Posted on 09/10/2015 9:46:08 PM PDT by Nachum
I read as far as “The non-binding measure” before I read any more.
Non-binding measure huh? All that these worthless Republicans have done over the years was ALL NON-BINDING and look where we are now.
Nothing will come of this, move along....there’s nothing to see here.
IIRC, the Constitution says we patriots need to have a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to CONVICT in an Impeachment TRIAL.
Will we ever see 13 or more Democrat Senators stop their goose-stepping to the tune of “The One” and do their JOBS?
I doubt it.
The big lie that seemed to justify passage of the “Corker/Cardin Bill” was the hopeful belief that SURELY there would be at least 13 Democrats who would NOT support a “deal” that was harmful to America, even if that “deal” was endorsed by “The One”.
And now, we all know how that little bit of “hope” turned out.
So I think the question really is: “Can THIS Senate convict a person of treason — if that traitor can rely on the “votes” of traitor Senators to protect him from conviction?”
And I think the answer is:
NO.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Well there are lots of problems here...
The WH “claims” that the “Iran Deal” is NOT a “treaty” even though it meets Webster’s definition of a “treaty” with great precision.
The WH “claims” that the distinction between “treaty” and “non-treaty executive agreement” has become so hard to see that they can call their “Iran Deal” whatever they want.
The WH “claims” that, as a non-treaty “Executive Agreement”, the “Iran Deal” does NOT require 2/3rds approval by the Senate.
==> IMHO, the Senate should have fought this assertion — in the courts — as soon as it was declared. Why not? What was the risk?
But we got Corker/Cardin instead, which CLAIMS a “right” to lift sanctions LEGALLY imposed on Iran, even though neither that bill nor the “Iran Deal” itself, can LEGALLY amend a REAL Treaty: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
==> IMHO, the Senate should hold a vote on the “Iran Deal” as a “treaty”. That vote will REJECT the correctly-named “Iran Treaty”. That rejection would then VOID Obama’s signature on the UN Resolution as an illegal act.
Result: Lawsuit after lawsuit that will keep Iran from getting the $100,000,000,000 even though insanity rules in the WH.
I like it! The Vichy GOP should be used until people understand the message.
Ha! OK. 2 sparklers.
Reminds me of the line from Aliens when they are told they have to collect all the ammo:
“So what are we supposed to use? Harsh language?”
Yes, but has he had his coffee?
Yesterday on Hewitt's program a guest said the only thing Boehner can do at this point is to find a judge who will quickly issue a TRO to block obama ... before the funds are released. I zeroed-in on the word "only". This is what we get when the GOPEs and RINOs are in charge!
Law suits matter to companies.
Make a deal under Obama’s Iran rules and a company could spend years in court- and lose.
That’s not what they paid their politicians for. They paid for something they could take to the bank.
I know it’s not a perfect answer, but...
If I were the CEO of a global bank that held Iranian funds that had been “frozen” by an unquestioned LEGAL order,
and “The One” ordered me to release those frozen funds to Iran, pursuant to the “Iran Deal”,
but there was a big question about whether such an “order” was LEGAL or ILLEGAL
and with the penalty for an ILLEGAL release of funds by my bank being jail-time for ME,
I would certainly NOT rush to comply with that questionable, unsupported “order”...
Let’s see how this plays out!
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.