[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, SexMachine, I find it interesting that you refer to Bibi as “the Lion of Judah”.
You must be aware that this is the epithet used by John of Patmos to refer to the returned Jesus in the Book of Revelation.
Surely you can’t be implying that Netanyahu is the Messiah?[/quote]
No not implying that of course. I merely meant to imply he’s a strong leader of the Jews.
The Amanita muscaria mushroom: likely the true author of the Book of Revelation.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Varg, how are you so sure John of Patmos was talking about Jesus? He very well could have been talking about Netanyahu all along and the Christians got it wrong.[/quote]
Ha! I like that.
Hell, John probably ate so many magic mushrooms on that island he coulda been talking about anybody.
Nonsense. Just because some ethnobotanist looks said it’s true doesn’t mean it is. Why not the psilocybe mushrooms? It’s nonsense anyway. There’s absolutely no reason to believe hallucinogenic drugs had anything to do with it. Only in the fevered imaginations of people like Terrance McKenna who also believed he could talk with “machine elves”. Utter crap.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Nonsense. Just because some ethnobotanist looks said it’s true doesn’t mean it is. Why not the psilocybe mushrooms? It’s nonsense anyway. There’s absolutely no reason to believe hallucinogenic drugs had anything to do with it. Only in the fevered imaginations of people like Terrance McKenna who also believed he could talk with “machine elves”. Utter crap.[/quote]
John Allegro was a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, not an ethnobotanist. You must be thinking of R. Gordon Wasson, who was an ethnomycologist, not an ethnobotanist.
Anyway, the island of Patmos is crawling with fly agaric mushrooms, as it was in the time of John. You may visit and see for yourself if you wish. Why not P. Cubensis? I don’t know. Less cowshit maybe? Drier climate? Big old red fly agaric easier to spot than ghost-white psilocybes?
I didn’t say Cubensis I said psilocybe mushrooms. Cubensis is only one species. There are much stronger species that grow on woodchips, rotting bark and in grassy meadows. They grow on the island of Patmos too. Why not them? As I said, just because someone says it doesn’t mean it’s true. Where is the evidence that fly agaric mushrooms or any other hallucinogenic mushrooms inspired John?
I’ll be the first to admit that there isn’t a lot of what a reasonable person would call “evidence” surrounding anything in the bible. As far as connecting John with magic mushrooms, the evidence as I see it is circumstantial at best. Lots of mushrooms on Patmos, and the trippiest book in the bible. Wouldn’t be the first time some “holy man” got high in the desert and wrote down all the fucked up shit he saw.
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.[/quote]
Not, at least, a violation of the Logan Act.
“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” US State Department, 1975
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.[/quote]
I’ve heard the word “treason” thrown around about this. This certainly is NOT treasonous behavior, but it still reeks of extra-constitutionality. This is how Polybius’ cycle of malignant gov’t returns. A mixed constitution that separates the powers of the aristocracy, the people and the monarch broke such a cycle. Without strict adherence to the doctrine of separate, overlapping powers, such a cycle is inevitable.
Unfortunately, the party that seems to have a monopoly on love for its country seems also to have forgotten this very basic premise upon which our country was founded.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.[/quote]
Not, at least, a violation of the Logan Act.
“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” US State Department, 1975[/quote]
Yeah I sort of regret writing that portion of my post, but in the spirit of just kicking things back into gear…eh what the hell.
Question would be, is it really in pursuit of their legislative duties that this happened? This looks to me like grandstanding/ yet more partisan politics. Ok, fundamentally I agree with them on Iran, but…
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.[/quote]
Not, at least, a violation of the Logan Act.
“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” US State Department, 1975[/quote]
Yeah I sort of regret writing that portion of my post, but in the spirit of just kicking things back into gear…eh what the hell.
Question would be, is it really in pursuit of their legislative duties that this happened? This looks to me like grandstanding/ yet more partisan politics. Ok, fundamentally I agree with them on Iran, but…[/quote]
Did you read the letter?
