Thread: How many traitors in Congress will vote for Obama’s nuke deal with Iran?

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley is the latest to announce he will vote in favor of Obama’s nuke deal with the terrorist government of Iran.

The deal does not stop Iran’s government from uranium enrichment.

Iran also gets to use its own inspectors to make sure it isn’t cheating, and gets a 24day notice before outside inspections can take place.

The deal does not require Iran’s government to shut down its heavy-water reactor or plutonium production at Arak, nor will its Fordow enrichment facility by shut down as originally intended.

In addition, the terrorist government of Iran gets an immediate $150 billion to fund its ongoing terrorist activities and the terrorist activities of is partners in terrorism.

In five years, Iran will be able to purchase conventional arms and the ban on ballistic missiles ends in eight years.

Finally, part of Obama's nuke deal requires the United States to use its force to protect Iran's nuclear program!

These are just a few of the menacing particulars which Sen. Merkley will be agreeing to that are not in the best interests of America or peaceful countries which surround Iran. In fact, Merkley’s vote will be encouraging the terrorist government of Iran to move forward with its expansion of a nuclear arsenal and its terrorist activities.

JWK



Obama’s nuke deal if finalized will guarantee our children and grandchildren will live under the fear of nuclear war like America did under the cold war with the Soviet Union.

While reading the following please keep in mind that a member of Congress who violates their oath of office to support and defend our Constitution is a traitor to their oath of office.


We are told that Obama’s nuke deal is not a treaty but a “Sole Executive Agreement”, and therefore, it does not require a two thirds approval vote by the United States Senate to have the force of law.

Of course, this assertion raises an immediate red flag because there is no mention in our Constitution delegating a power to the president to make a “Sole Executive Agreement” with foreign governments. As a matter of fact the limited power granted to the President in our Constitution regarding deals with foreign governments is stated as follows:

The President “… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

So, what is meant by the word “treaty” as the word was used and understood by our founders, and requires a two thirds approval vote by our Senate to have the force of law?

In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”

And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” So, we begin to learn that the word treaty as found in our Constitution is synonymous with a contract or bargain.

In addition to Hamilton’s use of the word “CONTRACTS” to describe a “treaty”, he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

So, as it turns out, our founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

It is also important to note how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, and this is established when they refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. Franklin says:

'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

After reviewing the above documentation it becomes crystal clear that any member of Congress who ignores the two thirds vote requirement to approve a treaty, and votes to approve Obama’s nuke deal with Iran is in direct violation of the rules of our Constitution and is thus a traitor to their oath of office.


JWK



When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?