Dear Ayatollah Ali Khomeini

[kalm]

"We need to talk!"

Signed,

Republicans

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.

Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval -- something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril,” Cotton told me.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... won-t-last" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Good for them.

Thanks for posting this, Kalm.

[dbackjon]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

[andy7171]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

Seems to be a reflex response. Lately. What treason?

[travelinman67]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

Seems to be a reflex response. Lately. What treason?

Ditto. What treason?

Treaties are enacted with Congressional approval required. The Obama executive staff are negotiating without Congressional guidance, authorization or even apprising Congress of the proposed framework.

If ANY PARTY IS GUILTY OF TREASON, it's Obama/Kerry for attempting to execute a treaty without Congressional approval

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Somebody has to protect this country, the african king sure as hell isnt

[CID1990]

Only Jon could come up with treason when Congress decides to remind a belligerent enemy that the President's extra-Constitutional deal making is not binding.

They're still going to hang gays from cranes, Jon. When they get the bomb it will be 500 years before the mullahs lose their grip, if ever

[Ivytalk]

Seems to be a reflex response. Lately. What treason?

Ditto. What treason?

Treaties are enacted with Congressional approval required. The Obama executive staff are negotiating without Congressional guidance, authorization or even apprising Congress of the proposed framework.

If ANY PARTY IS GUILTY OF TREASON, it's Obama/Kerry for attempting to execute a treaty without Congressional approval

This cubed. Obama trashes the Constitution every day, and few people call him on it. Easy to remember, Barry Soetoro: article II, section 2, clause 2.

[kalm]

But you all have to admit the hypocrisy and political theater of this is delicious.

[houndawg]

But you all have to admit the hypocrisy and political theater of this is delicious.

Much more delicious if the republicans are able to bumble their way to the White House in '16...... same letter, different signatures......talk about hoist by their own petard...

[CID1990]

But you all have to admit the hypocrisy and political theater of this is delicious.

I'd say the Congress has about 50 or so more unilateral actions to go before they catch The One.

[kalm]

But you all have to admit the hypocrisy and political theater of this is delicious.

I'd say the Congress has about 50 or so more unilateral actions to go before they catch The One.

I was thinking more along the lines of an historical and shoe is on the other foot perspective.

[Baldy]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

jon, why do you hate America? Why do you despise the Constitution so much???

[kalm]

.

[kalm]

In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As The New Republic’s David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ntractors/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And remember, Iran was already aware of the non-binding nature of this agreement.

[DSUrocks07]

In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As The New Republic’s David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ntractors/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And remember, Iran was already aware of the non-binding nature of this agreement.

So its all purely fluff for the democrats to hang their hats on as another "accomplishment" of the great Obama administration?

Once again that doesn't surprise me. Politicians: zero substance, empty suit caricatures.

[kalm]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ntractors/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And remember, Iran was already aware of the non-binding nature of this agreement.

So its all purely fluff for the democrats to hang their hats on as another "accomplishment" of the great Obama administration?

Once again that doesn't surprise me. Politicians: zero substance, empty suit caricatures.

Non-binding might not have been the best term, but yeah you're making a good point.

[Skjellyfetti]

the President's extra-Constitutional deal making

This cubed. Obama trashes the Constitution every day, and few people call him on it. Easy to remember, Barry Soetoro: article II, section 2, clause 2.

What was y'all's take on Boehner inviting and hosting Netanyahu. Surely y'all think it completely within the confines of the Constitution?

There is one key job, however, that the founding fathers assigned to the president alone. The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was first to reprimand a foreign dignitary for appealing to Congress over the head of the executive. When Edmond-Charles Genet, who represented the revolutionary government of France, sought congressional support in 1793 for a policy opposed by President Washington, Jefferson brought him up short. Even though Jefferson himself had great sympathy for France’s viewpoint.