I thought it was anything but foolish. On its surface, it simply explained the procedure by which foreign treaties are negotiated and ratified by the United States government. Of course the Iranian government already knew everything that the kindly congressmen were “explaining” to them, but the subtext was clear: make a deal with this guy, and it’s not legally binding unless we ratify it. And anyway, he won’t even be around in two years…but WE will.
Very Tallyrand. I approve.
Also, definitely not unprecedented. Richard Nixon, before he was President, advised the North Vietnamese government to refuse peace talks with Lyndon Johnson’s administration, promising them a better deal once he was elected. He was accused of violating the Logan Act, but never indicted.
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Soooo, back on topic: 47 GOP congresspersons sign an open letter to Iran with obvious intent to undermine something in the making they perceive going on with Obama.
Given the structure of the letter, contents, TIMING, and Logan Act…was this even legal? This is pretty unprecedented as far as I know.
Illegal AND foolish? Just foolish? Secretly brilliant and illegal? Or something else…Discuss.[/quote]
Not, at least, a violation of the Logan Act.
“The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” US State Department, 1975[/quote]
Yeah I sort of regret writing that portion of my post, but in the spirit of just kicking things back into gear…eh what the hell.
Question would be, is it really in pursuit of their legislative duties that this happened? This looks to me like grandstanding/ yet more partisan politics. Ok, fundamentally I agree with them on Iran, but…[/quote]
Did you read the letter?
I thought it was anything but foolish. On its surface, it simply explained the procedure by which foreign treaties are negotiated and ratified by the United States government. Of course the Iranian government already knew everything that the kindly congressmen were “explaining” to them, but the subtext was clear: make a deal with this guy, and it’s not legally binding unless we ratify it. And anyway, he won’t even be around in two years…but WE will.
Very Tallyrand. I approve.
[/quote]
No I didn’t think the letter was foolish at all actually. As I said before I agree with the congressmen on the issue of Iran and disagree with Obama’s approach thoroughly. Substantively foolish vs. politically foolish on the other hand…well, they’re two different things. In reality, knowing how DBCooper feels about how the GOPers handled Netanyahu’s invitation I’m approaching the subject from a point to ask how people feel about the approach.
People on my facebook feed are livid (and very unsurprisingly, I also have very few political conversations with these people). So I want to know how DB and others like him view it–and you too, but you already answered the question and I agree.
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.
This goes without saying, why make a fool of yourselves sending such letter, I don’t get it?
Also any deal Iran reaches would not be solely based on the U.S.congress but the international community which again makes that letter silly.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.[/quote]
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.[/quote]
Any treaty the President enters into is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The advice part is ambiguous, given that President Obama has shown little-to-no inclination to actually listen to the Senate, or anyone else for that matter. How do we define “with the advice”? Does he simply need to be in the same room and conscious at the time such advice is spoken? Does he simply need to receive some sort of written document produced by the Senate and then cast his eyes in its general direction?
Regardless, the consent aspect is clear, and there is no need for the Senate to essentially undermine the executive branch’s role in this endeavor by also publicizing the fact that any agreement is likely to be undone ASAP.
Unless the President has specifically avoided any and all attempts to hear/seek advice from the Senate, I think it would be hard to make the case that he hasn’t at least sought some rudimentary form of advice. The Constitution does not quantify the advice to be sought. So what this letter does is it simply interjects the Senate into an area that is otherwise clearly defined as the purview of the executive branch.
This is why I would question not only the motives, but the actual impact upon the Constitution that this letter would have. Just because President Obama has treated the Constitution with reckless abandon doesn’t mean that reciprocal behavior from the other side solves the problem. If the party that more frequently likes to tout its constitutionality is quick to place factional, partisan interests above the supremacy of the Law that the Constitution aims to protect, then what else do we have left?
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
This goes without saying, why make a fool of yourselves sending such letter, I don’t get it?
Also any deal Iran reaches would not be solely based on the U.S.congress but the international community which again makes that letter silly.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.[/quote]
[/quote]
With Iran, any agreement into which the U.S. enters may require coordination or cooperation with the international community, but it certainly would not require the consent of anyone other than 2/3 of the Senate and whatever fucking legislative body they’ve got in Iran.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.[/quote]
Any treaty the President enters into is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The advice part is ambiguous, given that President Obama has shown little-to-no inclination to actually listen to the Senate, or anyone else for that matter. How do we define “with the advice”? Does he simply need to be in the same room and conscious at the time such advice is spoken? Does he simply need to receive some sort of written document produced by the Senate and then cast his eyes in its general direction?
