Thousands of Americans to sign a petition accusing the 47 Republican treason

[ocdude]

Not quite the same thing there Granny.

 

 I guess the author couldn't find an example of US Senators directly contacting a foreign nation's leadership and warning them that on going negotiations can not produce results and that any agreement reached will not be honored...

 

[TexasGranny]

Not quite the same thing there Granny.

 

 I guess the author couldn't find an example of US Senators directly contacting a foreign nation's leadership and warning them that on going negotiations can not produce results and that any agreement reached will not be honored...

 

 

:lmao: :lmao:

 

So its okay to visit a foreign ruler/government in an attempt to undermine the current POTUS as in the case of Pelosi in 2007 (deliberately against the WH request),  or this: Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

 

OR this little tidbit: Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov: What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained.

 

But when 47 Senators write a letter to a foreign government, they've violated the Logan Act.

 

Logic 101 does not exist in your knowledge base!

 

[Shabibilicious]

TG, those 7 instances were completely wrong and out of line.........and so is this one.    

 

GO RV, then BV

 

[ocdude]

No, it is not okay to tell a foreign leader that ongoing negotiations can not produce results and that any agreement reached will not be honored..

 

Find an instance of THAT happening and you have an argument.

 

As for precedent...

 

“The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President **** Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.

 

[TexasGranny]

No, it is not okay to tell a foreign leader that ongoing negotiations can not produce results and that any agreement reached will not be honored..

 

Find an instance of THAT happening and you have an argument.

 

As for precedent...

 

“The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President **** Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.

 

 

You are just full of it

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

....and yet, 7 wrongs still don't make a right.    

GO RV, then BV

[ocdude]

You are just full of it 

 

 

Yes, full of inconvenient truths.

 

Again...find an instance  where Senators have told a foreign leader that ongoing negotiations can not produce results and that any agreement reached will not be honored..

 

Or just admit that you are comparing apples and oranges.

....and yet, 7 wrongs still don't make a right.    

GO RV, then BV

 

 

 

Or 8

 

But it's not only Democrats who have done that. Step forward, Richard Nixon. In 1968, the presidential election looked close. With the Johnson administration edging toward a peace deal in Vietnam, Nixon's team rolled the dice.  Anna Chennault, a Republican activist, was given a message to pass onto the South Vietnamese government: If they undermined the peace talks by being stubborn, the Democrats would lose the election and Nixon as the next president would offer them better terms.

 

Not to mention that the Cotton Club got the the Constitution embarrassingly wrong....

 

  Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.”  It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

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.   But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

Edited March 18, 2015 by ocdude

[jonjon]

It doesn't make sense that people's thoughts could be controlled by such lame logic that they would think it's not okay for our statesmen to disclose the facts to another country as to how this USA system works.  We are still a republic even if the imposter in chief doesn't know it.

[Shabibilicious]

Point being....no member of the legislative branch should undermine a standing U.S. president in the middle of negotiations with a foreign enemy and or government.....party affiliation has no bearing.  Whether apples or oranges, the whole fruit bowl has gone bad.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[ocdude]

It doesn't make sense that people's thoughts could be controlled by such lame logic that they would think it's not okay for our statesmen to disclose the facts to another country as to how this USA system works.  We are still a republic even if the imposter in chief doesn't know it.

It would help if those "statesmen" knew what they are talking about before undermining a president by crying to those we are trying to negotiate with.

 

 

  Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.”  It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

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.  But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

OCD hey little man, go back and read this thread. I was here first, guess that means

your stalking me. And since I'm wasting my time on a worthless cause I'll explain

it to you. There are about 30% of people that are called liberals, I.e. (stupid insecure

Fools who want government to do everything).

Then there's about 30% who don't know what they want to believe. Undecided.

That leaves 40% who believe in the rule of law and the constitution. These people tend to

Be military trained and believe in Jesus Christ. In other words, people of strong moral

convictions. Unlike the stupid liberals, conservatives maintain jobs and just want

To live there lives without government intervention. They are the, "sleeping giant", Admiral Yammamoto

spoke of. They understand the consequences of war and will do anything to avoid it.

While stupid liberals say,"bring it on". However, conservatives love America. And will

fight to preserve it.

I said that I believe taking out those Senators would start a war. I didn't say I

wanted one. Guess I'm not stupid enough for that. You however seem to want it.

I guess there's no explaining to you how that desire is exactly why liberals would lose.

Oh and by the way, I've literally have stayed away from threads where I see you post.

Texas Granny, LOL, I think I just fell in love with you. LOL.

Spoken like a true Texan.

[ocdude]

LOL...guess what...even the Iranian foreign minister knows what a joke the Cotton Club is...

 

 He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Also:

 He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

And you can neg me all you want little man. I'm a big boy and can take it. ROTF-LMAO

[ocdude]

OCD hey little man, go back and read this thread. I was here first, guess that means

your stalking me. And since I'm wasting my time on a worthless cause I'll explain

it to you. There are about 30% of people that are called liberals, I.e. (stupid insecure

Fools who want government to do everything).

Then there's about 30% who don't know what they want to believe. Undecided.

That leaves 40% who believe in the rule of law and the constitution. These people tend to

Be military trained and believe in Jesus Christ. In other words, people of strong moral

convictions. Unlike the stupid liberals, conservatives maintain jobs and just want

To live there lives without government intervention. They are the, "sleeping giant", Admiral Yammamoto

spoke of. They understand the consequences of war and will do anything to avoid it.

While stupid liberals say,"bring it on". However, conservatives love America. And will

fight to preserve it.

I said that I believe taking out those Senators would start a war. I didn't say I

wanted one. Guess I'm not stupid enough for that. You however seem to want it.

I guess there's no explaining to you how that desire is exactly why liberals would lose.

Oh and by the way, I've literally have stayed away from threads where I see you post.

Texas Granny, LOL, I think I just fell in love with you. LOL.

Spoken like a true Texan.

 

 

 

Oh poor little Lady....so desperate for my attention.

 

You may have been here first...bully for you...but you make every effort to get my attention every time I post. And since you are unable to refute anything I say, you resort to inane insults and vague prophecies of upcoming doom. As usual.

 

Yawn.

[jonjon]

The facts about how the USA system works is evident in the letter.  The letter is the first act by the government in the past 6 years that has been an honest expression of the spirit of our country.  The fact's are out now that Obama is not going to be able to turn us into a third world country.

[ocdude]

And you can neg me all you want little man. I'm a big boy and can take it. ROTF-LMAO

I wouldn't bother. It's you lot that think negging someone is a protest.

The facts about how the USA system works is evident in the letter.  The letter is the first act by the government in the past 6 years that has been an honest expression of the spirit of our country.  The fact's are out now that Obama is not going to be able to turn us into a third world country.

 

 

Yep...they have pens and they use them to show their complete ignorance on the Constitution AND FLOUT IT TO FOREIGN LEADERS. 

 

THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED...but they won't be.

[jonjon]

I wouldn't bother. It's you lot that think negging someone is a protest.

 

 

Yep...they have pens and they use them to show their complete ignorance on the Constitution AND FLOUT IT TO FOREIGN LEADERS. 

 

THEY SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED...but they won't be.

Flimsy logic,  if you are so upset about it, sue them.  You'll end up wasting your efforts.  

Edited March 18, 2015 by jonjon

[ocdude]

Flimsy logic?? Do your research.

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Advice & Consent 
Treaties

 

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. 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.

 

https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm

 

 

No need to sue.
And in the immortal words of **** Cheney...“The president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House,” then- Vice President **** Cheney groused to Rush Limbaugh.

 

Edited March 18, 2015 by ocdude

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Oh poor little Lady....so desperate for my attention.

 

You may have been here first...bully for you...but you make every effort to get my attention every time I post. And since you are unable to refute anything I say, you resort to inane insults and vague prophecies of upcoming doom. As usual.

 

Yawn.

OH THE PAIN THE PAIN. ROTF-LMAO

Your not that important.

[ocdude]

OH THE PAIN THE PAIN. ROTF-LMAO

Your not that important.

YOU'RE

 

Not important, hmmm?? And yet you ARE STILL trying to get my attention....LOL

 

 

 

And you can neg me all you want little man. I'm a big boy and can take it. ROTF-LMAO

 

Edited March 18, 2015 by ocdude

[Shabibilicious]

OH THE PAIN THE PAIN. ROTF-LMAO

Your not that important.

 

Fun Fact:  Did you know Liberal brainwave activity tends to increase towards the end of each month?     

 

GO RV, then BV  

[jonjon]

Fun Fact:  Did you know Liberal brainwave activity tends to increase towards the end of each month?     

 

GO RV, then BV  

Is it because their getting closer to a payday? 

[Shabibilicious]

Is it because their getting closer to a payday? 

 

We have a winner!!!!  Well done jonjon.    

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

Fun Fact:  Did you know heart ailments are more common among Liberals than Conservatives?    

 

GO RV, then BV

[divemaster5734]

Fictitious signatures  that's just the way these people work. 

 

Even with the flimsy verification process, on 3/1/15 the White House was caught freezing the counter on a petition so that it could never reach the required threshold.

Even after someone responded to the email and got the verification and counted notice, the counter was not advanced.

They were caught trying to bury another petition so that it didn't show up in the search feature, and wasn't posted in the popular column.

 

 

Treason...yes. Undermining the workings of our government by aligning with hardliners in Iran is treason.

 

You don't like the way things are going, change them from within.

 

And no, Patty, signatures are verified.

 

 

Every email address is a new signature.

The only "verification" is a reply from each email to verify it is an actual address.

So while it may be time consuming to set up initially, any one activist can have hundreds or even thousands of "verified" signatures registered in the White House petition site. 

 

I have 7 email address used in advertising my company.

Some have auto-responders, some don't,  each  address is forwarded to a catch all address, where the spam is filtered, and then some are forwarded yet again.

Anyone that has extensive add campaigns on the internet has to use filter emails in order to weed out the junk.

Even then I get at least 10 phone callers a day trying to sell one thing or another.

 

There is no other process to weed out duplicates.

Any activist worth anything has a spreadsheet listing all their email addresses and passwords.

Especially if that is their full time job.

 

On 3/11/15 60,000 signatures were removed on one petition.

While no official explanation was ever released, it was obvious they were all fake.

 

Just like global warming, the white house petitions are manipulated, faked, or otherwise altered to suit the administrations agenda.

Claiming just because the email address were verified means there's a different human behind each one is naive at best, I'll leave it at that.