It is an Agreement and NOT a Treaty. It was never going to be a Treaty or offered as one.
Knowingly, Kerry-Heinz, Obama and the complicit DNC and GOP
are deliberately arming Enemies of the American people.
It is treason, clear and simple.
0dungo will go to great lengths to ensure his Iranian friends don’t get irradiated. That is what this is ALL about. Iran should be our ENEMY, not our ALLY. How does 0dungo escape charges of treason on this one?
if it isn’t a treaty, then it’s not binding. it’s just like his executive orders; they can be undone by the next president.
Can the FN GOP sacs even say the word treason? If we can see it they can feel it and they sit back like the three monkeys hear, see and speak no evil.
Is it not a bit sobering (and frightening) to realize that Kerry couldn’t pass ANY real college course of the 1950s or earlier.
Remember, lib arts back then were pretty tough, not the box top jokes that they are now.
And he most certainly would NOT even consider entering any course requiring math.
But he really fits a liberal gubmit, eh?
Ah, an “ExtraConstitutional Agreement” - I am tired of these guys trying to make toilet paper out of the Constitution. There is a remedy for that . . . it is called impeachment.
Then, it can be abrogated by the next Prez.
Kerry is a sharp as a bowling ball.
So it’s basically another EO, but for a foreign government.
This is what I don’t understand. Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So why does this “agreement” exist except to benefit Iran?
So then its an ‘agreement’ between Obama and Iran and not binding on the USA
Like most of fedgov, the manner of presentation of this negotiated debacle stinks to high Heaven.
For the congress of this nation to agree to this clear usurpation of the Constitution simply confirms that they all need to be replaced.
If it is an international “agreement” and not a treaty, does that mean the next President isn’t bound to it?
The deal is a treaty because it fits the definition of a treaty. If Congress had to wait for a President to call an agreement a treaty before acting then why would ANY president EVER call something a treaty. They’d call it an agreement or a deal or a vegetable and it’d be done. Congress would never even see a treaty to vote on it because why put something up for vote when you don’t have to?
It’s a treaty. It doesn’t matter if one calls it by another name (”agreement”).
The President is not authorized to make such “agreements” outside of the Constitutional mechanisms/expressed powers.
Unconstitutional. A violation of oath.
Bttt