Discussion for article #234124
I can’t say that word didn’t come into my mind as well.
“…traitors…”
There’s no other word for it. The Republican Congress is now America’s most dangerous enemy.
Anyone know, who didn’t sign?
Apparently, in our current political system, there is no such thing as peak overreach.
The letter brings to mind a flaming email that should never have been sent. Unfortunately, this is a common sentiment in stump speeches to the faithful and on talk radio, but in an open letter to a foreign country during sensitive negotiations?
Sedition, it’s a family tradition.
Very,Very Important:
"Zarif, leading his nation’s negotiations with the U.S., the U.K.,
France, Germany, Russia and China, put that education to use in his
response Monday to the Republican message, which suggested that Iran’s leaders "may not fully understand our constitutional system."Zarif
answered that it was Cotton and the 46 other Republican senators who
signed his letter who suffered from a lack of “understanding.”“The
authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments
represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for
the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations
they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law
as justification for failure to perform their international
obligations,” Zarif said, according to Iran’s government-controlled Tasnim News Agency.He
suggested that the Republican warning that a successor to President
Barack Obama could undo any agreement with Iran was baseless. Zarif said
the “change of administration does not in any way relieve the next
administration from international obligations undertaken by its
predecessor.”
The Times had the actual signatures. There weren’t many clear John Hancocks. I didn’t find a list yesterday.
¨Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Corker is the sponsor of a bill that would increase sanctions on Iran only if Congress rejects a final agreement with Iran;
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a Washington veteran. His spokesman said the senator had expressed his view by agreeing to co-sponsor the Corker bill;
Dan Coats of Indiana, whose office declined to comment;
Susan Collins of Maine, a leading moderate Republican;
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who also sometimes bucks her party;
Thad Cochran of Mississippi; and
Jeff Flake of Arizona, whose office told me Flake also supports Corker’s bill because he thinks the Senate ought to have a say in any deal but considered the letter "unnecessary."¨
Here
Edited to erase the list that CarlosFiance beat me with the list by less than a minute.
This is what comes of governance shaped by epistemic closure in which the terms of debate are determined by (not even) Fox News but by Newsmax: Getting educated on how one’s own government works by the very people to whom one has been condescending in the extreme.
Heh.
What I said yesterday, what I’ll repeat today, TRAITORS, and what I’ll continue to believe tomorrow.
YEP, in caps.
This should be hanging in every US Post Office in the nation and abroad.
What would the Right Wing Nut Jobs demand to have done to traitors?- OK - then do it to these guys.
Only the Republican side – and only 47 of them.
Interesting, that number 47 … where have I heard that before?
The headlines would have greater impact if it was the Washington Post or even the New York Times.
and this from the nydailynews that is an unquestioning ally of israel – despite efforts by the republicans to paint it as a new york librul newspaper. when you’ve lost mort zuckerman by your actions, your party is in trouble.
it’s also been interesting to watch morningbro downplaying what the republicans have done… giving uninterrupted and unchallenged time to tom cotton to promote his lies (iran has been killing americans for 35 years), with the typically weak response from dick durbin. but never fear, meeka’s there to respond with her pouty face, while scarbro picks up the lies and promotes them with no concern they will be corrected. no reference to conservative professor jack goldsmith’s determination that these 47 are the ones who don’t understand their role:
The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis). Or, as this outstanding 2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117):  “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.”
Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane. Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States. As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”
This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency.  (I analyzed this point here last year.)  But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.
Perhaps 47 is the ultimate answer and not 42.
In any case, 47% of the US Senate does not understand the essential nature of America’s constitutional government.