• 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 .
And you really think these actions are the same thing?

No, I think Pelosi's actions are atrocious, abusive, and enabled someone who was killing American soldiers, sailors, and Marines, while the Republicans actions simply informed the Iranian leadership about US Constitutional order.

But both would count as the Legislature inserting itself into the foreign policy debate in a way that (broadly) opposed the intents of the Executive (in Bush's example the intent to put pressure on Assad to get him to stop, in Obama's example the intent to be able to wave a piece of paper and declare Peace In Our Time), which is what seems to be so incensing you :).

That sort of partisan knee jerk response is not even worthy of a serious analysis.

So... basically.... no. You are unable to either admit that your own "team" has done far worse, or admit your hypocrisy, and so you choose to try to ignore. How astonishing :).
 
That would make those people complete and utter fools.

If a good deal is there to be had, it should be taken, but not taking the time to find out is absolutely foolish because the only other alternatives are further sanctions which will not work and war.

Which one are you comfortable with?

I'm not comfortable with putting any faith in Iran. I'm also not comfortable with how much you probably think we need to roll over for Iran for you to term something a "good deal".
 
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?

I don't know about treason. Disrespectful of the executive branch, undermining, sure.
 
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.

That Obama, or any other president, does not have the authority to make a binding deal is a fact, not in implication.
 
Your last sentence is exactly why there is no point in Obama trying to involve congress in the negotiations. The party that controls the congress he would have to involve in such negotiations has a base that is so crazy they believe that Obama wants Iran to go nuclear because of his "Muslim sympathies". Given the choice of having the president negotiate an agreement or allowing the input of a bunch of nutjobs, I think we are better off with leaving it to the president. If the deal is bad, the next president can simply ignore it.

Right, no nutjobs on the left. Like it or not, those people were elected just as the president was. You're saying it's ok to just bypass whoever disagrees with you? Remember you said that because you better be consistent about it. Your unwavering loyalty to Obama and the Democrats is admirable, I suppose.
 
That Obama, or any other president, does not have the authority to make a binding deal is a fact, not in implication.

Although that's not what republicans have been arguing all these months. They've been arguing that a deal that isn't even complete is a bad deal.
 
Yeah, its totally unprecedented for a president to negotiate a deal with an foreign government without congressional approval.... I mean its only happened hundreds of times. As the letter points out, if the Republicans don't like the deal they can simply ignore it if they win the presidency in 2016.

Or, the Republicans can simply not ratify the treaty or rescind with a new president. Which is what the letter points out.

Last I knew pointing out truths is not a treasonist act.
 
Your last sentence is exactly why there is no point in Obama trying to involve congress in the negotiations. The party that controls the congress he would have to involve in such negotiations has a base that is so crazy they believe that Obama wants Iran to go nuclear because of his "Muslim sympathies". Given the choice of having the president negotiate an agreement or allowing the input of a bunch of nutjobs, I think we are better off with leaving it to the president. If the deal is bad, the next president can simply ignore it.

Here's the problem as I see it. Your political perspective makes you believe that the Republicans in congress are nut jobs. Many of us believe that Obama has usurped congressional authority and made the executive branch more powerful than is constitutionally mandated. It's a theory that I use to discuss on another board during the Bush years called the Unitary Executive theory. Here are the facts. Another president may have been impeached given the executive over reach and usurpation of congressional legislative authority Obama has displayed. Congress has no stomach for impeachment and would and should not go down in history as impeaching the first half black president. Obama knows this and is emboldened to do whatever he wants to do. That's why rather than impeachment congress has resorted to law suits and letters to foreign leaders. The branches of our government are supposed to be co equal and the only way congress can let Obama know that they have a seat at the table is to go to extraordinary lengths to be heard. None of this would be necessary if Obama would be transparent and collegial with congress.
 
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. Obama is not King. There is no ability to commit "treason against Obama".