Regardless, the consent aspect is clear, and there is no need for the Senate to essentially undermine the executive branch’s role in this endeavor by also publicizing the fact that any agreement is likely to be undone ASAP.
Unless the President has specifically avoided any and all attempts to hear/seek advice from the Senate, I think it would be hard to make the case that he hasn’t at least sought some rudimentary form of advice. The Constitution does not quantify the advice to be sought. So what this letter does is it simply interjects the Senate into an area that is otherwise clearly defined as the purview of the executive branch.
This is why I would question not only the motives, but the actual impact upon the Constitution that this letter would have. Just because President Obama has treated the Constitution with reckless abandon doesn’t mean that reciprocal behavior from the other side solves the problem. If the party that more frequently likes to tout its constitutionality is quick to place factional, partisan interests above the supremacy of the Law that the Constitution aims to protect, then what else do we have left?[/quote]
Let’s leave aside rampant partisanship for a second in discussing the move (is that even possible?). Given the State Department’s written opinion on the matter which stated as much, which Varq posted above in one of his responses, I would argue that it is still quite within the purview of the legislation to be involved and also to communicate with foreign dignitaries and states–again leaving aside the partisanship and timing aspect for the moment.
The Congress has essentially 2 primary functions in regards to foreign powers: 1) consenting to treaty ratification (future posts from now on I will simply say “ratify” because it’s quicker & I’m lazy) and 2) declaring, funding, waging war on said foreign powers. Both of these functions are completely relevant and tied into the situation with Iran. This is why I don’t consider it outside of their purview, nor outside their powers and obligations as per the Constitution. Yes, it is true that the Executive branch is typically the spearhead of relations. Yes, it is true that any treaty is a two sided effort. However, the other side is Congress and both of are necessary to ratification and relations as a whole.
Now, motives and timing are all questionable. Of this I have no doubt. Both sides of the aisle–and as you note the POTUS as well–have essentially advertised their complete willingness to discard all sense of civility and professionalism and to bicker and eye gouge like the selfish monkeys that they are. Oh wait, monkeys could be considered raaaycesss instead of merely insulting as I wish. Well then, selfish power hungry children.
One aspect that I remain on the fence about is the advisability of muddying the waters like this. As you noted several pages back (I think), obscurity is essential to diplomacy and statecraft. On one hand I don’t think this sort of muddying does our position in power/bluffing/negotiating/anything else any favors. On the other hand, I think Obama’s negotiation skills are less than nil and so is his grasp of poker faced geopolitics and the entire ME. Also on the other hand, say nobody says a word…they put a deal on the table and Congress summarily shoots it down because Congress. Back to square 1, only with more wasted time in which Iran can keep wheels behind the facade moving.
So, I do see this as possibly partisan grandstanding/backbiting but I don’t see this as stepping over their Constitutional bounds.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What an idiotic letter for the congress to write and send.
You really think that the Iranian government would come to some sort of weak agreement that would be only binding to Obama? [/quote]
No, any agreement they did reach would be subject to Congressional approval. This is what the Congressmen were saying.[/quote]
Any treaty the President enters into is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The advice part is ambiguous, given that President Obama has shown little-to-no inclination to actually listen to the Senate, or anyone else for that matter. How do we define “with the advice”? Does he simply need to be in the same room and conscious at the time such advice is spoken? Does he simply need to receive some sort of written document produced by the Senate and then cast his eyes in its general direction?
Regardless, the consent aspect is clear, and there is no need for the Senate to essentially undermine the executive branch’s role in this endeavor by also publicizing the fact that any agreement is likely to be undone ASAP.
Unless the President has specifically avoided any and all attempts to hear/seek advice from the Senate, I think it would be hard to make the case that he hasn’t at least sought some rudimentary form of advice. The Constitution does not quantify the advice to be sought. So what this letter does is it simply interjects the Senate into an area that is otherwise clearly defined as the purview of the executive branch.
