Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

OPEN LETTER TO DONALD TRUMP
Redneckoblogger ^ | 9/7/2015 | Redneckoblogger

Posted on 09/07/2015 7:38:36 AM PDT by FiddlePig

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: FiddlePig

It really is an excellent letter though.


21 posted on 09/07/2015 9:13:31 AM PDT by right way right (May we remain sober over mere men, for God really is our one and only true hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I would take both =)


22 posted on 09/07/2015 9:17:06 AM PDT by Patriot Babe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FiddlePig

And Mr. Trump, regarding this Iran deal:

Whether it is an executive agreement or a treaty, it requires illegality to perform and should, therefore, be utterly rejected. If the Senate does not reject it, Mr. Trump, our next President apparent, must declare it void and of no effect.

To his credit, Trump honors contracts, rightly sees a treaty as a contract (which is a mutual agreement), and says he will not simply breach the treaty because it is a bad deal, but if it is confirmed by the Senate he will look for holes in it.

Well, Mr. Trump, there appears to be a big gaping hole in this treaty (or executive agreement). There is such a thing as contracts that are void, of no effect, and unenforceable. A contract in which the performance would break the law is such a contract. The U.S. Constitution and laws forbid treason as illegal. The U.S. Constitution defines treason as including “adhering to [U.S.] enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” (Art III, Sec 3, Cl 1). This treaty appears to require illegality becasue it looks to be an agreement whereby the U.S. is adhering to and aiding Iran, an avowed enemy of the U.S. in its nuclear development.

Note to Trump: A treaty (or executive agreement) that requires treason to perform is illegal and void. You have no duty, nor should you, enforce such a treaty because it amounts to an unenforceable contract. It would be rather your duty as President to declare such treaty void and of no effect.


23 posted on 09/07/2015 9:20:33 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FiddlePig

24 posted on 09/07/2015 9:21:08 AM PDT by Jane Long ("And when thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Great photo.


25 posted on 09/07/2015 9:24:39 AM PDT by samtheman (2014: Voters elect Repubs to congress... 2015: Repubs defund NOTHING... 2016: Trump/(Cruz or Palin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CaptainPhilFan

Agree with you 100 percent re WEST

Frankly, WEST over Carson would be the pick of the moment. Both are fine men but we certainly need WEST with Trump to round out the team with Cruz/TRUMP. Dr. Carson is a bit too far left on many issues (JMHO)


26 posted on 09/07/2015 1:29:24 PM PDT by V K Lee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson