General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,706 posts)

94. The morality of a position does not change the Constitution

Wed Mar 11, 2015, 10:48 PM

Mar 2015

I haven't tried to argue that Reagan's positions were worth defending while Obama's are not. That simply doesn't enter the constitutional question.

Congress does have the authority to remove presidents who pursue illegal wars (I know... far chance... but they do). They either do or do not have the authority to contact foreign governments and oppose presidential foreign policy (attempting to undermine that policy). The relative value of those policies isn't part of the equation. That goes for the other side of the coin as well. The President either has the authority to bind the US and future Presidents to an agreement based on his own inherent powers... or he doesn't (hint... he doesn't). The claim that he's fighting for world peace, full employment, and 200 year guaranteed lifespans without harming the environment... doesn't add to those powers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'd love to see the TREASON!!!! crowd clarify why this isn't worse [View all] FBaggins Mar 2015 OP

Reccing for asking a damned good and interesting question. Bonobo Mar 2015 #1

Because our side did it, which makes it okey dokey. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #2

Five nations are negotiating an international agreement, with the UN. Not a treaty. Fail. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #3

That's incorrect. FBaggins Mar 2015 #6

Those are GOP talking points fully repudiated by the White House. And you seem to forget that the Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #8

Next he's going to pretend ex agreements are not binding both countries into a policy agreement. Rex Mar 2015 #12

According to the very wrong poster all the foreign agreements, hundreds over the years, do not bind the next President. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #13

Yikes! Rex Mar 2015 #15

Can you imagine....all agreements are immediately subject to termination..what foreign nation would negotiate one? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #16

Yeah every four years you have to hope the new POTUS doesn't go all willy nilly on your ass! Rex Mar 2015 #18

Watching Stewart...Raygun signed 1500 international executive agreements...... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #20

That is exactly the case if the agreement doesn't pass both houses or isn't ratified be the Senate. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #64

This is a multi-nation agreement subject to approval by the UN Security Council and enforced by Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #71

What does the number of nations or US involvement have to do with the agreement being binding on TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #75

All agreements are not equal, Fred. The only binding ones go through Congress TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #76

You are purposely ignoring seventy plus years of foreign policy precedent, just like the Republicans are. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #77

That statement does not support your assertion nor does it have anything to do with me agreeing with TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #79

You are supporting the Republican position, a wrong position, I do not need to say anymore. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #88

No, I'm not. You are being overwrought and will not even process information TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #100

I am afraid you are the one not listening, ergo your rudeness - to your own President. My position is his position. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #101

I need'nt "pretend"... that's exactly the case. FBaggins Mar 2015 #25

Okay Rex Mar 2015 #26

WHOA! Step off the crazy train Telcontar Mar 2015 #57

No, they didn't because there is no such thing One can only commit treason against the United States TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #63

You agree with the White House? FBaggins Mar 2015 #19

Obama is clear that lifting of sanctions, the ones imposed by Congress, will be repealed by Congress Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #21

I'm surprised they did not call for Obama's outting after his Cuba ovetures. Rex Mar 2015 #23

So? FBaggins Mar 2015 #24

The Senate does not ratify treaties. They advise and consent on treaties. onenote Mar 2015 #34

That's the same error that the 47 Republicans made FBaggins Mar 2015 #41

Every major act of treason/sedition over the last 100 years was commited by a Republican. yourout Mar 2015 #4

obviously, correct. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #7

you forgot the Selection of 2000 -- a de facto coup grasswire Mar 2015 #85

Do I understand the point of equivalenance being made in your post? Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #5

Apparently not. FBaggins Mar 2015 #11

Hard lesson here. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #17

This is NOT a treaty! Why are folks so obtuse? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #22

Hy, Fred, I'm jusr acknowleding what the OP stated. Old and In the Way Mar 2015 #27

That's the very problem. FBaggins Mar 2015 #30

If the Iran negotiations are little more than a gentleman's agreement we don't need a letter from Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #45

We don't... FBaggins Mar 2015 #47

Well the first thing that strikes me is there... one_voice Mar 2015 #9

Because "we" are always right and "they" are always wrong? Binkie The Clown Mar 2015 #10

