How have we gone this mad? I keep seeing headlines everywhere, such as the Washington Times saying, “Obama Secures Votes to Preserve Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Majority Opposition.” This is asinine! This isn’t how it works! Where is Mitch McConnell calling the President and the media out on this? This is illegal. This is Flat Out Unconstitutional! Mitch McConnell could end this with one press conference by simply laughing and saying, “Obama thinks he’s God or something, because he clearly has no such power. This deal is not happening. Enjoy the rest of your day folks.”
Article 2 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the President. Every power he has must be listed. According to the 10th Amendment, he has no power that is not specifically delegated to him by the Constitution. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 says, “He shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Two thirds of the Senate is 67, the last time I counted. So how on God’s green earth is 34 his magic number? It’s not! It’s a lie. The entire federal government is in on it. The media is gleefully backing this backwards abuse of power by not reporting the truth. Everyone, and I mean everyone in the media is either completely ignorant or guilty of complicity. No one is reporting this.
The media has continuously been reporting about the 34 votes in the Senate that Obama needs to provide a veto proof Congress, so he can get away with his deal to arm Iran with nukes. Veto? What veto? He doesn’t have 2/3 consent, therefore there is no treaty. There is nothing to veto. Congress doesn’t have to pass a law to block a president from forming a treaty. The Senate has to consent to it with a super majority of two thirds! The House of Representatives has absolutely nothing to do with the process. It is impossible for a treaty or lack thereof to be vetoed! Congress doesn’t vote down treaties and then need a big enough majority to block a veto. My God, people! Wake the heck up!
Semantics is also playing apart in this crime. Obama knows that We the People are too stupid these days to understand something so simple as renaming a rose. Yup, now a rose by another name is a turnip. All he has to do is call a treaty a deal and wha-lah! He also knows that no one in the media or the Congress will call him out on his word games. It doesn’t matter what you call it. When one country strikes a deal with another country, it’s a treaty. This isn’t a complicated or misinterpreted word in our dictionary.
treaty |ˈtrētē|
noun ( pl. treaties )
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
This Iran nuke deal is impeachable. Everyone involved is impeachable. This is treason. It is providing aid and comfort to our enemy. Iran is an ardent enemy of the United States of America. Iran has a holiday each year called Quds Day, which centers around rallying cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They burn our flags and images of our leaders in effigy. They make no bones about their role as our enemy or their hatred for us. Obama has no business making treaties with this evil regime, but even if he did, he must do it legally and constitutionally, with 2/3 consent of the Senate. Make no mistake, this is treason! Every member of the senate who doesn’t speak out against this emphatically and call it what it is, treason, is also committing treason. They should all be impeached. The Senators who are complicit need to be impeached, removed from office and replaced before Obama can be removed from office. We need actual patriots who cherish the Constitution as Senators to remove Obama from office after the House impeaches him. Honestly, I want Mitch McConnell to be the first one impeached. He is a traitor.
This could never have happened 20 years ago. I want the republican presidential candidates to immediately and convincingly start calling this what it is. Treason. I want them to vow that they will undo this on day one, should they be elected. I demand it! I cannot believe how far we have fallen and how stupid we have become. This is sheer lunacy and I hope to God I wake up and find out this is all a dream. America, for the love of God, please tell me what went so wrong?
AMP (Anna Maria Perez)
If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below! Thank you!
Flat Out Unconstitutional 
[…] that deal. This country didn’t. Obama did unilaterally, and unconstitutionally. The Iran Deal isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Not only a disgrace, it’s a disgrace and […]
LikeLike
[…] that deal. This country didn’t. Obama did unilaterally, and unconstitutionally. The Iran Deal isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Not only a disgrace, it’s a disgrace and […]
LikeLike
We now face the threat of a nuclear EMP attack against the United States, thanks to the GOP leadership’s failure to use all means at their disposal to rein in hussein soetoro’s lawlessness and hold him accountable.