This is why I would question not only the motives, but the actual impact upon the Constitution that this letter would have. Just because President Obama has treated the Constitution with reckless abandon doesn’t mean that reciprocal behavior from the other side solves the problem. If the party that more frequently likes to tout its constitutionality is quick to place factional, partisan interests above the supremacy of the Law that the Constitution aims to protect, then what else do we have left?[/quote]
Let’s leave aside rampant partisanship for a second in discussing the move (is that even possible?). Given the State Department’s written opinion on the matter which stated as much, which Varq posted above in one of his responses, I would argue that it is still quite within the purview of the legislation to be involved and also to communicate with foreign dignitaries and states–again leaving aside the partisanship and timing aspect for the moment.
The Congress has essentially 2 primary functions in regards to foreign powers: 1) consenting to treaty ratification (future posts from now on I will simply say “ratify” because it’s quicker & I’m lazy) and 2) declaring, funding, waging war on said foreign powers. Both of these functions are completely relevant and tied into the situation with Iran. This is why I don’t consider it outside of their purview, nor outside their powers and obligations as per the Constitution. Yes, it is true that the Executive branch is typically the spearhead of relations. Yes, it is true that any treaty is a two sided effort. However, the other side is Congress and both of are necessary to ratification and relations as a whole.
Now, motives and timing are all questionable. Of this I have no doubt. Both sides of the aisle–and as you note the POTUS as well–have essentially advertised their complete willingness to discard all sense of civility and professionalism and to bicker and eye gouge like the selfish monkeys that they are. Oh wait, monkeys could be considered raaaycesss instead of merely insulting as I wish. Well then, selfish power hungry children.
One aspect that I remain on the fence about is the advisability of muddying the waters like this. As you noted several pages back (I think), obscurity is essential to diplomacy and statecraft. On one hand I don’t think this sort of muddying does our position in power/bluffing/negotiating/anything else any favors. On the other hand, I think Obama’s negotiation skills are less than nil and so is his grasp of poker faced geopolitics and the entire ME. Also on the other hand, say nobody says a word…they put a deal on the table and Congress summarily shoots it down because Congress. Back to square 1, only with more wasted time in which Iran can keep wheels behind the facade moving.
So, I do see this as possibly partisan grandstanding/backbiting but I don’t see this as stepping over their Constitutional bounds. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of these actions’ constitutionality.
The Senate has two roles when it comes to negotiations between the U.S. and foreign govt’s or the agents thereof. Those roles are simply to advise the President on the matter at hand and to consent in the form of a 2/3 vote in the Senate to any treaty into which the President enters the nation. Any powers the Congress has in terms of war-making/declaring/funding is irrelevant here since we are not at war with Iran and these negotiations are at best, peripheral to such a possibility.
Other than that, the Senate has no enumerated role whatsoever in negotiations of this kind. There simply is no enumerated power within Article I that allows for the Senate to do this.
In fact, the Logan Act (a decidedly partisan piece of legislation when it was passed) makes explicitly clear that this sort of letter constitutes treason. I personally don’t believe the Act is valid, but SCOTUS has upheld what few challenges there have been to it, and given the Court’s power of judicial review, until the Act is overturned it is the law. And that law clearly states that contact with a foreign gov’t with which there is a dispute, and without the authority of the U.S. (which the Constitution in no way grants to the Senate), and in furtherance of undermining the efforts of the U.S. is treasonous.
Regardless of that Act, the legislative branch simply has no enumerated powers whatsoever that allow for it to unilaterally inject itself into what is clearly defined as the purview of the executive branch. This makes the Logan Act largely superfluous, and adding the penalty of treason to it is unnecessary. The Act itself, I would argue, is in violation of the necessary and proper clause since the Act is not necessary for the Congress to carry out its foregoing powers. It doesn’t have any powers in the executive realm in this sense, so there is no power for which it is necessary to create a law in order to execute.
The State Department’s statement on the matter is largely irrelevant as well. Only the judicial branch has the power of judicial review. Anything that State says on the matter carries the same weight as the President or the legislative branch: none. This is a matter of constitutionality and the State Department has no say on such matters.