Obama’s deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY
If Obama’s deal with the terrorist government of Iran is atreaty, then, by our Constitution, it needs a two thirds approval vote in theSenate to be finalized.
In discussing this issue, it is important to note afundamental rule of constitutional construction:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, beingdependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood inthe sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of itsadoption…”__ (my emphasis)
So, in determining if Obama’s deal with a terroristgovernment is a treaty, we must determine what the meaning of a treaty is as expressedby our forefathers during the time of our Constitution’s framing andratification process.
InFederalistNo. 64 John Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:
”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that atreaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible tofind a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding onthem ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to bebound by it.”
And inFederalistNo. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force oflaw…” And he goes on to explain why the president was not granted anarbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the forceof 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 hisduty 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 theacquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, bythe aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. Thehistory of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtuewhich would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate andmomentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of theworld, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as wouldbe a President of the United States.”
And James Wilson, who attended the Convention of 1787 saysthe following during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
“Treaties, sir, are truly contracts, or compacts,between the different states, nations, or princes, who find it convenient ornecessary to enter into them.” ___ 11 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:505--7
And our very own Supreme Court, in FOSTER v. NEILSON, (1829)Chief Justice Marshall says:
“A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations,not a legislative act”.
Now that we know what a treaty is, as expressed by ourforefathers and our very own Supreme Court, what power has been granted toObama with regard to him making deals with foreign government?
The President “… shall have Power, by and with theAdvice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds ofthe Senators present concur…”
To pretend Obama has power to make a deal with Iran’sterrorist government without the various States approval by the required twothirds vote, is a narfarious outright lie and attempted subjugation of ourwritten Constitution.
Keep in mind what Hamilton warns, which is especiallyapplicable to Obama and why a two thirds vote is required:
Obama “mightsometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which itwould require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might betempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. Anambitious 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 conductdoes not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wisein a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as thosewhich concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposalof a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the UnitedStates.”
Obama has consorted with the enemy, is attempting tofinalize a deal with a terrorist government which will help to finance thisterrorist government’s activities and the building of a nuclear warmachine. And those who support thisattack on America’s general welfare pretend this is not a treaty to avoid thetwo thirds vote threshold necessary to approve Obama’s treachery.
JWK
When will the America People realize we have an Islamic celloperating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusionwhen Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nucleararsenal?
Obama's nuke deal requires the United States to defend a terrorist government!
How can any patriotic American support Obama's nuke deal which requires America to defend a terrorist government if that government's nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities are attacked? Why on earth would Obama obligate the United States to defend a terrorist government?
See Kerry Admits U.S. Will Help Protect Iran’s Nuclear Program From Sabotage
” Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.
The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.
“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”
Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.”
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.
