Im not sure what civics class you all took but the congress is supposed to have an equal share of power with the president, thats how checks and balances work. Yes the president has special powers like veto etc, but im not sure who could give expressed consent to carry out such correspondence other than congress or the president.

One could argue that since the congress didnt vote to give expressed consent there has been a breach, however any judge would likely order a vote to be taken in order to assertain if such a move was truly against congress' consent or simply without consent. One is treason one is a slap on the hand. And as GOP hold congress im guessing that nothing will happen. It wont even get to a judge because that would just be a bad charge by any DA, its not going to result into anything so why waste millions on a probe and trial.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 11 2015 10:58am

Or an atheist. Or homosexual.

Yes checks and balances, not outright shooting down an agreement, wit the assumption that they will have the votes in 2016, which with actions like this they'll be lucky if people remember the Republicans. What these Senators have been doing is not checks and balancing they've been sabotaging any step forward that the President makes. That is not working for a common goal. That is pushing partisan politics and what's best for the party over what's best for the country and it is deplorable.

guilty lawyer speak lesson #1 - "Why go to trial and waste millions of dollars?"



Obviously - you're preoccupied with some things you need to get off your chest.

Let it out, you're among friends.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 11 2015 12:17pm

Silly goose.



Informing the Iranian government of US law =/= treason.

so 2/3 of the Senators agreed to this?

thats not what i heard - only 50 men signed this

far from what's needed.

I am of the opinion that the president should have the general permission of congress anyways. Regardless of who is right both should be on the same page about the whether or not talks should even take place, otherwise as they stated in the letter it could be overturned or nulled by a later president.

Negotiations with foreign leaders should serve neither party, if there is a reason one party is for something and another is against it thats a partisan disagreement, regardless of the fact this issue is not directly taken from core republican beliefs and partisan politics shouldnt be present in foreign policy IMO.

Iran isnt going to build a nuke in the next 3 days, why not apologize to the Iranians, shelf discussions, and clean up your house first. If it was an act of war without congresses consent no one would blink an eye at criticisms, but talks of nuclear agreements without congress' consent have similar consequences. People have forgotten over the last 70 years that nuclear bombs are THE game changer, and building them is essentially an act of war because it increases the respect others must show you in your region.



No district attorney speak for "why take a case to trial that is 100% guaranteed to get no conviction."

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 11 2015 12:25pm

No, 2/3 of the US Senate must sign off on a treaty for it to be valid under US law. 47 Senators in opposition to the deal being proposed by Obama is a statement of fact that any treaty will never survive ratification.

/e ...which means that any deal Obama reaches will be in effect only as long as he remains in office to force the provisions be observed.

This post was edited by Santara on Mar 11 2015 12:25pm

I dont think what those senators did was treason, and from the laymen reading of the earlier definition even think it fits this situation. I am however appalled that prior to going into negations and without info on what is even being considered that this unprecedented undermining of the POTUS has happened. If Obama negotiates a shitty treaty then by all means send the letter, but to do it this earlier without the content even being known is just petty, and we should let "Uncle Joe" bitchslap the senators who signed onto this farce for political football.

so - Ronald Reagan signed 1000+ treaties

Oh I get it, its because a black muslim can't express the hatred of old white men clearly enough right?

oh and if 2/3 of Senators did this - it would be different but that didn't happen did it?



well yes - wait until the treaty is signed - if you disagree with it, then make a new treaty with iran, this is just usurping power, being childish, lacking foresight and foolish.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Mar 11 2015 12:36pm