The Iran nuke ‘deal’ may be illegal, but it IS Shariah compliant. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/iran-deal-a-shariah-approved-nuclear-attack/?page=all
LikeLike
They’ve been stepping outside the boundaries of the Constitution for decades in the name of “law and order”, but nobody got mad about it. They jumped right over the Constitution to create “moral guardrails” for “the greater good” and conservatives applauded. Johnson and Nixon ignored the Constitution and here we are, wondering why they think it’s okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been rereading and pondering these posts and comments and was struck with the sudden realization of a major point about politics which seems to go unnoticed here. There are two types of politicians, those who use the law to further their agenda and those that misuse the law to further their agenda and the only thing separating them is precedent. Once a politician sets a precedent by doing somethings which appears to be Unconstitutional and gets away with it, it becomes fair game for other politician to follow suit. This is the nature of politics world wide and has nothing to do with Party lines. So every thing you call “Flat Out Unconstitutional” may be unconstitutional in a narrow reading of the document, but in the political landscape of two hundred+ years of precedent making it is completely allowable. Now one may bitch and moan all they want about what it happening in American Politics and how wrong or unconstitutional it is but that will do nothing to change the precedents or create a better political future.
One must understand that politicians are like 16 year-old kids who just got the privileged of driving. Telling them what they can (and should) do like drive safe, fill up the car with gas when they return it, be home by curfew, etc, but one must also tell them what they cannot do. IF one does not tell them what they cannot do they will continually push the boundaries of what is allowed.
The Constitution outlines some “enumerated” powers, but it does not limit them with any recourse. The Tenth Amendment gets close to limiting the federal government, but without some “teeth” there is little reason to fear or respond to it. And that is politics in 21st Century United States. What we have is the inevitable conclusion of an imperfect document and a society which has let politicians run the politics. A strong document would have created a stronger recourse for the people to correct the politicians when they failed to keep in the bounds of what was allowable.
LikeLike
Narrow reading? Let’s just call it reading. The setting of precedent to get away with violating the Constitution is one of the larger points of my ebook. The Constitution is as close to perfect as possible. It’s no longer followed. Can’t blame the Constitution for the corruption of the soul. The document provides the teeth. It can’t bite. The people have to.
LikeLike
[…] Sourced through Scoop.it from: flatoutunconstitutional.com […]
LikeLike
McConnell and Boehner rode back into Congress on the coat tails of the Tea Party promising us they would unleash mayhem on Obama and his criminal cabal. Instead, they settled into a go along to get along routine hoping we would go back to sleep and let them alone. They both need to be frog marched out of DC and replaced with a couple of serious patriots. Until that happens, I’m afraid nothing else will happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SEE JUSTICE SEEKERS AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL MEMBER JUDICIAL WATCH DC ON TWITTER. OBAMA REAL NAME SOEBARKAH INDONESIAN CULT LEADER FATHER MOTHER ALSO IN CULT TERRORIST CAMPS IN AMERICA, NEWS CONTROLLED GEORGE SOROS NAZI WAR CRIMINAL BEHIND OBAMA AND OCCUPY AND RIOTING. 14 YEAR INVESTIGATIONS BEGAN 2002 W FOUNDING. THIS EVIDENCE CANNOT BE DENIED! ARREST BARACK REAL NAME SOEBARKAH FOR SUBJUGATION OF THE UNITED STATES!
LikeLike
Bringing Boehner and McConnell into political combat is like bringing a wet noodle to a sword fight. Their ‘political correctness’ is a blockade to truth and a pathway to tyranny. The sole purpose of ‘political correctness’ is to silence dissent against the leftist, marxist agenda, to shut down open discussion and honest debate. Yes, they and all their spineless, gutless minions need to be charged with treason and imprisoned.
LikeLike
Oh and it has been issued as a executive order that is the reason for the disapproval vote.
LikeLike
There is no such thing as an executive order in the Constitution. George Washington was the first to coin the term and use executive orders and they are only legal when ordering someone in the executive branch chain of command. It’s merely a formal way of passing on orders to subordinates. Congress is not a subordinate of the President and neither am I. Treaties or “deals” are not made by executive order or the Constitution would lay out that method. It does not. I am so sick and tired of the rogue government ignoring the Constitution and getting away with it so easily, because they have been successful at dumbing down the public.
LikeLike
They are not voting to ratify a treaty they are voting on disapproving it. Which I understand came into being under George W. Bush.
Therefore congress need a two thirds majority to send it packing. Even of they get the required two thirds Obama can veto this where the 34 votes count most in backing him up.
So approval they need 51. Disapproval they need 67.
LikeLike
Incorrect. There is no such thing as voting to disapprove of a treaty, let alone requiring 2/3 of the Senate or ANY of the House to disapprove it. All treaties need 2/3 of Senate Consent. Period. I don’t care who violated the Constitution first. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is treason.
LikeLike
I did read the Constitution. He is not creating a Treaty with Iran. This Deal is not only the USA and Iran, it is a combination of International Countries and Iran. It is an International Deal. We don’t dictate International Policy in other countries and the other Countries could progress with this Deal without us. They wont, but they could. The only way to stop the US involvement is through Congressional action, which will now fail. You need to stay current on International Politics if you want to have a discussion about International Politics.
IF this was a Treaty then it would have to go through Congress, but it is NOT a treaty even if you try to call it one. What YOU call it makes no difference, what the International Community who is orchestrating the DEAL call is is the only important part. Everyone in Congress, in the U.N., in the media, and in the International Political arena understand this. The only one who does not understand this is YOU.
Our State Department is only one of many State Departments working together against Iran. I suggest you read about Iran and our State Department’s history: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/iran/index.htm This link has the complete “Iran Deal” You might be surprised to read it and find that what you believe it says and what it actually says are different. Don’t listen to the media on this issue, go read it for yourself!
LikeLike
Yes, it is a treaty. Buy a dictionary. Show me in Article 2 where the president can make a deal. I challenge you. This is asinine. Also, it has nothing to do with Congress. Only the Senate. So you subscribe to the notion that if done Constitutionally and the Senate consents, then it is a treaty. If the Senate won’t consent, then the president just calls it a deal and ignores them. Do you know how stupid that sounds? It’s illegal. You should stop supporting tyranny.
LikeLike
Hahaha… the only one here supporting Tyranny is YOU. And you confessed to it! You think the Constitution is set in stone and should rule Political life, that is TYRANNY! and you know why it is TYRANNY because there are no provisions in the Constitution to enforce the Constitution. You deny the Supreme Court the ability to do it, Congress and the President (all of the them collectively) step all over the Constitution and get away with it because there is no recourse. And WE THE PEOPLE get trampled on the worst and because we have no recourse against it. The Constitution is weak and every time you post about how something is “Flat out Unconstitutional” only goes further to prove my point. The anti-federalist has it right the whole time. The US Constitution was dead the day it took effect. It has just taken 200+ years for it to die. Politics has never been honorable and politicians will always find way to subvert power to support their position and self interest agendas. Sometimes those agendas appear to help the greater good, but that is only wool to cover your eyes. A strong Constitution with real checks and balances and means of recourse are the ONLY way to control the political arena. We the People failed when we handed over the governing of our nation to representatives who could then slowly work to empower them selves to take power from us. If we want that power back then it has to start with a real Constitution, not attempts to return to something which will only and always lead to TYRANNY which you support!
LikeLike
The constitution frees us from tyranny. And yes, unless amended it is set in stone. That’s why it’s written down and not word of mouth. I’m really starting to think that you actually go out of your way not to learn anything.
