Back us not Brussels on Iran, US ambassador tells Theresa May

[MTAtech]

When did he say anything contrary to The Constitution?

You said in post #23:

The President of The United States isn't the head of the state and government.

Only the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties, per The Constitution.

You really need to learn how our governments works.

Trump has been making deals unilaterally. Ergo, that violates the constitution by your definition.

 

[Somerville]

Trump apparently believes he can order other nations to act as he demands while his supporters rant about past President Obama signing a multi-national agreement that the GOP-controlled Senate refused to support. An agreement which has actually worked despite the claims of the Trumpites.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The President of The United States isn't the head of the state and government.

Only the Senate has the authority to ratify treaties, per The Constitution.

You really need to learn how our governments works.

The President of the US is the head of both state and government--always has been. The rest is correct.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Trump apparently believes he can order other nations to act as he demands while his supporters rant about past President Obama signing a multi-national agreement that the GOP-controlled Senate refused to support. An agreement which has actually worked despite the claims of the Trumpites.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. President Obama never required Congressional support as he was within his authority to make such a deal, as is President Trump to withdraw from it.

 

[Somerville]

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. President Obama never required Congressional support as he was within his authority to make such a deal, as is President Trump to withdraw from it.

This article is from the NYTimes, Sept 2015, but since it is the Times, we all 'know' its fake news

Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, ensuring the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House.

A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate in the Senate and capped weeks of discord since the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China announced the agreement with Iran in July.

The debate divided Democrats between their loyalties to the president and to their constituents, animated the antiwar movement on the left and exposed the diminishing power of the Israeli lobbying force that spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the accord.

The question now comes before us: Will Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA be beneficial or harmful to America and its relations with longtime allies? Does Trump actually believe that America can act alone in international relations?

 

[apdst]

The President of the US is the head of both state and government--always has been. The rest is correct.

The president is the head of the Executive Branch of the government. Saying he's the "head of the government" suggests he has more power than the other two branches.

 

[apdst]

You said in post #23:
Trump has been making deals unilaterally. Ergo, that violates the constitution by your definition.

None of those deals are legally binding. President Trump hasn't said they are.

 

[Godric1970]

Every day, DJT says/tweets words which seem to have been written by Kremlin propagandists as the result often appears to be deliberate offensive statements against longtime allies. In this case, it is a bit different inasmuch it is the US ambassador to the UK with the demand, although we know every word was approved in the Oval Office.



How much of what comes out of the White House these days is meant more for Trump's base than for its stated target?

America is a bully .... it's using bully boy tactics against a weakened UK .... and Americans wonder why there is a growing distaste in Europe towards America .... you say you don't interfere in our politics ... proof of the pudding

 

[AliHajiSheik]

This article is from the NYTimes, Sept 2015, but since it is the Times, we all 'know' its fake news



The question now comes before us: Will Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA be beneficial or harmful to America and its relations with longtime allies? Does Trump actually believe that America can act alone in international relations?

I made no judgment on the New York Times. No approval by 2/3 of the Senate means there was no treaty, which isn't addressed in your quote.

I don't know where we are headed, but it certainly is being discussed.

 

[Godric1970]

If you wish to be associated with Iran, feel free.

next thing you will be telling us America are the good guys .... you're having a laugh you are a global bully and tyrant all you bring is death and destruction

 

[Godric1970]

No, Obama entered into an agreement. The United States didn't agree to a damn thing.

the EU did and you expect us to do as we are told because America and Trump decrees it ... dream on and you wonder why the EU is moving away from the US's foreign agenda

 

[AliHajiSheik]

The president is the head of the Executive Branch of the government. Saying he's the "head of the government" suggests he has more power than the other two branches.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/

"The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

 

[apdst]

the EU did and you expect us to do as we are told because America and Trump decrees it ... dream on and you wonder why the EU is moving away from the US's foreign agenda

The EU can enforce the deal, then. Get after it.

 

[apdst]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/

"The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

But not "the head of the government".

