How Is This NOT Treason

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSKBN0M516X20150309


Just more evidence that there are those who hate the President more than they love America............

 

Sedition.

This was first passed as the Logan Act in 1799.

The letter also runs afoul of the Constitutional duties given to the Senate and Congress as the case below points out

 

How is it treason?

 

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."


It appears to me that Obama negotiating the way to a nuclear Iran falls more into the definition of the word. I mean, since Iran has pledged Death to America, and all. Heck, they've even declared a 'Death to America day' as a national holiday.



So, in light of this, you tell me: "How is Obama negotiating the terms under which Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon, not TREASON?"

 

Ok genius, how would you stop them from getting one, nuke em?

 

How are you confused over this? Before Obama, Congress was an integral part of the way Government works. Obama's unconstitutional actions will leave with him if Congress didn't approve of it.

 

More to the point of my response and the topic of the thread: How is negotiating an acceptable path to nukes with a terrorism sponsoring state who has 'Death to America' day on its national calendar, not treason?

 

You know that there are three equal but separate branches of government, right??

Instead of embarrassing yourself, go look up what treason is.

 

Psst, the negotiations do not include an acceptable path to nukes, that is pure propaganda. Things is the have been under sanctions for years now, and we know that is not working, so what are the answers to the issue. Where is Nixon when we need him.

 

It's treasonous for Obama to ignore the Constitution. He cannot make treaties without congress.
They are just letting Iran know that his agreement with Obama is meaningless. That is not
treasonous in the least. They are separate branches of government. How many democrats
visited Saddam Hussein before the Gulf and the Iraq war? They didn't get arrested for treason.
Obama's executive amnesty is treason. Trading Bergdahl for 5 terrorists during a war is treason.

 

Negotiating, at all, to lift any sanctions (eg. providing aid and comfort) with a sworn enemy is MORE to the charge of treason than what the OP accuses the GOP of doing. His question was "how is this not treason?". My answer: It does not fit the definition (which I provided for your convenience in post #3), at all, of treason. In fact, what the president is doing more easily fits the definition, because by lifting sanctions, he is giving aid and comfort to Iran, a state who has declared itself our enemy.

Now, in light of the definition of the specific charge of treason, I'd ask the OP to clarify his thought process on why he believes what the 47 senators he referenced did, deserves that charge. He seems incredulous that people can't see treason, and so he should be able to clarify.

I'd opine that it is far larger stretch to surmise their actions to be treasonous, than it is to show that they're not.

 

So Nixon and every President that dealt with any enemies was a Traitor. Jeeez why do I even bother.

I would say someone shutting down the government on purpose is more the act of a Traitor than someone practicing diplomacy, a process Cons no longer understand.

 

"This is just more evidence of liberals demanding blind obedience to their god and trying to put down conservatives as being the devil.

 

Strawman. No one has leveled the treason charge against anyone in this thread.

We are discussing specific actions taken against the president by 47 senators, and determining whether they are treasonous. I opined that the president's actions; giving aid and comfort to our enemy, (which were the cause of the 47 senators in the OP to do what they did), is MORE to the charge of treason than what those 47 senators did to undermine his actions. Would you care to comment on the topic, or continue to deflect?

 

You have your dates mixed up. Congress was an integral part of the way Government works until the Republicans took the House.

 

No until you Marxist liberals took it over.

 

Congress worked fine with the WH before the Republicans took over the House.

 

Uh every treaty has to go before congress and is subject to senate approval. His unwillingness to publish the details of the deal tends to make a lot of people think the deal isn't in anyone's best interests except maybe those who want to see nuclear brinksmanship played out in the Middle East.

 

You liberals are always blaming them. Take responsibility for your own treasonous actions and grow up.

 

I don't know if you got the memo, but the Alien and Sedition Acts expired in 1801. Criticizing the president is not treason.

 

Oh, you mean when they did everything Obama wanted? How is that different than him doing what he wanted in spite of Congress?

 

In other words, Congress only matters when it does everything the president wants it to do.

 

Nun of that matters now. IT'S ALL CONSERVATIVES FAULT FOR THEY ARE TEH DEBIL!

THEY ARE THE SCOURGE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY AND DIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!

Obama is a god you dare not disobey. Why when he says you whiteys must jump and hope you can jump high enough to please your god.

Harumph.

 

Obama has surpassed all previous Presidents in using (abusing) executive power to go around Congress. He lost any right to complain once he started going behind their backs. If its good enough for Obama then it good enough for the legislator.

 

that is not what he is doing.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove this statement.