The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Why hasn't Obama done advice and consent with Senate?

That's what the Constitution calls for.

“This was really a stunt rather than a strategy,”

It's actually resulted in Iran questioning Obama's authority to make promises that can't be changed by Congress or the next President and are now calling on assurances from Congress that they approve of any agreements Obama makes. It has derailed Obama's attempt to go around Congress by educating Iran on our Laws...so I would call it a strategy rather than a stunt.

Half of the US Senate Just Committed Felonies, Could Face 3 Years in Prison.....

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-fl ... w-teachers
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/pat ... other-war/

One of Obama's claims to office was that he was once an instructor, part-time, in constitutional law.

What, then, is his excuse for not understanding that, to make a treaty, a president should seek advice and consent from the Senate?

Obama said 22 times he lacked authority to give amnesty to illegals, then he said the hell with it and did it.

If Kerry's deal with Iran is a good deal for us (not likely), then letting the legislature look at it would be good.

Half of the US Senate Just Committed Felonies, Could Face 3 Years in Prison.....

Wrong, they didn't do like Pelosi did under Bush and attempt to negotiate an agreement with a foreign government, they just clarified how the laws in the United States function. I assure you even if was close to breaking the law Holder would have already brought charges.

RealJustme wrote:

“This was really a stunt rather than a strategy,”

It's actually resulted in Iran questioning Obama's authority to make promises that can't be changed by Congress or the next President and are now calling on assurances from Congress that they approve of any agreements Obama makes. It has derailed Obama's attempt to go around Congress by educating Iran on our Laws...so I would call it a strategy rather than a stunt.

Going back on an executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic credibility. Retreating from one executive agreement would be a pretty radical step historically and could endanger the nation's ability to both ensure that old agreements stand and to strike new agreements.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-about-c/

johnforbes wrote:Why hasn't Obama done advice and consent with Senate?

That's what the Constitution calls for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-about-c/

"For the president to vacate an executive agreement would be quite problematic," Peake said. It "would be largely unprecedented and cause the U.S. a great deal of grief in diplomacy, especially since 95 percent of international agreements are done via executive agreement rather than the constitutional treaty process." Indeed, Peake said, "It could call into question America’s commitment to the vast majority of her international agreements."

Going back on an executive agreement could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic credibility.

Obama doesn't have the authority to waive sanctions passed by Congress on Iran through an executive agreement. He has to go through Congress which he has flatly refused to do, he won't even tell them what he's offering Iran or what parts of the law he's planning on changing. Iran knows more about what parts of the law Obama is changing than Congress. What Obama is doing could have significant, if intangible, consequences for the nation’s diplomatic credibility and our whole system of laws.

Good for Congress telling Iran the truth, Obama doesn't have the authority to change the law without Congress.

This will blow the Clown's mind.

U.S. Constitution, Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
The President exercises the powers in the Advice and Consent Clause with the advice and consent of the Senate.

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

They already control Tehran increasingly they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad and now Sana’a as well. They do all that without a nuclear weapon. imagine what they would do with a nuclear weapon... :lol:

cotton candy..... :lol: total dipshit..... :lol:

.....Muravchik argues that we ought to just go ahead and declare war on Iran and get it over with, already. Why? Because it's really the best option we have. ........"No sense makes sense." - Charles Manson..... :lol: