47 Ronin

[Jack Sawyer]

I mean senators.

Led by Tom Cotton, a group of 47 Republican senators have sent a letter to the president of Iran.

Quoted from Huffington Post:

The letter, organised by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), concerns the ongoing negotiations between the U.S., several of its partner nations and Iran aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. The letter claims to offer a basic lesson in how the U.S. Constitution works, and warns leaders in Tehran that any deal that results from the negotiations will not necessarily be binding, could be modified at any time by Congress and might be discarded entirely by the next president.The letter -- which actually features a number of errors regarding the Constitution -- has been widely seen as an attempt to sabotage the ongoing talks by eroding Iranian leaders' trust in the United States.

In case you missed it, here are a few links:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iran-...ry?id=29564985
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/10/po...ter-logan-act/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-iran-letter/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rrect-about-c/

Isn't this treason?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Legal def. of treason, please.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

[BooG690]

Isn't this treason?

How would this be treason?

[JKDS]

Sure. I think its a tough sell, but laws are so broadly worded that its usually just a matter of how offensive something is.

Would the judiciary hear the case? Thats a more interesting question, because courts hate doing things that interfere with other branches of government.

Either way, we really need a new conservative party.

[a500lbgorilla]

These guys play by the rules where everything they do to assert their power as a Senator is good in the checks and balances scheme.

Don't like it? Be President/SupJ and over assert your authority on their asses.

[wufwugy]

Apparently the Democrats have a history of doing the same sort of thing but worse when they don't have the presidency

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/11/...n-iran-letter/

No it's not treason. It is also technically correct. Congress is the lawmaker. The executive has no lawmaking power. The executive is granted authority to make foreign policy decisions, but the laws regarding all of that authority is all congress. The slow trend of the country has been taking more power from congress and giving it to the executive. This is mainly by public perception, but politicians have also been lax. People love the simplicity of the idea of a king-figure, but that isn't the way the Constitution has it. We forget that the president isn't supposed to have that much power.

Other than that, it's debatable that Obama is doing the right thing. Unless there is a lot of information we don't have, he is a fool in his dealings with Iran. Given that the GOP has this view, right or wrong, it's sensible that they would try to use their legal authority to keep him from causing too much damage. It is absolutely clear that Iran is not interested in nuclear power for energy generation. I'm a little amazed at how naive the Obama administration is in that it thinks it can get a deal with a country that clearly wants nuclear capabilities more than anything else. The GOP senators react strongly because if a deal is cut with a country that all reasonable estimates suggest it has no desire to stick to the deal, and that country gets nuclear capabilities through that, it would be the biggest policy failure since, like, forever.

If you thought the outcome of a mishandling of Iraq 2 was bad, just wait until the arguably most geopolitically powerful enemy of the West gets a nuke.

[wufwugy]

Don't like it? Be President/SupJ and over assert your authority on their asses.

I already mentioned it, but I'll just reiterate: the president really isn't nearly as powerful as people think. He's the guy who executes law, not the guy who makes law. Congress is the real boss who gets checked by the executive and judiciary. The course of the country depends far more on congress than it ever did the executive or judiciary. My guess as to why the executive has gotten so much focus from elites is because geopolitics in the hyper-dangerous post-WW2 world. What we have going on right now is an executive who is more or less a rogue against the elites on this issue, so it's no wonder that he pisses them off.

[BooG690]

Congress can't intrude in foreign policy negotiations.

"Logan Act" on @Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

Also, ugh Daily Kos

[wufwugy]

Where does it say Congress can't intrude. The wording of the law in the link is so vague that it basically says that somebody being treasonous is being treasonous. There would need to be another law saying that Congress is "unauthorized" to correspond with foreign governments. I doubt that law exists. It sorta couldn't exist since Congress is the lawmaker and if it doesn't have authorization to grant authorization then nobody has authorization.

[Jack Sawyer]

One thing. Like it or not, the president is the president. He has been elected to do his job, which is, you know, being the motherfucking president.