No the OP is saying both parties are the same. Rex Mar 2015 #14

No, he is saying that this particular incident may have similarities to an incident initiated by Democrats Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #28

So both parties are the same, because they do the same thing. Like he said in his OP. Rex Mar 2015 #29

Really. You are actually trying to defend your extra-ordinary simplistic thinking. Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #35

Nice try at dodging for a buddy! Rex Mar 2015 #80

No... he most certainly isn't. FBaggins Mar 2015 #31

Thanks for completely going back on what you said! That didn't take long at all! Rex Mar 2015 #32

You've had a very active imagination today. FBaggins Mar 2015 #38

Except you are misrepresenting what was said and then arguing against mythology Mar 2015 #42

What a shock you poo poo the Logan act. Rex Mar 2015 #81

A 1799 law under which no one has ever been prosecuted despite numerous Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #86

And Nancy Pelosi met with Assad in Syria in 2007, against Bush's wishes. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #33

And the Republicans characterized her actions as "treason". Our political intelligence Luminous Animal Mar 2015 #37

Isn't it encouraging FBaggins Mar 2015 #40

" . . . the President should be negotiating a treaty that the Senate should vote on." Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #36

So let's see if I've got this straight FBaggins Mar 2015 #39

How is this productive to bring up now? John Poet Mar 2015 #43

"throw cold water on everyone's anger" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #46

I appreciate your final sentence FBaggins Mar 2015 #48

I had the privilege of knowing an Iranian student while in college. She was one of the best people Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #49

Obama/Admin should be talking with Congress as well... GetTheRightVote Mar 2015 #44

Once again? trumad Mar 2015 #50

Your "concern" is duly noted and is surprisingly identical to the GOP traitors...interesting. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #51

This congress? B Calm Mar 2015 #52

Once again... onyourleft Mar 2015 #72

to republicans and anyone else defending them against charges of treason by bringing up the Contras bigtree Mar 2015 #53

So... that was one great big rhetorical... FBaggins Mar 2015 #54

you're arguing against the political wind bigtree Mar 2015 #55

Who said those Democrats were in the wrong then? I think you are missing the point on purpose TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #69

treason, not treason bigtree Mar 2015 #74

the Reagan Administration was carrying on an illegal war that was condemned by the International Douglas Carpenter Mar 2015 #56

Plus, that 'illegal war' wasn't public policy. Bizarro, indeed. randome Mar 2015 #58

You can't possibly argue that we didn't have a public foreign policy related to Nicaragua FBaggins Mar 2015 #59

Didn't say that, did I? randome Mar 2015 #61

It's hard to tell what you're actually saying FBaggins Mar 2015 #62

That's at least the closest to a valid position that I've seen so far. FBaggins Mar 2015 #60

I have not used the word treason in regard to either case. But there is no implied or stated Douglas Carpenter Mar 2015 #65

Well written/expressed eom salin Mar 2015 #67

But, unless I am missing something... salin Mar 2015 #66

. Rex Mar 2015 #84

I wrote this before DC wrote an upthread response salin Mar 2015 #87

Because peace is better than war. Duh. n/t Orsino Mar 2015 #68

Reagan was conducting a secret & Illegal war against US law in Nicaragua. So why would a letter sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #70

That one is a huge defender of the nuke industry. Rex Mar 2015 #83

Edit. BainsBane Mar 2015 #92

"All the difference in the world" FBaggins Mar 2015 #95

You forgot 'in opposition to the President's ILLEGAL foreign policy decisions'. All the difference sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #98

Dude, you should be ashamed of yourself Hutzpa Mar 2015 #73

Shame!? HA! Rex Mar 2015 #82

You don't think illegal wars and drug running and clergy murders should be stopped blm Mar 2015 #78

I do in fact FBaggins Mar 2015 #89

Another difference BainsBane Mar 2015 #90

That has been mentioned half a dozen times already FBaggins Mar 2015 #91

Excuse me BainsBane Mar 2015 #93

The morality of a position does not change the Constitution FBaggins Mar 2015 #94

That is something you will have to put to a constitutional lawyer BainsBane Mar 2015 #96

I'd say the efforts in the senate to kill the talks by threatening new sanctions was worse Chathamization Mar 2015 #97