal, especially one negotiated entirely by the Obama administration.
 
That's alright.....no need to show us what you can't figure out in the first place.

Yeah, because, you know, there was no vitriolic hate against Bush. It was all rational and justified. :lol: I'm beginning to wonder if some around here just weren't even alive during the Bush administration.
 
Ok, fair enough, it does imply that and you're right, there is no doubt as to the intent of the letter. It's to undermine and even attempt to prevent a deal being reached with Iran. I just think you may be over estimating how much people in the US want that deal, especially one negotiated entirely by the Obama administration.

Here is how he moved the Goal Posts.....From what CPW asked him. Note how he came back with the Whole letter. Despite being asked which parts. When asked about parts do you just say here.....just take the whole thing. :lamo


The only people I've seen upset about this are liberals (whom I suspect are rather ready for the headlines to shift away from Hillary's email servers)

But here is the text of the letter:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.​


Please feel free to point out to us the parts that you feel are particularly controversial.
 
Yeah, because, you know, there was no vitriolic hate against Bush. It was all rational and justified. :lol: I'm beginning to wonder if some around here just weren't even alive during the Bush administration.

Well it was hard to deflect to Bush.....so the fall back is any that lean to the Right. Then point how all do the same thing while rewriting their revisionist alternate reality.

But no really.....they are Independent and Bi-partisan and they use smart power. :lol:
 
It wasn't treason but it was stupid, ill considered, and makes the U.S. look like a joke to rest of the world. If they want to crush a potential deal then they should at least do it through legislation. And other Republicans are coming out against the letter as well.
 
The letter implies that Obama doesn't have the authority to make a binding deal.

It doesn't imply that at all. It straight out states that. Why? Because it is absolutely true. No President has the authority to make a binding deal with other countries. They have the authority to negotiate a deal. But it is Congress that makes that deal binding. Without their approval the next sitting President can nullify that deal with a simple EO.

Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
 
It's not illegal, but the GOP just handed the Dems an unbelievable electoral cudgel. What a breathtakingly stupid maneuver.

You mean like when Pelosi went to visit Assad in Syria in 2007?
 
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?

1: This is not the first time, nor will it more than likely be the last that Senators have sent letters to foreign countries.

2: No one can commit treason against a specific person. Only against their nation. And that certainly did not happen here. Unless you consider providing information (which anyone and everyone has access to know and learn) on how our government actually works is treasonous?

3: I see no problem with the letter that they sent. It explains to them how our government works. IMO any country should know how the country that they are negotiating with works. That seems like simple common sense logic to me. It also lets Iran know that whatever deal they try to make is going to have to get past more than just a sitting President. IE: What ever deal is struck had better be a good one in order for Congress to approve it and make it last beyond one sitting President.
 
It doesn't imply that at all. It straight out states that. Why? Because it is absolutely true. No President has the authority to make a binding deal with other countries. They have the authority to negotiate a deal. But it is Congress that makes that deal binding. Without their approval the next sitting President can nullify that deal with a simple EO.

Article 2, section 2, paragraph 2.

Mornin KS. :2wave: Do you think any of the leftists figured out the part about Iran submitting the deal to their Parliament over any treaties?
 
Mornin KS. :2wave: Do you think any of the leftists figured out the part about Iran submitting the deal to their Parliament over any treaties?

Howdy MMC. :2wave: Nope. From what I can tell all this fake outrage is just them trying to get the media to stop reporting on what went on with Hillary's email scandal. Pretty standard stuff though no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Make other side look bad while trying to hide the bad in your side. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

Edit: Now that I think about it, another aspect to this that really doesn't surprise me is that they are ignoring that what the letter states is actually true. Which means that once again, they are ignoring the Constitution. A common theme of late. :(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom