Posted on 07/29/2015 5:22:39 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The White House did not pursue the nuclear agreement with Iran as an international treaty, because getting U.S. Senate advice and consent for a treaty has “become physically impossible,” Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers on Tuesday.
At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Kerry was asked about the administration’s approach of seeking a political accord between governments rather than an international treaty.
Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisc.) recalled Kerry saying earlier in the hearing that if Congress rejects the JCPOA, other countries will in the future not trust the U.S. since rather than negotiating with an administration they will in effect be doing so with 535 members of Congress. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Kerry saying earlier in the hearing that if Congress rejects the JCPOA, other countries will in the future not trust the U.S. since rather than negotiating with an administration they will in effect be doing so with 535 members of Congress. …
How about all of the American citizens.
Oh wait, we don’t count any more, only Obama.
and that statement completely and finally sinks the untenable-anyway BS assertion that the treaty does not have to be passed by 2/3 of the Senate present
thanks, Kerry, for providing the last legal nail in the Gobbels ‘not a treaty’ BS argument
Congresscritters, are you FINALLY listening!???????????
This proves how bad the treaty really is.
Thank you CORKER — You are a traitor idiot!! Go Trump Go!!
http://www.about.com/newsissues
Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders
Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.
The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.
A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted.
When Executive Actions Are Used Instead of Executive Orders
Presidents favor the use of nonbinding executive actions when the issue is controversial or sensitive. For example, Obama carefully weighed his use of executive actions on gun violence and decided against issuing legal mandates via executive orders, which would have gone against the legislative intent of Congress and risked enraging lawmakers of both parties.
FUJK and FUBO
It is not impossible if it is in the best interest of America......
Do this mean that all the ‘executive actions’ that obuma has passed since he has been in office can be overturned by a new sitting President?
A personal agreement between the Mullahs and Obama.
Now it makes sense.
“The White House did not pursue the nuclear agreement with Iran as an international treaty, because getting U.S. Senate advice and consent for a treaty has “become physically impossible,” Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers on Tuesday.”
Advice and consent is kind of what the constitution requires isn’t it? This is yet another of many indications that we have entered a period of autocratic government by the executive. Any resistance by the legislature is impotent thus far.
We can’t do things the people don’t want because the people don’t want it.
I believe so.
This is a real sh$## heat of epic proportions
Out of 300 million people this is the best we can do? /s
Hey - if Roberts can redefine “illegal penalty/fine” as “legal tax”, why can’t JFK redefine “treaty” as “shady deal because we love muzzies and hate Israel”?
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Your boss just got a treaty through in 2010. Of course he controlled the Senate. Still, it's tough to get a treaty ratified if most Americans oppose it. The only demographic I've seen with at least a plurality in favor are American Jews, and you're bi*ching that they're going to get what's coming to them if the treaty doesn't pass. You and your boss are out of touch with the American people.
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.