and U.S. can enforce it.

           So spake Secretary of State Kerry today in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

            WTF? Now I am totally confused. I did think the agreement was a legally binding international contract though not necessarily an enforceable law. Congress with a veto proof majority can always pass a law declining to honor the contract, and a new president can always issue an executive order doing the same, although the effect would be to breach the contract.

         But apparently that is not correct if Kerry knows what he is talking about. How can an international agreement be “enforceable” but not legally “binding” and unmodifiable by Congress?

       And what of Senator Cotton who doesn’t even understand how you ratify a treaty?

“In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-third vote.”  Apparently he has been reading the P & R Board, but only the President can ratify a treaty by making the appropriate exchange with the foreign power.

         Does anyone in Washington know what they are doing?  Why in the world would Iran enter into the agreement if it expires in two years?  Clearly President Obama is guilty of ridiculous judgment in not obtaining bi-partisan support for the “plan” or whatever the hell it is before going to all this trouble

keep on appointing fuck-ups as Sec. of State?

O wait that's right obama himself is a fuck-up.

Nevermind, I answered my own question.

 
Thank you  
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House

Which seems to be the typical reaction to ANY post of substance and consequence regardless of party.
When any of the resident trolls in this forum post anything, its usually some lame or stupid folderol pointing out the inadequacies of the other side of the aisle.

Here is a perfect example of what I considered to be a thought provoking and interesting post from one of the more balanced members of this place, and yet the only response was a stupid lame comment from the right, followed by an equally stupid and lame comment from the left.

What the Fuck ever Happened to this Forum? When did the bipolar opposites merge into a morass of cretins and crazies?

Shit, every time I come back here to browse for familiar names, I am more and more appalled by the decline and fall from grace of even the most level headed of hobbyists and providers with political or religious interests.

Yeah RWU, Mari, and the rest of you long timers, its been awhile. As always, thanks for reading my rant.

and people like you applaud his actions which essentially nullify the existence of 3 branched of govt......amazing what a few freebies can do.

... it appears to me all the efforts by Obama, Kerry et al are very short sighted, with an eye on cementing Obama's "legacy".  

Ever since Ronald Reagan's trickle down economics in the 80's, our vaunted leadership have always chosen to pass the buck down to the children and grandchildren and let them sort it out, be it the huge shift from creditor to debtor nation during Reagan's tenure, to the collapse of the dot.com bubble that actually was set in motion during the Clinton administration, to the untenable awful and bankrupting mess we wound up in after 911 and the Bush administration focusing on securing oil and private information to the Obama administrations utterly ignorant handling and assessments of the Middle Eastern Theatre at large.  
I know I'm glossing over things, and leaving out many important events in the process... but I'm merely trying to stress this point: The actions of the Executive branch of government are indicative of a shortsightedness of the Bigger Picture, and achieving a domestic political goal, regardless of long term ramifications.  

Those of you who do not wear political blinders will acknowledge this tactic is no different than that practiced by GWB, RJC, GHWB, going all the way back to the paranoid Richard Nixon who really WAS a racist and an asshole.  

Regardless of which way the pendulum swings in 2016, little will change as long as the people selected to run the country are more concerned with their next election or their post-service legacy than they are with serving the people of the country.

It will take a complete paradigm shift in the way society at large works before that can happen. But we no longer are given a choice between the best candidates for the job. We are given a selection of puppets all of whom serve the same masters at the end of the day.  

Sadly, as the events of the last number of years has shown us. regardless of whether the politician is on the left, right, Tea Party or Party Animal, they know less and less about the constitution than an immigrant seeking citizenship is required to learn prior to taking the vows.

OK, now let's hear from the lame parade. Come on trolls, you know who you are!!!

I think a bigger part is that he doesn't want to go to war with Iran, and he's convinced there are plenty of Republicans who do, so they are not motivated in developing a bipartisan negotiation with Iran. He believes, as many do, particularly Great Brittan, France, Germany, Russia and China that if there is not an agreement made with Iran, they will develop nuclear weapons, despite sanctions. And, he believes, with good reason, that if negotiations fail, other countries will abandon those sanctions.  In short there are those who believe that there is a possibility that Iran can be negotiated with to deter their producing nuclear weapons, and there are those who do not believe this is possible. Many of those who don't believe it's possible are convinced attacking Iran is the only solution. It appear Obama is hoping for the former, but while realizing it's only a hope until it is realized. He views the Republican congress as being an obstacle to realizing that hope.

nuclear agreement are “very short sighted,” although I would lean toward “incompetence” rather than any half-baked attempt to establish his legacy.  

And yes you are right – our presidents from Nixon and Reagan on down have shown a disturbing preference to pass the buck down the road rather than making unpopular decisions that need to be made.

But we can’t make errors with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, it would be an international disaster if they obtain a nuclear bomb. And I say this not because I think they would actually bomb Israel – that would almost certainly lead to Iran’s destruction as Iran is decades away from having a delivery capacity that could march Israel’s delivery capacity. The Iranian mullahs are rational actors more concerned with their self preservation than their anti-Jew rhetoric. But the risk of this happening would be intolerable to those who live in Israel and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would almost certainly follow.