 

[AliHajiSheik]

But not "the head of the government".

I copied wrong quote, a little lower:

"The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

 

[Godric1970]

The EU can enforce the deal, then. Get after it.

get your occupation forces out of Western Europe ... we don't need you .... the only Europeans that want your presence are the baltics and Poland .... American forces are a threat to our security

 

[apdst]

get your occupation forces out of Western Europe ... we don't need you .... the only Europeans that want your presence are the baltics and Poland .... American forces are a threat to our security

What occupation forces?

 

[apdst]

I copied wrong quote, a little lower:

"The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

Whatever. Pete said it as if a deal made by the president is legally binding and it isn't.

 

[Somerville]

You have made no judgment in regards to the Times reporting but multiple other posters certainly have made such calls.

I made no judgment on the New York Times. No approval by 2/3 of the Senate means there was no treaty, which isn't addressed in your quote.

I don't know where we are headed, but it certainly is being discussed.

Your words

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

The Times article explains why it wasn't submitted for ratification - the GOP openly stated it would never agree to the multi-national agreement.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

You have made no judgment in regards to the Times reporting but multiple other posters certainly have made such calls.



Your words

The Times article explains why it wasn't submitted for ratification - the GOP openly stated it would never agree to the multi-national agreement.

Please take a swipe at others when responding to those others. You replied to me.

That's how treaties are made. If it doesn't have support of the Senate, then the deal should not have been made and no expectations should be had that the agreement would last longer than the then current administration.

Wilson signed the Covenant of the League of Nations which meant nothing because the Senate rejected the treaty even though a majority of the Senate voted for it.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Why would one suppose that Russia wants the USA to re-impose sanctions on Iran?

Oil and gas markets

Iran is a significant producer of both oil and gas. With Iran's supply on the open market it would lower the prices for both. That in itself would cause the revenue for Russia to drop. So sanctions on Iran, are by default good for Russia.

Also Russia is investing in Iran's oil and gas sector, it is also buying cheaper Iranian gas for its domestic market, to allow for its own sales of more expensive gas to Europe and other regions. The sanctions on Iran, reduces the competition that Russia faces for making those deals. Now all Russia really needs is a further split in relations between the US and Qatar, so that Qatar moves towards Russia/China to give a strong gas alliance controlling a significant amount of exportable gas supplies

 

[Somerville]

Don't leave out Saudi Arabia in this mess. The Saudis would love to see oil prices increase but also they have the whole religious thing against Iran - Sunni vs. Shia - that they can use to gain support in the other Arabic nations.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

(From your link)

Mr Johnson also delivers an explicit ultimatum to British companies, telling then to stop doing business with Iran or face "serious consequences" for your trade with America.

IOW - "Wir haben ein paar nicht verhandelbare Forderungen und danach können wir noch ein paar mehr haben und wenn Sie nicht tun, was Ihnen gesagt wird, werden wir Sie vernichten."

Shades of Munich (and NOT from the British side).

There are days when I wonder if ANYONE has said something like "You know, Mr. President, if you piss off the whole world then America is going to have to invade and conquer Canada and Mexico in order to survive - even then, it might not - and even if it does it certainly won't be 'Great' again.".

If no one has, then someone should.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Why would one suppose that Russia wants the USA to re-impose sanctions on Iran?

Because if the US does that, then the US government is placed in the position where it:

1. has to ignore the fact that the rest of the world is ignoring the American sanctions; or
2. has to attempt to force the rest of the world to do what the President of the United States of America orders it to do.

Neither of those two options is one that will be "Good for America" in the long-run.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I copied wrong quote, a little lower:

"The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

FOR SHAME SIR!!!!

Don't you know that it is a violation of "The Internet Code of Conduct" to actually introduce actual facts into a discussion with someone whose opinions have no basis in reality, fact, knowledge, or coherent thought?

Go sit in the corner and press [Ctrl][Alt][Del] 10,000 times.