• 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 .
iran_zpsbozeszfr.jpg
 
spud_meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Some GOP members are saying it was a bad idea now to sent the letter to Iran. I wonder why ?:elephantf :agree
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't think ANYTHING party operatives, which includes sitting legislators, do isn't for the good of their party is delusional. Of course this was a party-before-country move.
 
Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

MTAtech said:
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))
Click to expand...

See above. 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.

Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

They probably believe opposition to Obama on general principal is in the best interest of their constituents.
 
spud_meister said:
They probably believe opposition to Obama on general principal is in the best interest of their constituents.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with you there. :lol:
 
OrphanSlug said:
I think most of us can agree that this GOP letter to Iran was an extremely unwise move. But treason, no.
Click to expand...

Logan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Undermining Obama makes me proud of those Republicans
 
polgara said:
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?
Click to expand...

Morning Polgara. It's not treason. It's hugely in bad form, it's a very serious slight to the executive branch, and it's embarrassing, as it gives a very public perception that America is as polarized as it's ever been, divided to the extent that one party is bringing in a foreign leader to "straighten out" the opposition party president, and now then desperate enough to further humiliate the executive by publicly seeking to undermine the negotiations of the P5+1! Are you really going to tell me that you'd be equally nonchalant about this, all things reversed?
 
I see this poll has been jacked. I note almost every poll that has a right/left split in this section tends to get jacked in favor of the leftwing position even those where the votes are public. You wonder if its members logging out to queer the results, banned former members trying to slake their spite over their bannings, or trained monkeys at the Daily Kos being given bananas to vote vote vote
 
oncewas said:
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?
Click to expand...

No treason. But as old as I am I remember when politics ended at the waters edge. In fact back in 1964 Goldwater refused to make Vietnam an issue because of that. But since then foreign policy has been fair game. Back in those days, the 50's I know the senate would approve budgets for organizations like the CIA without even asking anything about what they were doing with the money. But those days has changed.

If I remember right, Carter is always poking his nose into the foreign policy of Republican presidents by going here and there. There was also 3 Democratic senators and a congresswoman who visited Saddam prior to the second Gulf War. The Republicans were just as much upset about their visit as the Democrats are now about the letter.

Treaties must be approved by the senate, so unless this negotiations is not a treaty, the senate has a roll to play. It wouldn't surprise me if words was used to try to make this Iran thing not a treaty. Time will tell.

Personally, I wish the Republicans wouldn't have sent the letter. But in today's political environment where each party thinks what they do is fine, but if the other party does the exact same thing, they are wrong. All this hoopla doesn't surprise me one bit.
 
MTAtech said:
That case in controversy has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

Per SCOTUS:
Click to expand...

And as we've seen repeatedly over the years, there are grey areas where the Executive can step into the area typically assigned to the legislative and vise versa. As to whether or not this is "negotiation" is questionable. Additionally, as I pointed out and you've convienently ignored, precedence suggests that such actions as this does not rise to a level that either is a violation, or necessitates a charge of a violation, considering the plethora of times over the past 30 decades that members of congress have conversed with foreign nations, utilizing their official capacity to give weight to their words, regarding issues relating to ongoing actions by the executive.
 
PoS said:
Logan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

1. There's by no means a slam dunk case this violates the logan act

2. The logan act isn't treason.

Care to actually provide some kind of meaningful and worth while original content? Or just want to mindlessly link wikipedia posts that don't relate to what was asked in the thread topic or in the quote you stated?
 
spud_meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

That may be, but the letter does more than inform the Iranian Government (and the Iranian people) of how U.S. process government works - that "legal procedure" you refer to above. It essentially warns Iran that any agreement stuck between two world leaders, specifically Pres. Obama (US) and the Ayatollah (Iran), can be revoked or changed if and when a new President or Senate (majority) comes to power and don't like the original deal that was made. Pay close attention to how the wording in bold:

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.
Click to expand...

These 47 Republican Senators were 100% correct on procedures for ratifying a treaty or executive agreement as presented by the POTUS, but they made it clear that any deal they didn't like would be thrown out. Notice also how they point out that Senators can serve for a longer period than the POTUS..."perhaps decades".

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.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you that. Most people won't see anything illegal about the letter. However, the problem stems in their cleverly crafted warning meant to "steer" negotiations in the direction they (hardline Republicans) want. This effectively undermines the President's attempt to negotiate in good faith the best deal possible for all concerned. So far, it would appear that Iran is complying with the original framework of a nuclear weapons/enrichment reduction deal as initially established in Nov 2013 as outlined in this report by the Congressional Research Service dated 02/02/2015. From page 5 of the report:

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).
Click to expand...

The JPA essentially states that "Iran agreed to refrain from 'any further advances of its activies' at the Natanz commercial-scale facility, Fordow facility and Arak reactor" which are the three nuclear facilities capable of either enriching uranium 235, producing heavy-water or converting low-enriched uranium (LEU) to weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). (Page 3-5 refers)

They probably believe opposition to Obama on general principal is in the best interest of their constituents.
Click to expand...

What they really believe is that they can bully Iran to do what they want them to do - to totally dismantle their nuclear enrichment program - PERIOD.

I can get behind safeguards as outlined in the CSS report provided that inspections are broadened to include nuclear facilities Iran would construct in the future. It's the only area where the door remains open for Iran to covertly move along the path to reconstituting their nuclear weapons ambitions in the future. Otherwise, I think the initial framework for a comprehensive deal is in place.
 
Last edited:
oncewas said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

zetaGopClowns.jpg
 
SayMyName said:
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.
Click to expand...

While it's standard liberal/progressive/socialist/Democratic tactics, it's pretty pathetic when all you can bring to the table are insults and ridicule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom