Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem like they were doing that in this instance. They were working in the interest of their party and their own power, not the good of the nation. I don't inherently have a problem with members of the legislature taking a role in foreign discussions, but if they're going to do it, they should do it for the right reasons, rather than just to continue their partisan attacks against Obama and the Democrats.
Some GOP members are saying it was a bad idea now to sent the letter to Iran. I wonder why ?:elephantf :agree
I suspect socialists believe ANYTHING the GOP politicians do is for the good of their party and not the Nation so I don't find this criticism of yours to have much merit. anything that opposes obama-to me-is generally for the good of the nation
I think you give Senate Republicans who signed this letter to Iran too much leeway. As duly elected officials, unless they sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, none outside that body should have any dealings with a foreign government or dignitary. Their job is to see to domestic affairs per Art I of the Constitution. They should have left foreign affairs of this type (i.e., treaty negotiations) to the Executive. So, with this and Zyphlin's post #100 in mind, if after the President presents his treaty bill to the Senate and they disagree with the framework of said treaty after having had the opportunity to review it, then they can vote it down. But this "preemptive strike" against what is clearly the President's enumerated power to make treaties with foreign governments the question needs to be asked: Now who's over-stepping their constitutional powers and authority?
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))
Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem like they were doing that in this instance. They were working in the interest of their party and their own power, not the good of the nation. I don't inherently have a problem with members of the legislature taking a role in foreign discussions, but if they're going to do it, they should do it for the right reasons, rather than just to continue their partisan attacks against Obama and the Democrats.
They probably believe opposition to Obama on general principal is in the best interest of their constituents.
Well, partisan nonsense is not a good reason for anyone to be saying anything with regard to foreign relations. We should keep our politics at home, and other countries should keep their politics out of ours.
I think most of us can agree that this GOP letter to Iran was an extremely unwise move. But treason, no.
a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
How about ALL OF IT!
I seriously doubt Senate Republicans would have tolerated this behavior from Senate Democrats when Reagan was in treaty negotiations with Gorbachev. This is clearly an attempt to undermine Pres. Obama's negotiations w/Iran. The GOP Senators who signed their name to this letter should be ashamed.
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?
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?
That case in controversy has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Per SCOTUS:
Precisely what I was going to say. If it was such a bold maneuver that was really speaking for the American people against the tyranny of Obummer, then why are so many GOPers walking it back?
GOP’s “Iran letter” excuse: We were just being “cheeky” - Salon.com
By using the format of an open letter, they have not directly contacted any Iranian officials, and have side-stepped prosecution via the Logan Act, and have protection from the First Amendment. Nor have they interfered with negotiations by formatting the letter as a clarification of a legal procedure, rather than a recommendation to the Iranian government.
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.
They have not overtly interfered, contacted a foreign representative, or done anything that can be seen as interference in Obama's nuclear negotiations. Whatever your opinion, they have crafted the letter superbly to avoid any legal allegations of wrongdoing.
In its' reports n 2014 and in January 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has complied with the terms of the Joint Plan of Action (JPA).
They probably believe opposition to Obama on general principal is in the best interest of their constituents.
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 if it was treason or not. Only, I do know that it does seem they can no longer can help themselves, almost as if they are infirm and require nursing. The party for which I belonged for over 30 years has filled with an inbreeding that has produced imbecils.