• 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!

Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Actually, it was the voters who screwed Obama in the last election by taking his Senate away from him. Too bad he doesn't care to listen to the citizens.

This has little to do with the electorate. Stop playing partisan games. Blaming this on Obama is not going to work.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The other 46 idiots who signed on to this travesty, most of whom have been in office far longer than the few weeks Senator Cotton has, should have known better. The GOP does make a fantastic circular firing squad when they really put their minds to it.

It was a sorry and short-sighted spectacle. It doesn't provide a great deal of governance confidence.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

How would you act if 47 democrat senators decided to do this under a republican president?

I will see your proposed "Letter explaining the American constitutional balance of powers" and raise you a "Delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi to help relieve the political pressure that President Assad was coming under from the Bush Administration while the Assad government was still helping to kill American servicemembers in Iraq, supporting major global terrorist organizations, trying to secretly develop nuclear weapons, and massively abusing the human rights of his people" :)
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

It was a sorry and short-sighted spectacle. It doesn't provide a great deal of governance confidence.

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 point out where you feel their understanding of governance is so sharply mistaken?






Look. I realize this is The Talking Point That Has To Be as there is a bit of desperation to get the conversation away from Hillary's emails/lies/whathaveyou; but seriously, ya'll are smarter than to fall for this.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The Senate has essentially stated that any agreement, no matter what it is, will be deemed unacceptable. It is a clear attempt to undermine the president, no matter the outcome.

That is false. The Senate declared that any agreement that was strictly an executive branch maneuver (which is what the Administration intends to make it) can be undone by any following Executive (which is correct). Nowhere did they state or intimate that "any agreement no matter what will be deemed unacceptable", and, in fact, in ending the letter by hoping that nuclear negotiations progress, stated rather the opposite.

....Did you bother to read the document you are oh-so-upset about before you decided to denounce it? It's not exactly a 1,000+ page remake of the healthcare sector. It's four paragraphs and a sign-off sentence.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

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 point out where you feel their understanding of governance is so sharply mistaken?






Look. I realize this is The Talking Point That Has To Be as there is a bit of desperation to get the conversation away from Hillary's emails/lies/whathaveyou; but seriously, ya'll are smarter than to fall for this.

I see you're going full hack mode with the Hillary stuff. My bad for thinking you might be better than that.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Current polls suggest there are lots of conservatives that want that war mongering liar, Netanyahu...or the murderering dictator, Putin... to be their leader instead Obama....so what makes you so different?

OK, so you are arguing from Crazytown. No need to go further with this.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Nobody in this thread has any idea what is in the agreement yet want to undermine and attack it because....well Obama.

Isn't THAT the problem? "We have to pass it, before we can see what's in it"...? How many times will we run to kick the football while Lucy pulls it away at the last moment....?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

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 point out where you feel their understanding of governance is so sharply mistaken?

There's a difference between explaining a constitutional process and actually carrying it out. The Senators could have made all the points they did in their letter after an agreement had been reached during the Senate's review of the agreement. The President cannot bar the Senate from reviewing such agreements. Instead, it weighed in with a letter to a foreign government during the diplomatic process when no such agreement has been reached and prospects remain uncertain. That's where the problem exists and it's a lack of understanding about implementation (unless one wants to attribute other motives to the letter e.g. a preemptive bid to blow up the negotiations).

The Senate should have waited until there was an agreement and then pressed for its submission for ratification. Failing such submission, it could still have pursued various legislative remedies. Moreover, if the Iran misses its March deadline, which remains a possibility, the Senate can readily act to renew suspended sanctions, etc. Those are examples of two points where Senate action would have been appropriate and much closer to the process laid out in the Constitution.

Instead, the Senators intervened prematurely. Weighing in as directly as the Senators did with a letter to a foreign government is technically not prohibited by the Constitution. However, it is not consistent with the process set forth by the Framers or their further articulation of such principles in the Federalist Papers.

ook. I realize this is The Talking Point That Has To Be as there is a bit of desperation to get the conversation away from Hillary's emails/lies/whathaveyou; but seriously, ya'll are smarter than to fall for this.