If the president is in a negotiation with another fucking country, you can't just write a letter to that country saying that whatever the president says has no merit, because you basically will not obey his power nor whatever resolution they come to no matter what. If you, those who he is the president of, do not respect his decisions and negotiated outcomes, then who will?

This is way worse than someone in the audience tipping your hand while on the bubble at the WSOP final table. Your president has been elected to represent you, as a country, on the international stage. You can't go tell other actors on that stage that your president just can't do anything because you don't allow him to. This is not the time nor the place to do public tantrums. if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to negotiate (read: invade and form another war in the middle east as if there were not enough) then you should have been elected president.



If you have not been elected to do so yet want to dictate international policy, then go cry to your mom, not to the fucking ayatollah.

Heads have to roll on this thing

[Jack Sawyer]

Where does it say Congress can't intrude. The wording of the law in the link is so vague that it basically says that somebody being treasonous is being treasonous. There would need to be another law saying that Congress is "unauthorized" to correspond with foreign governments. I doubt that law exists. It sorta couldn't exist since Congress is the lawmaker and if it doesn't have authorization to grant authorization then nobody has authorization.

Right here. 1st line:

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613
, 18 U.S.C. § 953
, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S

Congress is a collection of unauthorised citizens because they have had no seat at the fucking negotiating table. Or am I looking at it wrong?

[Jack Sawyer]

A somewhat similar analogy imo:

If you are negotiating with a car dealer over the selling price of your car, your kid can't come in and tell said dealer that you will take anything for the car because your family is starving and it's the reason you are selling the car, even though you do not appear to.

Said kid is in clear violation of the dad & kid negotiating law, in which dad negotiates and kid shuts the fuck up, because you will undoubtedly affect the outcome of said negotiation. If you wanted your preferred outcome to happen kid, you should have been the dad.


Bonus round: filibuster

In the mid 19th century (via Spanish filibustero ), the term denoted American adventurers who incited revolution in several Latin American states, whence sense 2 of the noun.

[wufwugy]

Right here. 1st line:


Congress is a collection of unauthorised citizens because they have had no seat at the fucking negotiating table. Or am I looking at it wrong?

Congress does have a seat at the negotiating table. The executive doesn't set law. Those senators are fully within their rights to say they do not legally support actions of the executive.

The first problem with using Logan's is that we have to qualify "unathorized". Unless there is some law saying otherwise, congress is very authorized. Furthermore, the law doesn't say anything about going against the president, but against the US. If we're fighting over who is "more US", the legislature or the executive, the answer is the legislature.

For the most part, the legislature doesn't openly get in the way of the executive on issues of foreign policy because a unified front works best and both parties agree. But that tradition doesn't mean that it's illegal to not do so. I personally support this tactic because I think the Obama administration is making the wrong moves. Even if I agreed with it philosophically, the administration should know that its approach is awful and only making things worse. Of course that has been a criticism that has been around for many years, yet the administration doesn't think it's accurate so it keeps making the same mistakes.

The Obama administration is the one going against decades of established foreign policy doctrine. He hasn't demonstrated that he's making good foreign policy decisions. In fact, he has been the spearhead with which the position of the US on foreign policy has weakened. There is a lot in his philosophy of foreign policy I could say I agree with, but the reaction of his constituents on this matter isn't substantive.

[wufwugy]

A somewhat similar analogy imo:

If you are negotiating with a car dealer over the selling price of your car, your kid can't come in and tell said dealer that you will take anything for the car because your family is starving and it's the reason you are selling the car, even though you do not appear to.

Said kid is in clear violation of the dad & kid negotiating law, in which dad negotiates and kid shuts the fuck up, because you will undoubtedly affect the outcome of said negotiation. If you wanted your preferred outcome to happen kid, you should have been the dad.


Bonus round: filibuster

[/FONT]

In this case, congress is the dad and the executive is the son. Granted, the president has more power than the son so the analogy isn't perfect. The point is that the executive does not wield lawmaking power. He executes the law he is given by congress; hence the name. If he were to strike a deal with Iran, congress could pass a law saying it's illegal just fine. This letter is simply members of congress stating that fact.

[Jack Sawyer]

In this case, congress is the dad and the executive is the son. Granted, the president has more power than the son so the analogy isn't perfect. The point is that the executive does not wield lawmaking power. He executes the law he is given by congress; hence the name. If he were to strike a deal with Iran, congress could pass a law saying it's illegal just fine. This letter is simply members of congress stating that fact.

Are you saying that it's congress who is negotiating and not president Obama?

[Renton]

Not saying you're wrong but would you really be making this thread if it was George W. Bush negotiating with Iran with terms that weren't to your liking, and there was a democrat mutiny in congress?

[MadMojoMonkey]

It does have broader ramifications on the world stage than just Iran. All nations heard that message.

[wufwugy]

Are you saying that it's congress who is negotiating and not president Obama?

In your analogy, the dad is the one with the most power. In this situation, congress is the one with the most power. Foreign policy is ultimately what congress wants it to be. A "rogue" executive who goes against the wishes of congress in deal-cutting doesn't get that far.

The executive is the figurehead of negotiation. He does it at the behest of the legislature (more like the state legislatures). Over the years this fact has gotten away from us. It should be noted that the executive was never intended to have been elected by the people and was never intended to have much power. The power lies with congress and the states. The checks to congress are judicial review to assess constitutionality as well as the internal structure of congress in how it's made up of one group of elected officials and one group that was originally appointed by state legislatures (the senate).

Some things have changed over time, but it's important to know the history. The executive is in a weird position where he has little power but is also elected by the people today. This gives the people the impression that he has lots of power and that he's the arbiter. His legislative power exists as a veto against legislation he doesn't like. He can't create law except in that he signs or vetoes papers on his desk. So when his department is the chief negotiator with foreign governments, if congress critters say something about it, they're doing so in the capacity of the majority party in law creation.

The whole thing is messy, partly by design. The answer to your question is that congress is also in negotiation. It isn't that the executive and his appointees are the only people authorized to negotiate. This is a case of multiple negotiators in disagreement. Even some in the GOP disagree with this tactic, but it isn't treason.

[wufwugy]

It does have broader ramifications on the world stage than just Iran. All nations heard that message.

I think it's important to at least understand what the view of that segment of the GOP is. Outside of the Obama administration and democratic base, it is pretty widely considered that the administration has done serious damage to relationships with US allies. My guess as to why so many elites have gathered around Jeb Bush is because he is the single most capable person (mainly due to his dad's prestige on the world stage) of restoring those relationships and undoing the perceived damage done by Obama.

These "ronin" have been pretty well-behaved given the list of egregious foreign policy mistakes they perceive of the administration, who has gotten zero flak from his constituency over them. The relationships with Saudi Arabia is arguably the most strategically important of all, and that has gone to shit. But that's nothing compared to how bad it would get if Iran became allied with the West on the issue of nukes, because it is enemies with Saudi Arabia and nobody actually believes it would uphold any deals. If ISIS happened under Bush's watch, every democrat on the planet would be saying it's worse than Iraq 2, yet mums the word now. Syria and Libya were solvable problems that the administration did little to solve. Russia has seen enough opening from the diminishing of US hegemony to push its own like it hasn't since Gorbachev.

In a way Obama is the opposite of HW Bush. HW focused on foreign policy so much that domestic policy faltered, and voters kicked him out for it. Obama has focused so much on domestic policy and doesn't seem to care much about foreign policy that most people with any credibility on the matter think he's a disaster.