The president, Jefferson wrote, “must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty . . . may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress.” Or, as Washington said on another occasion, the Constitution designated him the “sole channel of official intercourse” with foreign nations.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

the President's extra-Constitutional deal making

This cubed. Obama trashes the Constitution every day, and few people call him on it. Easy to remember, Barry Soetoro: article II, section 2, clause 2.

What was y'all's take on Boehner inviting and hosting Netanyahu. Surely y'all think it completely within the confines of the Constitution?

There is one key job, however, that the founding fathers assigned to the president alone. The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was first to reprimand a foreign dignitary for appealing to Congress over the head of the executive. When Edmond-Charles Genet, who represented the revolutionary government of France, sought congressional support in 1793 for a policy opposed by President Washington, Jefferson brought him up short. Even though Jefferson himself had great sympathy for France’s viewpoint.

The president, Jefferson wrote, “must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty . . . may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress.” Or, as Washington said on another occasion, the Constitution designated him the “sole channel of official intercourse” with foreign nations.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cid and IT, two of my most respected conks on this board, crying constitution like Dback crying treason. Sad...

But there are a couple of problems with this constitutional lesson. The first hitch is that contrary to the letter's premise, Iran's leadership actually has access to a great deal of understanding about how the U.S. works: as The Economist noted last year and users reminded the Twitterverse last night, Iran's presidential cabinet presently features more members with doctorates from U.S. universities than Obama's cabinet does. And the second issue, which is perhaps more alarming for a GOP only just becoming reacquainted with Senate control, is that a legal luminary from the senators' own party now says they got the Constitution wrong.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard University law professor and former top legal official in the George W. Bush administration, offered the lawmakers their own lesson early Monday morning.

Writing for the blog Lawfare, Goldsmith noted that the senators mistakenly say in their message that the Senate "must ratify" any treaty. In fact, he points out, the Senate's role is to give the president its consent for a treaty -- and to recognize that ratifying it is the president's choice.

"This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency," Goldsmith wrote. "But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing."

The conk dick stepping keeps getting better and better.

[CID1990]

the President's extra-Constitutional deal making

This cubed. Obama trashes the Constitution every day, and few people call him on it. Easy to remember, Barry Soetoro: article II, section 2, clause 2.

What was y'all's take on Boehner inviting and hosting Netanyahu. Surely y'all think it completely within the confines of the Constitution?

There is one key job, however, that the founding fathers assigned to the president alone. The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was first to reprimand a foreign dignitary for appealing to Congress over the head of the executive. When Edmond-Charles Genet, who represented the revolutionary government of France, sought congressional support in 1793 for a policy opposed by President Washington, Jefferson brought him up short. Even though Jefferson himself had great sympathy for France’s viewpoint.

The president, Jefferson wrote, “must be left to judge for himself what matters his duty . . . may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress.” Or, as Washington said on another occasion, the Constitution designated him the “sole channel of official intercourse” with foreign nations.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No.

Congress has no executive powers and therefore it is really just to me.

If you weren't always wearing your liberal glasses you'd see the distinction. Maybe our Consituttional scholar President would too. In fact.... kind of makes you wonder why the WH didn't raise Cain on those grounds to begin with?

[mrklean]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

Another example of selective patriotism Treason is too harsh, however, they should loo their sets in congress for this shit. ALL of the attacks from the right against the President have failed. This one will fail too.

[Pwns]

All 47 should be arrested for treason

Another example of selective patriotism Treason is too harsh, however, they should loo their sets in congress for this shit. ALL of the attacks from the right against the President have failed. This one will fail too.

Darn those republicans disagreeing with our infallible president.

[kalm]

Another example of selective patriotism Treason is too harsh, however, they should loo their sets in congress for this shit. ALL of the attacks from the right against the President have failed. This one will fail too.

Darn those republicans disagreeing with our infallible president.

A great man once said "you're either with us or with them".

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Dont misquotify Bush, that is not what he said.

[Baldy]

Darn those republicans disagreeing with our infallible president.

A great man once said "you're either with us or with them".

Context sux, doesn't it?