Secretary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account is entirely another matter. If anything, the letter diverted attention from that issue. Moreover, there will be ample time during the campaign process for candidates in both Parties to raise questions about that issue and doing so is fair game considering that, among other things, private e-mail accounts could be more vulnerable to hacking, etc.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Oh please. "Obama is handing Iran nukes" isn't extremist?



Nope.

We handed NK nukes, what makes you think Obama's legacy hunting isn't just as short sighted?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

47 traitors, pure and simple.

Unbelievable. At least one of my Republican senators refused to sign that nonsense.




Traitors? Treason is a strong accusation, I am not sure you know what it means.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

"Obama Derangement Syndrome" doesn't cut it anymore. It has to be something that fits the new levels they've sunk to, perhaps "Obama Psychosis Syndrome." I was content to roll my eyes through the whole Birther and Benghazi idiocy, but I always did so believing they had limits to their awfulness. Now I'm pretty sure they have no such limits at all.




Oh god, and still, any criticism of the messiah god king, even at this late juncture in his failed presidency must be a "derangement".... /facepalm
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

I don't think it's mental. I think it orchestrated. As evidenced by the Republican leadership's comments on their main goal was to make Obama a one term prez and the meeting they had on Obama's inauguration to obstruct everything he did.

In short, I don't think ODS is a mental thing, I think acting with ODS it's simply a political strategy written in stone then praying it's contagious.




hooray left wing talking points!

daily kos?

crooksandliars.com?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Principally, the Republicans have no business torpedoing this treaty because no great deeds are forthcoming on their part.



The US cannot enter into a treaty without congressional approval.


There are executive agreements, that he can do, but he must notify congress in 60 days, who then can vote it down.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The Senate has essentially stated that any agreement, no matter what it is, will be deemed unacceptable. It is a clear attempt to undermine the president, no matter the outcome.

If there is an agreement that allows Iran to have a nuclear weapons program, then I would agree that its unacceptable. After-all, the letter didn't mention a nuclear energy program.

There have been zero executive agreements made over international armaments? 99% have been treaties authorized by Senate advice and consent, and 1 was a congressional executive agreement( passed with majority of both House & Senate votes ).
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

... and now he gets in a little dig at the American people.... nice.

How so. It seems perfectly fine for DP posters to show up daily "bashing" one party or the other. It only becomes anti-American when you "bash" both.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The "strength and determination" of an "ally" who receives billions in aid from us and doesn't want it to stop. You think he doesn't have an ulterior motive here? Iran has enough conventional weapons to turn Tel Aviv into a crater. If Iran was that hellbent on destroying Israel, regardless of retribution, they would have done it already.

The Iranian government is a bunch of first-rate assholes, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they are suicidal.

That's just nonsense.

One Israeli nuclear bomb dropped on Teheran and the Mullahs would be dust. Conventional weapons mean nothing in a life and death match against an enemy who has nuclear weapons. It's why the Iranian Mullahs know they can't fulfill their ultimate goal of destroying Israel unless they have the first strike nuclear capability that they desire.

It may matter little to you what happens to Israel or what happens to the balance of power in the Middle East should Iran succeed in getting nuclear weapons and that's fine. But if you don't think those who govern and act on the basis of religious intolerance aren't fully comfortable with suicide missions, you're not paying attention to world events the past couple of decades.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

And again, what in the letter is a violation of the language of the act you presented?

And just for reference, what about Jimmy Carter's frequent visits to Palestine and contact with Palestinian leaders criticizing both Israel and the US relations and negotiations? What about Denis Rodman's visits to North Korea and contact with PRNK leadership?

Those two examples would be far more representative of interference in US relations and negotiations with a foreign government. Perhaps the law you reference, while not relevant in this particular case, is no longer relevant in any case.

You're right with those two examples, they are examples. But the law really isn't aimed at private citizens. That's why the important part isn't the talking with foreign governments or leaders, it's talking to foreign governments or leaders with intent to influence an ongoing international dispute. Basically, it's to ensure that we have one face when negotiating internationally. The party that's not in charge is not permitted to conduct discussions with foreign leaders for the purpose of undercutting current negotiations.

We sat through this when Bush was making a disaster on the national stage. Like it or not, he was president. All negotiations had to go through the state department. Elections have consequences, you don't get to pretend that the president isn't there just because you disagree with him.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

The Republicans could have avoided it, too, if they hadn't decided from day one they were going to screw this guy like no president has been screwed before.

You could be working for the Peoples Republic of North Korea with that ability to weave imaginary propaganda. But I do admire the fact that, unlike others, you still hold your Obama doll close to the chest when you turn out the lights each night.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

We sat through this when Bush was making a disaster on the national stage. Like it or not, he was president. All negotiations had to go through the state department. Elections have consequences, you don't get to pretend that the president isn't there just because you disagree with him.

You mean like when Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in 2007? Or when Democrats went to Iraq in 2002? Or when Rockerfeller went to the Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria in 2002?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

There's a difference between explaining a constitutional process and actually carrying it out. The Senators could have made all the points they did in their letter after an agreement had been reached during the Senate's review of the agreement.

No they couldn't have - the Administration has announced that Constitution Schmonstitution, it doesn't have to send any agreement to the Senate.

The President cannot bar the Senate from reviewing such agreements.

The President disagrees with you, and thinks he can :)

Instead, it weighed in with a letter to a foreign government during the diplomatic process when no such agreement has been reached and prospects remain uncertain. That's where the problem exists and it's a lack of understanding about implementation (unless one wants to attribute other motives to the letter e.g. a preemptive bid to blow up the negotiations).

On the contrary - if you will read the text of the letter, it specifically is addressing the point brought up above - that any agreement that isn't ratified by Congress is simply an Executive Agreement that relies solely on Executive Authority, and is thus weaker.

The Senate should have waited until there was an agreement and then pressed for its submission for ratification. Failing such submission, it could still have pursued various legislative remedies. Moreover, if the Iran misses its March deadline, which remains a possibility, the Senate can readily act to renew suspended sanctions, etc.

:) The President has already said he would veto such an action. Checks and Balances? He Don't Need No Stinkin Checks and Balances!

Instead, the Senators intervened prematurely. Weighing in as directly as the Senators did with a letter to a foreign government is technically not prohibited by the Constitution. However, it is not consistent with the process set forth by the Framers or their further articulation of such principles in the Federalist Papers.

That's interesting. Can you demonstrate that, by showing where Congress making clear a Constitutional point of order during negotiations with a foreign country in which the Executive is attempting to (quite potentially unconstitutionally) expand it's authority beyond it's bounds, was decried, or derided, or otherwise looked down upon in those writers?

Secretary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account is entirely another matter.

It's the major news cycle, and it's bad for Democrats. The desperate need to shift the cycle explains not a little of the "Shock, Shock To Find Gambling Going On In Here!" that we are seeing.

If anything, the letter diverted attention from that issue

Which is my point.

Moreover, there will be ample time during the campaign process for candidates in both Parties to raise questions about that issue

At which point in time the Media and liberals will dismiss it as "old news", pretending that yesterday's news conference in which no answers were given and the possibility of giving answers was derided somehow instead answered everything, which now doesn't have to be rehashed. :) The game is rather obvious.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Here's some advice for you: "don't dish out what you're not prepared to eat."

that's pretty good advice, except I didn't attack you personally...so keep yourself in check.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

You mean like when Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in 2007? Or when Democrats went to Iraq in 2002? Or when Rockerfeller went to the Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria in 2002?

Did they have a passport? Did they notify the state department of their visits? And what ongoing negotiations did they sabotage?

Here's a take by an Obama hating conservative that I found to be pretty darn convincing.
Republican Congressmen Violated Logan Act By Negotiating With Foreign Leaders Washington's Blog
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

that's pretty good advice, except I didn't attack you personally...so keep yourself in check.
You called him a troll.
 
Back
Top Bottom