[Renton]

I should add that I didn't mean to attack Jack Sawyer directly with that. I'm just a little dismayed at the appeal to supreme kingly one-man-authority that seems to be on display here. Obama is not the dad driving the car with which the Senators or even the American citizens are just along for the ride. He's only a man, and he's fallible. The existence of treason as an actual crime is in itself an indictment of the whole concept of a state. If you have any respect for the original principles of the founding fathers (I don't really, but a different conversation), you'd see that this is the sort of thing they would be for. The founders (well, many of them) were all about nullification, secession, and ultimately rebelllion in situations of authority run amok.

I'm okay with disagreeing with the Senators on this, but I really REALLY hate your reasoning behind it.

[a500lbgorilla]

The founders (well, many of them) were all about nullification, secession, and ultimately rebelllion in situations of authority run amok.

Yeah, in the light of checks and balances, the senators did nothing wrong and an archaic law designed by some other senators doesn't change that from my eyes. They made a mistake in the frame of the negotiations and in the frame of their political standing, but one of their central purposes is to keep the President down lest the Office of the Commander and Chief wield too much power.

[spoonitnow]

One thing. Like it or not, the president is the president. He has been elected to do his job, which is, you know, being the motherfucking president.

If the president is in a negotiation with another fucking country, you can't just write a letter to that country saying that whatever the president says has no merit, because you basically will not obey his power nor whatever resolution they come to no matter what. If you, those who he is the president of, do not respect his decisions and negotiated outcomes, then who will?

This is way worse than someone in the audience tipping your hand while on the bubble at the WSOP final table. Your president has been elected to represent you, as a country, on the international stage. You can't go tell other actors on that stage that your president just can't do anything because you don't allow him to. This is not the time nor the place to do public tantrums. if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to negotiate (read: invade and form another war in the middle east as if there were not enough) then you should have been elected president.



If you have not been elected to do so yet want to dictate international policy, then go cry to your mom, not to the fucking ayatollah.

Heads have to roll on this thing

I'm overwhelmed by your lack of understanding of the president's role, the role of congress and the powers given to each by the constitution to the point that I'm on the fence about trying to decide if you're trolling. Edit: Thought you were from the United States. Since you're apparently not, never mind this. Our president isn't the head over everything like it is in some places.

@bold, Yes they can, and there is nothing illegal about it. The presidential office as a whole needs to be reigned in on this.

[wufwugy]

I don't think Jack is trolling. He's a sincere person. The optics, from the lay as well as many insiders who should know better, are that the president is a king-like figure who controls policy direction. It's why we call the ACA Obamacare instead of what its real nickname should be: Democratcare. Obama had a very small role in that legislation. It was a democratic congress agenda from the beginning and it was written by them. Obama's role was simply just being on the same team so that he can sign the bill when it hits his desk as well as a figurehead to rally public support.

TBH I think the executive office should be scrapped. Kinda sorta the judiciary too. Obviously we need a court system, but judicial review isn't necessary, as we see with so many other countries that don't have it. What I'd like to move to is the House operating much like it does, and the Senate going back to being appointed by state legislatures. From there, each chamber elects ministers just like parliaments do. So basically I want two parliaments: one by popular election and one by state appointment.

[BooG690]

Not reading up on the discussion but, Jack is from Curacao (Curacaoan?), no? Just wanted to point that out as a possible reason for lack of truly understanding the president's role.

[spoonitnow]

Not reading up on the discussion but, Jack is from Curacao (Curacaoan?), no? Just wanted to point that out as a possible reason for lack of truly understanding the president's role.

Curacao is making some pretty sick moves right now to bring in Internet-based businesses like lowering taxes and putting together absurdly good connection speeds and server options.

[wufwugy]

i need to move to some place like curacao. i either have major seasonal affective disorder or major pussy disorder. or probably both

[wufwugy]

I'm most amazed by the Obama administration's position. It's being played like a fiddle. It should be easy enough to see that Iran has zero desire for nuclear energy production. Any deal that doesn't completely eliminate enrichment is a loss for non-proliferation and a serious powder keg.