Chris B
United States
Oxford
Mississippi
flag msg tools
Hotty Toddy Rebels!
badge
Lets go Blues!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I realize I'm not a big RSP Poster, but I gotta ask, I saw this post, and I realize my news is filtered through my communist liberal news feeds and I'm genuinely asking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/gop-iran-deal_n_682...

Quote:
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.


Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition? This can't be right can it the huffington post is sensationalizing something aren't they? Because as that reads. These 47 senators should be impeached immediately.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
We will bury you
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SybotCB wrote:
I realize I'm not a big RSP Poster, but I gotta ask, I saw this post, and I realize my news is filtered through my communist liberal news feeds and I'm genuinely asking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/gop-iran-deal_n_682...

Quote:
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.


Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition? This can't be right can it the huffington post is sensationalizing something aren't they? Because as that reads. These 47 senators should be impeached immediately.


I am curious why you think this is treason. They are not denying Obama's right to negotiate the treaty and are not doing the negotiating themselves (certainly influencing).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SybotCB wrote:
I realize I'm not a big RSP Poster, but I gotta ask, I saw this post, and I realize my news is filtered through my communist liberal news feeds and I'm genuinely asking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/gop-iran-deal_n_682...

Quote:
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.


Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition? This can't be right can it the huffington post is sensationalizing something aren't they? Because as that reads. These 47 senators should be impeached immediately.


That's not what the letter said. What the letter said was that any agreement that did not get Congress' approval would not last past president Obama's term in office. Congress is attempting to assert its right and obligation to approve international treaties. The constitution states that international treaties require two-thirds approval from the Senate for ratification.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bimmy Jim
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would assume they are doing it because Obama using yet another executive order rather than going through congress.

Part of the open letter states:

Quote:
Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement... 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.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
SybotCB wrote:
Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition?

Not in any way, shape or form. In what way are you defining treason that would be applicable here? It's actually the only crime specifically outlined in the Constitution.

The current statute reads:

Quote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
SybotCB wrote:
Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition?

Not in any way, shape or form. In what way are you defining treason that would be applicable here? It's actually the only crime specifically outlined in the Constitution.

The current statute reads:

Quote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.



Yeah, I think this follow more under the term sedition. Which is hard to criminalize because of the 1st amendment.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris B
United States
Oxford
Mississippi
flag msg tools
Hotty Toddy Rebels!
badge
Lets go Blues!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about this? Any basis here?

The Logan Act of 1799

Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)


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.

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not treason, but it is interference in the executive function - they are basically telling Iran not to bother negotiating any kind of agreement on nukes with Obama, because they won't ratify it. It may, however, be illegal under the Logan Act, which reads - in relevant part:

Quote:
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.


The question would seem to hinge primarily on whether the letter was written with "authority of the United States" or not, though obviously there are other aspects of the law that would have to be addressed.

EDIT: Bah, ninja'ed. But it's clearly not a slam dunk. At the very least, however, it may be the first time Congress has so clearly gone out of its way to undermine a President's negotiation authority.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris B
United States
Oxford
Mississippi
flag msg tools
Hotty Toddy Rebels!
badge
Lets go Blues!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alright, in any case, thanks for clarifying the literal definition of treason for me. I can jump off my pedestal of indignantness now.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mahaffey
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
GAME ARTIST
badge
GAME ARTIST
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Treason is indeed too strong a word for this action. It's conceivably a violation of the Logan Act, but given no member of Congress has ever been indicted under that, it's practically an arcane law as far as I can see.

EDIT: Well got beaten to that on all counts... ninja
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
SybotCB wrote:
What about this? Any basis here?

The Logan Act of 1799

I don't think so, no. The Senate is Constitutionally part of the treaty making process. They have no specifically defined role in the process and it has never been defined in Senators should be part of the actual negotiation process or just the approval.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say Congress is an arbiter of the authority of the United states or whatever you'd legally call it. So they're fine under the Logan Act.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SybotCB wrote:
I realize I'm not a big RSP Poster, but I gotta ask, I saw this post, and I realize my news is filtered through my communist liberal news feeds and I'm genuinely asking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/gop-iran-deal_n_682...

Quote:
A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.


Umm, isn't that treason? Like right down to the very basic definition? This can't be right can it the huffington post is sensationalizing something aren't they? Because as that reads. These 47 senators should be impeached immediately.


There is no unbiased news source for anything.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
I'd say Congress is an arbiter of the authority of the United states or whatever you'd legally call it. So they're fine under the Logan Act.


I don't think that's right. If that were the proper interpretation, then Congress could declare that the President has no authority to treat with foreign nations, making his negotiations with other countries illegal (under the Logan Act). Obviously, Congress can't do that -
the Constitution gives the President the right and authority to negotiate with other nations - so Congress can't be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not "the authority of the United States."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:

There is no unbiased news source for anything.


I bet Robot reporters would be unbiased.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:

There is no unbiased news source for anything.


I bet Robot reporters would be unbiased.


You obviously don't know any robots.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
When are we getting robot posters for RSP?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
When are we getting robot posters for RSP?


Ahem.

David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I'd say Congress is an arbiter of the authority of the United states or whatever you'd legally call it. So they're fine under the Logan Act.


I don't think that's right. If that were the proper interpretation, then Congress could declare that the President has no authority to treat with foreign nations, making his negotiations with other countries illegal (under the Logan Act). Obviously, Congress can't do that -
the Constitution gives the President the right and authority to negotiate with other nations - so Congress can't be the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not "the authority of the United States."

That doesn't sound right to me because both Congress and the president are voices of authority of the United States. Neither is the sole arbiter of it but both do have a say.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NYT wrote:
Because it is not a treaty, an agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action. Mr. Obama has the power under current law to lift sanctions against Iran that were imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But to permanently lift those imposed by Congress would eventually require a vote.

Sounds like they just want to try and torpedo the deal...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

How can these 47 Congressional Douchebags know that the deal won't be good beyond Obama's last day in office? Perhaps the next elected president would like the deal just fine.

What ever happened to follow the leader? These guys seem to be following the leader of some other country. Sounds treasonous to me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is not the first time the idea has been floated that any deals the President makes with Iran may not outlast his presidency. It is apparently the first time Congress has ever made this kind of active effort to undermine a president's authority to conduct diplomacy.

Regardless of the legality of the actions, it's hard to see the upside of this other than a chance to thwart Obama - unless the Senate GOP thinks that encouraging Iran to back away from negotiations or to take a tougher line is a net positive. (I can't believe the Senators are stupid enough to think Iran will say "Oh, we'd better be more accommodating so that the Senate will approve whatever deal we agree with Obama.")
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:
How can these 47 Congressional Douchebags know that the deal won't be good beyond Obama's last day in office? Perhaps the next elected president would like the deal just fine.

If the deal gets made and it works (two big Ifs right now) there is no way that ANY president, no matter the party, would throw it out.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Iranian Ambasador said that the Senators who sent the letter didn't really know their own Constitution. Looks like he was right:

Quote:
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis).

Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117): “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane.

Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency. (I analyzed this point here last year.) But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

Dumbasses...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick E
United States
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

How can these 47 Congressional Douchebags know that the deal won't be good beyond Obama's last day in office? Perhaps the next elected president would like the deal just fine.

I have to assume that they are convinced their party will win the next election and surely one of their own would get rid of it. If they lose the next election then I imagine the plan is to spend the following four years benghazi-ing the topic into the ground.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.