2. This is not in any way, shape, or form grounds for a charge let alone a conviction of treason.
 
Senators and Congressmen act in the best interest of the people they represent (theoretically). They do not have to act in Obama's best interest, not are they subservient to the executive branch.
The SCOTUS disagrees: "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."{emphasis added} United States v Curtiss-Wright Exp Corp, 299 US 304, 319; 57 S Ct 216, 220; 81 L Ed 255 (1936))
 
1. Obama is not King. There is no ability to commit "treason against Obama".

2. This is not in any way, shape, or form grounds for a charge let alone a conviction of treason.

But there is cause to charge them with violating the Logan Act:

1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
 
I don't think what they did was terribly professional. But I also don't think that what they did was illegal. And it most definitely does not qualify as an "act of treason".
 
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?

I must confess. I've said many bad things against King Obama in my years here at DP. Fortunately, I'm not a citizen of the USA so I can't be tried for treason. Similarly, I'm thankful I'm not a citizen of North Korea.
 
But there is cause to charge them with violating the Logan Act

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.
 
I'm curious. How is what the Republican Senators did any different than what Obama did, or any President, in relation to any threat he makes to veto legislation Congress may adopt? Likewise, Senators and Representatives, both Republican and Democrat, have had discussions with Canadian diplomats and Canadian government ministers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada in relation to the Keystone XL Pipeline debate. Should that be considered treasonous considering Obama's ever changing position on the pipeline?
 
I don't think what they did was terribly professional. But I also don't think that what they did was illegal. And it most definitely does not qualify as an "act of treason".

It's everything you said, and, it's very embarrassing. In fact America is showing the world just how polarized we are. And that's not great for confidence or security.
 
Right, no nutjobs on the left. Like it or not, those people were elected just as the president was. You're saying it's ok to just bypass whoever disagrees with you? Remember you said that because you better be consistent about it. Your unwavering loyalty to Obama and the Democrats is admirable, I suppose.

I am saying that the president regardless of party negotiates agreements with foreign powers regularly and there is nothing unusual about this. I am not a big fan of Obama and I don't think he has been a good president in regards to foreign policy. Just the same, what the Republicans did in writing a letter to Iran certainly doesn't help things either.
 
,

And this is a common deflection when it's been pointed out to someone that they lack outrage when it's done by someone on their "side" and just looking at your first line, your kneejerk reaction was, in essence, "it's not the same thing".

So tell us your opinion then - is the example brought up by the other poster to me - in your opinion - the same level of what was done here with the Republican Senators signing that letter?
 
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?

Oh yay, we need some extra hyperbole!
 
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.

Maybe you need to review Xfactors link, and educate yourself on the matter.
 
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?

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.
 
Yeah, yeah, the usual "traitor" crap.

By no reasonable definition do illegal immigrants constitute an invading army or an enemy. But please, continue to piss into the wind. It's amusing.


The problem with executive amnesty is that the Constitution specifically assigns matter of immigration to the legislative branch, not the executive. Regardless of how anyone feels about immigration, legal or otherwise, this is a power grab that needs to be checked.
 
No, I think Pelosi's actions are atrocious, abusive, and enabled someone who was killing American soldiers, sailors, and Marines, while the Republicans actions simply informed the Iranian leadership about US Constitutional order.

But both would count as the Legislature inserting itself into the foreign policy debate in a way that (broadly) opposed the intents of the Executive (in Bush's example the intent to put pressure on Assad to get him to stop, in Obama's example the intent to be able to wave a piece of paper and declare Peace In Our Time), which is what seems to be so incensing you :).



So... basically.... no. You are unable to either admit that your own "team" has done far worse, or admit your hypocrisy, and so you choose to try to ignore. How astonishing :).

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".

Arguing with you about your own hyper partisan response is like trying to grow an apple tree in the Sahara desert. Its pointless.
 
I have but one question on this matter:

It is a power enumerated to the President under the Article 2, Clause 2 (Advise and Consent Clause), that allows the President to make a treaty with a foreign country PROVIDED two-thirds of the Senate concurs.

So it's an enumerated power to the President, with a specifically listed caveat that said enumerated power can only be acted upon with consent by the Senate.

Here's the actual text for you:

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;

Without formal "advice and consent" from the Senate, which requires a two-thirds vote, the President can not enter into any official Treaty. He may enter into an executive agreement, similar to what Teddy Roosevelt did with Santo Domingo, but as Teddy noted:

The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done
 
Back
Top Bottom