words have meanings
Posted on 09/07/2015 9:01:46 AM PDT by Dave346
On March 11, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry said the Obama administration was “not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran and therefore their nuclear agreement did not have to be submitted to Congress for approval. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is ready to challenge that notion by putting forward a resolution that would define the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as a treaty.
The Corker-Cardin bill, a.k.a. the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, was introduced as an accountability tool for the Iranian deal, requiring a 'yes' or 'no' vote from Congress. Yet, as more details about the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) have surfaced, Corker and Cardin's effort has become basically null, Rep. Gohmert is convinced. The Obama administration, he asserts, left Congress in the dark about the specifics of JCPOA. For instance, the Corker-Cardin bill was only meant to rein in nuclear sanctions, but JCPOA allows for a lifting of sanctions on ballistic missiles and international arms embargoes. Congress also had no clue about the side deals allowing Iran to inspect itself at nuclear sites.
In his resolution, Gohmert also exposes Secretary of State Kerry's hypocrisy regarding his refusing to label the Iran deal a treaty.
Whereas, on June 4, 2015, less than two months before Secretary Kerry testified that it has become “physically impossible” for the Senate to ratify treaties, he stated that the State Department is “preparing the instruments of ratification of [several] important treaties” and that he “want[s] to personally thank the U.S. Congress . . . for their efforts on” the implementing legislation for the nuclear security treaties;
Gohmert is not the only legislator to demand the Iran agreement be defined as a treaty. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the only senator not to vote for the Corker-Cardin act, demanded the clarification be made back in May:
"A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.
Such a consequential handshake should be accompanied by some oversight from our elected representatives. It's what Americans want.
Should the resolution pass, Gohmert says the Senate should deliberate on the ratification of the Iran Deal within 30 days hence.
Go, Louie , GO!!
“was “not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran”
Then WTF is the point?
Bonehead and McCookoo won’t stand for it. That would make them look like they are against the President.
Thank God for men like Louie Gohmert and Tom Cotton for trying to fight for us.
Go, Louie! Our children and grandchildren do not deserve to be destroyed by Iranian nuclear weapons because the fools of this generation put a militant Muslim operative in the presidency.
I’m wondering if there isn’t a long term strategy here. MI and OK Attorney generals are encouraging other states to impose sanctions against Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3333815/posts
When is a treaty NOT a treaty. When Obama and Kerry say it isn’t a treaty. That’s when.
What is Sen Cruz’s position on Cong. Gohmert’s resolution?
Let’s ask the question this way:
Presidents negotiate treaties through the Executive branch. Then they present these treaties to Congress for approval. If such an agreement does not have the name “treaty” in it, is it still a treaty? I say yes, such agreements are treaties . For if that nuance prevented such agreements from being considered treaties, why would ANY President EVER call something a treaty when they can prevent the ensuing vote by simply changing the word to Agreement?
In short, by this logic, why would a President put something as important as a treaty up for vote when they don’t have to?
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.
Thank you, Louie.
Unfortunately, the GOPe will probably shoot this down as fast as they can.
Thanks be to God for Louis Gomert (TX-R).
Blah, blah, blah.
~Yawn~
I’m sure The Orange Man will rush right through process to get this onto the floor.
Right?
Doesn't he realize that the American people have spoken and have said that they are tired of the bickering and want the parties to find a way to work together and get things done!? Doesn't he realize that Americans are tired of waking up each day and looking to Washington and seeing nothing!?
Now we have Washington paving the way for Iran's nuclear weapons, which they can finally use to get that nasty Netanyahu out of office once and for all, and greta men like Mr. Thereza Heinz Kerry can maybe get a Nobel Pieces Prize, and here is this damn partisan Republican trying to call the treaty bad names. I mean deal, he's trying to call the deal bad names like treaty.
Stop it, Louie. Bob Porker worked very hard to ensure that no one could stop Obama's muslim friends form getting a nuke, because no one wants to stop them.
/s
We're not talking about coordinating traffic at a border crossing or some other administrative function, this pertains to the transfer of billions of dollars and weapons.
Kerry and Obama and filthy rotten liars.
McConnell, Boehner, and the rest of the kneepad-Republicans had better treat this as what it is: a treaty.
words have meanings
"Death to America!"
You are absolutely right.
Now if only Congress would do their job. But the doormats wouldn’t hear of such a thing - they do anything for Obama, duty be damned.
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.
