TRAITORS

[EPW]

To the treaty! (it wasn't directed at you)

[Hauldren Collider]

So the congress could internally decide it has police powers? Or that they also could give orders to the military?

First of all, Congress does have certain police powers, though they are very limited. (There is a capitol police force that is under the direct control of Congress) But no, they could not internally decide to be military commanders, because that is an executive power as described in the constitution.

[Hauldren Collider]

To clarify: in your original post, you said that if congress passed a law saying that members of congress must do X and that doing Y instead of X is illegal, and a member of congress did Y, the it would be up to congress itself to enforce that, and not a matter of bringing said member before a court?

It depends on the nature of that law. If it's a congressional rule, it's up to congress to enforce it. I don't think congress can pass an actual statute limiting their own powers, however. My recollection is that that is why the line item veto was struck down by the courts.

[MRT144]

Of course people are siding based on what their political allegiance is.

Logan Act is stupid.
The Republicans are stupid.
Obama is stupid but at least he isn't a Republican.

[DinoDoc]

To the treaty! (it wasn't directed at you)

There is no treaty. They (the Administration) aren't even promoting the possible agreement as legally binding on Iran.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'll just go ahead and put my alternative on the table: Bomb their nuclear sites. Or bomb something. Most of the Arab world would be delighted. You can bet the Saudis would be happy to see Iran slapped down, as would the Egyptians. We're talking about a major state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is also angling for regional hegemony. This is making the Saudis and everyone else very antsy with good reason. The last person to try that was Saddam Hussein.

Alby is correct that Iran is fighting ISIS. So is Bashar al-Assad. In the ME, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Given his previous anti-Israel stance his sympathy is not just unsurprising but actually expected. However Alby's antisemitism aside I'm still pretty salty about all those IEDs they planted and troops of ours they killed in Iraq, aren't you?

[EPW]

There is no treaty. They (the Administration) aren't even promoting the possible agreement as legally binding on Iran.

To the "agreement" then.

[-Jrabbit]

Really? You guys are still fapping about this?

1. Letter = a total douche move. All sides agree on this to varying degrees.
2. Letter (and media coverage) totally ignores the fact that 5 other countries are involved. This is your clue that it's all poseur theater.
3. Logan Act is never used and over 200 years old.
4. The "47" thing is more hilarious than it is an indictment. They are, in effect, saying "We, the undersigned, are in the minority!"

Even Jon Stewart's piece points out that both sides have done this many times before, with some lovely video (which I'm too lazy to find and embed) of both Dems and Repubs (and media) coming down equally hard on both sides of the issue.

[DinoDoc]

To the "agreement" then.

Something legally binding.

[Hauldren Collider]

Really? You guys are still fapping about this?

1. Letter = a total douche move. All sides agree on this to varying degrees.
2. Letter (and media coverage) totally ignores the fact that 5 other countries are involved. This is your clue that it's all poseur theater.
3. Logan Act is never used and over 200 years old.
4. The "47" thing is more hilarious than it is an indictment. They are, in effect, saying "We, the undersigned, are in the minority!"

Even Jon Stewart's piece points out that both sides have done this many times before, with some lovely video (which I'm too lazy to find and embed) of both Dems and Repubs (and media) coming down equally hard on both sides of the issue.

It does not matter that they are in the minority. If there were only 33 of them, then you could laugh. It takes 67 votes to pass a treaty.

Anyway this "deal" is akin to capitulation. Signing it is saying we are OK with Iran getting the bomb so long as Obama can claim he's some sort of peace wizard genius negotiator. Are we OK with it or aren't we? I'm sure as shit not.

[EPW]

Something legally binding.

It is "binding" if there are consequences for non-compliance, which there is. (sanctions). I guess your preferred alternative is bombing too?

[-Jrabbit]

You really need to learn to stop reflexively arguing with me when I'm trying to agree with you, HC.

This whole news cycle is just the tempest calling the teapot black.

[MRT144]

I'll just go ahead and put my alternative on the table: Bomb their nuclear sites. Or bomb something. Most of the Arab world would be delighted. You can bet the Saudis would be happy to see Iran slapped down, as would the Egyptians. We're talking about a major state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is also angling for regional hegemony. This is making the Saudis and everyone else very antsy with good reason. The last person to try that was Saddam Hussein.

Alby is correct that Iran is fighting ISIS. So is Bashar al-Assad. In the ME, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Given his previous anti-Israel stance his sympathy is not just unsurprising but actually expected. However Alby's antisemitism aside I'm still pretty salty about all those IEDs they planted and troops of ours they killed in Iraq, aren't you?

you are so ridiculous sometimes, internalizing the needless deaths of our troops as if you are actually affected by them. Troops are there to die and go on whatever global adventures can be sold to the American public. I wish I wasn't so cynical but hey, I saw a bunch of otherwise smart people lap up those lies and bathe in them because they have an inexplicable need to feel powerful by extension of their country's military quagmires.

[EPW]

I'll just go ahead and put my alternative on the table: Bomb their nuclear sites. Or bomb something. Most of the Arab world would be delighted. You can bet the Saudis would be happy to see Iran slapped down, as would the Egyptians. We're talking about a major state sponsor of terrorism. Iran is also angling for regional hegemony. This is making the Saudis and everyone else very antsy with good reason. The last person to try that was Saddam Hussein.

Alby is correct that Iran is fighting ISIS. So is Bashar al-Assad. In the ME, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Given his previous anti-Israel stance his sympathy is not just unsurprising but actually expected. However Alby's antisemitism aside I'm still pretty salty about all those IEDs they planted and troops of ours they killed in Iraq, aren't you?

Well it's important to make the Saudis happy isn't it? *cough* 9/11 *cough*

And realistically, I think we or Israel will bomb their nuclear sites if they actually get close. That doesn't mean diplomacy can't work.

[DaShi]

Oh yes. It is also literally not treason. That's actually defined in the constitution, friends.

Edit: Final thought: Congress sets its own rules. That's also in the constitution. Even if Congress passed a law circumscribing its own powers, the courts would say it would be up to Congress to enforce that on itself. IIRC the Logan Act is to prevent joes like you and me from trying to engage in official US business without being official US representatives of said business. Basically, you can't be an American mercenary without getting some sort of government OK. Senators are the government.

Senators are not the government. We have something called the Constitution to prevent them, the President, and government employees and appointees from thinking just that. Senators don't have carte blanche to break any laws they please.