LikeLike
Actually I have learned quite a bit. I have learned that some people prefer to look backwards at some “golden age” which never really was, instead of looking forward to make tomorrow a better place. I have learned that some people prefer to parrot what they read in a book some place instead of learning to think on their own. I have learned that if unchecked with a strong and living Constitution Politicians will always find ways to subvert it to their agenda. I have learned that what you read on the internet and hear/read in the media is seldom the truth. I have learned that going directly to the source and reading and understanding it, instead of news clips and sound bites is the only way to gather information to make an informed conclusion. I have learned that people who think for themselves are often misunderstood because those who do not think for themselves do not have the ability to follow a train of though, line of reasoning, or basic conclusions which come from them. I have learned that most people prefer to stand around gawking and laying blame and posting on the internet their discontent instead of actually getting out there and doing something. I have learned that online conversations, although very fun, seldom change peoples minds but only service to bolster their preconceived ideas.
See I have learned a lot. And I will not stop learning because I have learned the most important thing. I have learned to think on my own! This involves having the ability to process information, to hold a train of thought longer than seven seconds, to look at the facts and the data as they are not as I want them to be, and to use all resources at my disposal to understand a situation before reacting.
LikeLike
You haven’t learned much about the Constitution. If you want to change it going forward, there is an amendment process. Until that happens, follow it. It’s really a remarkable document. You should read it some day.
LikeLike
If he has 34 Senators who will not vote against the deal then he does not have the 2/3 or 67 Senators needed to stop the deal. So 34 is the magic number for him to get this deal through.
LikeLike
Incorrect. Read the Constitution. He needs 67 votes FOR THE DEAL, not 34. Not 67 votes against it to stop it. The deal isn’t even up for a vote. It has never been voted on. It needs 67 Senators to vote FOR it to ever exist. Period. READ the Constitution.
LikeLike
I’m afraid dlcorb is sorta right, although most of his logic came from an alternate universe.
The Senate passed a very stupid resolution that surrendered their Constitutional Treaty Power to an approval by Congress.. that the President could veto.. That clearly violates the plain language, spirit and intent of Article II Section 3.. However the Court’s have stupidly upheld the Senate’s power to do it.
As for his position that the Constitution has no teeth, I understand why he said it.. I wish the Founder’s had made it easier to hang the SOB’s, but they didn’t, and for good reason, they knew more elected officials would end up getting hung than surviving to run for re-election.
But they did give us the vote, the right to assemble, the press and in extreme cases the Second Amendment.. Put 500,000 protesters on the National Mall with Pitchforks, Buckets of Tar and Bags of Feathers, then watch how fast Congress starts paying attention..
LikeLike
The Senate has no authority to surrender their power. Courts have no authority to uphold it. This is all illegal. Every step of it. So, yeah, while they have done that, they did so unconstitutionally. Yes, we need more pitchforks, tar, and feathers. We need to bring that tradition back!
LikeLike
Ain’t about to argue with about that… over the last 40 years the Court’s have been finding more and more creative ways to circumvent the plain language of the Constitution.. Including redefining words and most recently somehow finding a Constitutional Right to gay marriage in wording to the 14th Amendment..
Forgetting the fact the ruling ignores minor parts of the Constitution like Article I Section 4, as well as the First and Tenth Amendments, the ruling is even more ridiculous because:
The men who wrote the 14th Amendment, and the states that ratified it, considered homosexuality a crime, punishable by death or a lengthy prison term.
LikeLike
If the Constitution requires 2/3 approval for a Treaty, wouldn’t that make the Congressional resolution Flat Out Unconstitution?
LikeLike
Yes. Heck, almost everything congress does is unconstitutional. Also, all of Congress isn’t involved in treaties. Only the Senate. There can be no veto, because vetoes can only be made on bills, which have to be passed by the House & Senate.
LikeLike
You are correct if this is a treaty, which it is NOT.
LikeLike
Then show me where the Constitution allows the president to make a deal unilaterally as long as he doesn’t call it a treaty. I double dog dare you. Take your time…
LikeLike