Wow. You’d wish harm to the US just so you can claim “they did it first”? That’s pretty scary. But you do want the Democrats to be prosecuted, too, when they do it, right?
The Democrats would not seek harmful legislation. I would totally support undermining a GOP president because his policies will be stupid and evil. Dems would only need to fix what he gets wrong. In contrast, what Obama’s doing is a good piece of policy that will help to normalize relations a little bit and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Its an objectively good policy, which is why anyone trying to undermine is both violating the law and evil
Assuming nothing happens to the GOP, I can want the Dems to be prosecuted as much as I want but it won’t happen. So I’ll answer your question with yes, just because I think you’re trying to shoehorn one of those “both sides are bad” arguments somewhere it doesn’t belong
I want Democrats to undermine a GOP President is his policies are stupid and evil. Or simply illegal. There are remedies short of impeachment.
Yet, you support the GOP doing this to Obama when his actions are none of those.
Not wanting to waste lives or money should be a conservative trait. But the modern GOP is so busy grovelling to imbeciles in the Tea Party, that they instead try to foment war, just so they can say they stuck it to Obama.
It’s sickening. And it isn’t something both sides do with any regularity
What Obama has done here is unprecedented. I’ve asked for examples of Presidents pursuing deals with other countries that they know would never be ratified. Shouldn’t be hard if this has been done before.
Yes, there are a lot of executive agreements. Executive agreements that are at least tacitly supported by Congress. What’s being negotiated now isn’t even supported by the likely Democratic nominee for President.
I just cannot get over the fact that Cotton sent Javad Zarif a copy of the letter in Farsi just in case he couldn’t read English which probably guaranteed a snarky reception.
From Wikipedia, here is brief summary of Zarif’s higher education:
Zarif attended Drew College Preparatory School, a private college-preparatory high school located in San Francisco, California. He went on to study at San Francisco State University, from which he gained a BA in International Relations in 1981 and an MA in the same subject in 1982. Following this, Zarif continued his studies at the Graduate School of International Studies (now named the Josef Korbel School of International Studies) at the University of Denver, from which he obtained a second MA in International Relations in 1984 and this was followed by a PhD in International Law and Policy in 1988.His thesis was entitled: “Self-Defense in International Law and Policy”.
But Cotton made sure to send a copy of the letter in Farsi because the dude’s just a backwater militant terrorist, dontcha know.
Let’s keep in mind that when FDR told Stalin that there were strikes going on, Stalin wanted to know if we didn’t have troops available to put the strikes down.
Foreigners often do not understand how our system works, and frankly most Americans don’t either.
League of Nations.
No, that’s just shit you’re saying.
How is that easy to find? I don’t know what previous presidents “know would never be ratified.” You’re just flailing to try and find a way to justify your pre-determined conclusion.
What’s being negotiated is a stop to Iran nuclear development. Everyone supports that.
What we have here is a reflexive, “OH MY GOD THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!” that is blindly applied to every action of the administration, conveniently forgetting everything that has come before.
Yeah, the end result being that the US didn’t join the League of Nations, regardless of what Wilson agreed to.
Kyoto could be another example. Rejected completely by the Senate and renounced by the next administration.
Why Obama would expect his agreement to be treated any better, I’m not sure.
I don’t think that Joseph Stalin is a particularly timely reference point here. Tom Cotton apparently thought it appropriate to condescend to someone better educated in his OWN COUNTRY. Talk show hosts do more preliminary research than this guy.
To be fair though, since it is an open letter, the Farsi version might just have been a means to insure that the Iranian public could read it too. In the words of Peter Venkman, “we can do more damage that way.”
Just wondering how unprecedented this whole thing is. Breitbart (I know, not exactly an unbiased source) is reporting times when Democrats did something similar:
Just wondering how accurate this is, not submitted as something I’m willing or able to defend!
I mentioned the Algiers Accorde like 120 posts ago. Maybe you didn’t search that hard.
You don’t think Congress supported the Algiers accords? It was negotiated by the Carter administration and assented to by the Reagan administration. It would be quite odd for Congress to oppose that, although I’m open to cites that they did.
Iran’s right to enrichment on the other hand is not just opposed by Congress, but also the next President, whoever that is. I’m not sure if the Iranians know that, but they’ll find out.
I have not read your link because I am opposed on principle to click on any Breitbart link. However, Politico also has a bit on it here: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gop-iran-letter-115943.html (I assume they will be very similar).
I will say it seems Nancy Pelosi crossed the line when she went to Syria and I, for one, would be happy to have seen her prosecuted for it.
As for passing the Boland Amendment well, that is congress’ job. They have the power of the purse and they used it. About as American and legal as it gets.
The senate rejecting a test ban treaty? That is precisely what the senate is supposed to do (pass or reject a treaty). Not sure why that is even included except to give the sense that there is a lot there when there isn’t
Sending troops to Kosovo…well, the fight over when a president can send troops and congress’ ability to stop that is a pretty old one which has never been decided by the courts to my knowledge and differs from a treaty negotiation.
Jim Wright in 1987 looks like a violation.
In this case though we have 47 senators taking matters into their own hand. Not just one with a wild hair up their ass.
How about Roosevelt’s destroyers for bases agreement? Yoo’s think that was less controversial than this matter?
No, they should not be prosecuted. The Logan Act came out of the same period as the Alien and Sedition Acts. If it’s ever tested, especially on a free speech issue, it will fail, hard.
That’s arguably strictly within the executive’s purview as commander in chief. Lifting sanctions is a Congressional prerogative.
Stalin was a dictator and a thug.
The people who go and negotiate the treaties are career diplomats and they will be crystal clear about the political process on both sides and acutely aware of government and public sentiments. They spend years (literally) hammering these things out. They can’t not know.
What does age have to do with it?
Corporate personhood was established as a doctrine in 1886 in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case. Funny thing is the court didn’t even establish that but rather a court reporter did.
Fast forward to now and we have Citizens United which affirmed corporate personhood.
Old decisions can and do stand and, as far as I know, a law remains a law till replaced or repealed (or if it has a sunset clause).