I’m not sure I agree that our leaders knowledge of the Constitution is as dire as you fear. Mr Obama did teach Con Law at Harvard. Senator Cotton who sponsored the Open Letter is only 37; still, the Senate’s own website clearly explains that the Senate does not “ratify” treaties. But together the Obama Administration and the objecting Senators have made a total train wreck of perhaps the most important public policy issue of this century.

 
And finally, thank you for rescuing my post

...couldn't get a job teaching at the Matchbook Cover School of Law.  Matchbook has very low standards but you still have to be a REAL lawyer to be a professor there.

Negotiation with Iran is Five +1 not between US and Iran (5+1= China, Russia, France, UK, US + Germany). Here is somethings you, your brethren and your BSC congressmen needs to understand.  

1) US has no real business and have not had any significant trade with Iran since 1979.  

2) China, Russia, France and Germany do have significant trade and investment with Iran.

3) Sanctions by US on its own without participation by the other five wouldn’t affect Iran one-bit in other words, worthless.

4) If talks collapse because that is what Nutty who and BSC’s like cotton wants, US will be left out and other countries will not stand by current sanctions and will start doing business. India, China and Russia already does significant amount of business with Iran.

5) Iran is within their rights according to NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) in developing using nuclear technology for peaceful purpose and the International Atomic Energy has said over and over that Iran is not enriching uraniums to weapons grade regardless of what Nutty Who and BSC Republican congressmen says.

6) If the talks fail, the other five will move and US will be left sucking eggs and US influence will suffer

Finally, earth is not flat and the entire world does not revolve around the US as BSC wing-nuts think.  

Most people do understand facts has no bearing on BSC wing-nuts and the right wing media so, you are not and will not influence any rational persons rational thinking.

-- Modified on 3/12/2015 10:22:54 PM

Complete garbage, is it not?

to wing-nuts not in touch with rest of the world today. Please do not bring up ISIS because neocons created them with their misadventures

which is not based on any facts.  

If there is one country keeps on pouring oil in the middle east cauldron, it is Israel, and the people of Israel who keeps on electing Nutty Who who wants to subjugate Palestinians for ever.  

Israel is loosing its support in Europe rapidly and it is bound to happen in the US over time, then what

without the other five because US and UK does not have significant business with Iran. Next to nothing when it comes to US. The other four will break away and with China and Russia being UN Permanent Members with veto power, US won’t be able to squat.

As far as the Europeans, Russia, China and UK are concerned, Iran has come to the table in good faith and is backed by Atomic Energy Commission inspection reports that Iran is not enriching Uranium to make weapons or are making a nuclear bomb. Iran is NPT signatory and well within its rights to use nuclear technology for peaceful purpose.

Obama, Kerry and rest of the rational people who admit facts are facts understand this.

Very good article in The Economist.

Cotton and gang thought that the Iranian foreign minister is a moron but little did they know that

Javad Zarif is educate in the US from the age of 17.  
Zarif attended Drew College Preparatory School, a private college-preparatory high school located in San Francisco, California.[5] 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.[6] 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.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/russia-offers-sell-anti-aircraft-missiles-iran-nuclear-talks

Why negotiate a deal that is not binding on either party?  Why? 'cause Obama cannot get even his own party to agree with the BS he is putting in the 'agreement'....such a waste of a presidency.

because they did exist for a while (along with many other terror groups) however they came to life and what they are today because obama pulled out ALL the troops from iraq.

 You're Welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House

although I think you underestimate how close Iran is to enriching Uranium to weapons grade. Some experts believe Iran using just its old gas centrifuges could enrich enough Uranium to build a bomb in a couple of months. Iran’s second generation centrifuges can do this even quicker. Other experts put the danger line a year or so out but who can take the risk that they are right?

         Remember that low-enriched uranium becomes weapons grade with further enrichment and Iran ALREADY has huge quantities of this. That is the problem. So saying Iran "is not enriching to weapons grade" is beside the point.

      However, the point of my post is to note what seems to be total confusion among those in Washington as to whether whatever “agreement” is being negotiated is binding on the U.S.  and for how long.  If it expires on Mr. Obama’s last day, we are basically allowing Iran to generate billions in revenue for a two year period which will easily fund their bomb making ability after the two year period is over.  

So why would we enter into this kind of agreement

but his teaching experience was at the Univ of Chicago. Thanks for the correction.

    But I think it is unfair to say I couldn't get a job at the Matchbook School of Law. They don't even have a Porn Star program. But I am available to tutor the coeds.

their bomb making. Of course, it's not unreasonable to suspect that to be true, but it could be just as likely that they would use the money of bolster their economy. Either way, other than bombing them, what options do we have? Or, do you favor bombing them; us or the Israelis?

most likely be used for a variety of purposes, including funding their bomb making ability.

 
         The option I favor is a "no enrichment" ever agreement. Keep the sanctions until they agree. But again, going back to my OP, what is the Obama admin doing negotiating an agreement that even Kerry says is not legally binding on the United States?

That's why I didn't respond the first time. 'I got nothin!'