| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Obama Administration Won't Release Full Iran Deal to Congress |
| 2015-07-22 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #12 'Tis an "impeachable offense", among many, I believe. OTOH, "NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON", as the saying goes. Personally, as a Madonna Fan + Guamnaian residing in GUAM-WESTPAC I'm more interested in Anti-US US Globalist POTUS Obama's deals or concessions vee CHINA - DITTO AS PER ANY SIMILAR GLOBALIST POTUS SUCCESSOR(S). IFF GOD, NOSTRADAMUS, MADONNA, VIRGIN MARY, GUAM TAOTAMONAS, TEXAS-SIZED ASTEROIDS + LATE HUGO CHAVEZ'S BIRD ARE CORRECT, ITS THE US' HOLDING OF GUAM VERSUS THE US' SURRENDER OF GUAM [sinking] THAT WILL DE FACTO "MAKE-OR-BREAK" US POWER IN THE WORLD + OWG-NWO. The nominal or surreal, de jure or de nomina "weak/declining" US will devol into the DE FACTO "WEAK/DECLINING" US THE DAY THE US DECIDES TO SINK GUAM + OTHER PACIFIC ISLES IN ORDER THEIR MILPOL UTILITY TO CHINA [or Nuclear Islam] IN SELF-PRESERVING, COVER/SAVE-MY-OWN-ASS "A2/AD" = ANTI-ACCESS/AREA-DENIAL. WHEN THE PYWAR = DIPLOMATIC, GEOPOL "MIND GAMES" TURNS "REAL". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-07-22 21:49 |
| #11 Yes it would require an amendment. Which means everyone who voted for this law, is complicit in Obama's treason. If we had a real attorney general and court system, we'd have alot of public officials on death row |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2015-07-22 21:05 |
| #10 The reason congress passed Corker's Cork-up bill is so they can 'claim' to vote against the treaty but actually vote for it. "so sorry - we don't have the votes to override the Veto." Question: Can Congress simply pass on its responsibility like that? The constitution says 'Congress shall..' - shouldn't it require an admendment to overcome that 'shall'? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-07-22 15:11 |
| #9 People - you miss one important fact: Congress, via GOP Senator Bob Corker's bill, gave up its right to refuse this by passing a law (endorse by McConnel and Boehner) ceding power to Obama to make this deal and it can only be overridden by a 2/3 vote of BOTH houses. Don't like the treaty? Blame Obama. Don't like that they cant take a simple voter per the Constitution? Blame the GOP leadership in DC for rolling over and begging to take up up the *ss. The GOP leadership in DC is to blame for not having the guts to oppose this tyrannical transnational progressive. They have a majority and are afraid to use it. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-07-22 14:08 |
| #8 Does anyone really doubt that he has passed the bar for impeachment hearings? A Congress with an actual commitment to their oath of office , or for that matter an Attorney General who was actually faithful to theirs, would have already started impeachment/investigations for malfeasance in office and failure to enforce the law across a wide spectrum of unconstitutional actions or failures to act. The depth of cowardice in our elected Congress cannot be overstated I'm afraid. SO this Imperial President will continue to expand his reach as his sense of the end of his Presidency grows. I continue to wonder how far pardon/clemency/commutation acts will go? |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2015-07-22 14:01 |
| #7 EU, that's reason enough to try him for treason. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-07-22 13:24 |
| #6 If he won't disclose the whole deal that's reason enough to reject it. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-07-22 13:19 |
| #5 Obama has acted as if he is not bound by the Constitution for quite some time. Congress has acted as if Obama is not bound but the Constitution either. About the only 'peer' he might have is the 9 Black Robed princes of the Supreme Court. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2015-07-22 13:05 |
| #4 Rambler. That does not telle me why he is not purging time. |
| Posted by: JFM 2015-07-22 10:38 |
| #3 Then its non-binding on subsequent administrations or governments. The facade of the ritual of approval does not extend 'legality' when elements of a 'deal' are not fully disclosed. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-07-22 09:22 |
| #2 JFM, yes, according to the Constitution, the Senate must ratify treaties. However, Obama has acted as if he is not bound by the Constitution for quite some time. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-07-22 09:03 |
| #1 Is that legal? I thought Treteis had to be ratified by the Senate. If that is n ot leagl why is not he at Leavenworth? |
| Posted by: JFM 2015-07-22 08:59 |