Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

1Timothy115

Senators Open letter To Iran

Recommended Posts

 

 

I'm having some difficulty merging the two of these comments; between "what America needs is leadership" and "God tells us to go with Plan A" Who suggested we go to war with anyone, did Buchanan? 

​Some are upset at attempts by Obama to reach some form of deal with Iran. Some have been calling for war with Iran for over a decade now.

Buchanan suggests if a deal can be reach it's better to try that while keeping a very watchful eye upon Iran to make sure they abide by the deal. This while knowing if necessary the military option could be resorted to swiftly.

The above two quotes you referenced were in answer to two different things. One being that America doesn't need a Churchill but rather leadership which puts America's best interests first. The second in regards to American Christians referencing God's "Plan A" while refusing to abide by that in favor of pursuing their own plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, the parts of your comments below are what caused my question.

“What America needs is leadership that thinks rationally, constitutionally and for the best of the country;”

 

“Electing secular, worldly and false Christians to office isn't the answer.”

 

If the public servant “leadership” thinks…constitutionally, then by law, no one can require public servants “leaders” to be Christians. My personal preference would be that they are Christians but, in accordance with God’s word we must submit to the U.S. Constitution for choosing public servants for an office or trust.

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, the parts of your comments below are what caused my question.

 

 

 

If the public servant “leadership” thinks…constitutionally, then by law, no one can require public servants “leaders” to be Christians. My personal preference would be that they are Christians but, in accordance with God’s word we must submit to the U.S. Constitution for choosing public servants for an office or trust.

 

 

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3

 

​The Constitution is set forth to set the parameters of the government. It serves to tell us what the government is to do, and not do. The government, leadership, is to govern in accord with the Constitution and thus can't set forth a religious test as a qualification for government office. That doesn't mean individual voters can't have their own personal "tests" regarding religion and other matters in forming their decision upon what sort of candidate to vote for, or not vote for.

The point of this portion of the Constitution was to prevent any "religion" from becoming an established national religion whether by de jure or de facto.

If we are following Christ then every aspect of our lives is to governed by Christ, including our politics. That doesn't mean we could only vote for an established, mature in Christ IFB pastor for a governmental leadership position, but it does mean our voting decision should be based upon the Lord's leading rather than something else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of this portion of the Constitution was to prevent any "religion" from becoming an established national religion whether by de jure or de facto.

 

United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This article was not written to "prevent an established national religion." It's pretty straight forward, in that, there is no requirement of any religious affiliation when holding any of the public service offices oulined in the U.S. Constitution. The intent of this English language phrase is to not exclude on the basis of any or no religious preference. 

Back on topic, now that I've looked more closely at the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe the President has any power to enter into agreements with Iran or any other nation without the approval and oversight of the U.S. Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This article was not written to "prevent an established national religion." It's pretty straight forward, in that, there is no requirement of any religious affiliation when holding any of the public service offices oulined in the U.S. Constitution. The intent of this English language phrase is to not exclude on the basis of any or no religious preference. 

Back on topic, now that I've looked more closely at the U.S. Constitution, I don't believe the President has any power to enter into agreements with Iran or any other nation without the approval and oversight of the U.S. Congress.

​Reading the writings of the Founders helps explain most of the "what and why" of that which is in the Constitution. At the time of the Constitution some States still had State religions and there were some who argued for something along the lines of a national religion. The Founders saw the danger in this which is why they specifically added this to the Constitution. Later, as States found out, it was complicated to have a State religion and/or religious "tests" one must pass to qualify to hold State positions so they eliminated such from their State.

A great deal of what presidents do go well beyond the authority/power given them in the Constitution. Any deal the president makes with another nation, which doesn't receive proper congressional approval, isn't legally binding upon the American government. This is what halted President Wilson's post WWI plans; congress didn't approve what he had accomplished in Europe.

Obama is more interested in playing to his base and looking for legacy points than he is in what's legal. Once Obama leaves office, even if the courts and/or congress strike down any deal he makes with Iran, his illegal amnesty executive orders, all or part of Obamacare, he will be able to say, "I tried, I did my part." This will guarantee him higher speaking fees as well as possible opportunities not only on the national level, but international as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Reading the writings of the Founders helps explain most of the "what and why" of that which is in the Constitution. At the time of the Constitution some States still had State religions and there were some who argued for something along the lines of a national religion. The Founders saw the danger in this which is why they specifically added this to the Constitution. Later, as States found out, it was complicated to have a State religion and/or religious "tests" one must pass to qualify to hold State positions so they eliminated such from their State.

​It didn't work... Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee & Texas all have a "religious test" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It didn't work... Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee & Texas all have a "religious test" .

 

​States are free to do this. The Constitution was meant solely to apply to the central (federal) government, not the States. The Constitution, as Jefferson put it, was to be a chain to bind the central government from going beyond the narrow parameters given to it within the Constitution. The States were free to conduct their own affairs, as the 9th and 10th Amendments were intended to make clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​States are free to do this. The Constitution was meant solely to apply to the central (federal) government, not the States. The Constitution, as Jefferson put it, was to be a chain to bind the central government from going beyond the narrow parameters given to it within the Constitution. The States were free to conduct their own affairs, as the 9th and 10th Amendments were intended to make clear.

The U.S. Constitution says otherwise, read this paragraph closely.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It didn't work... Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee & Texas all have a "religious test" .

 

​Wow! It must be an easy one, or maybe they are all given Cliff's notes. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the Republicans have proven to be no more trustworthy than the Dems and to be more concerned about self and Party than country just like the Dems.

The Republican controlled congress continually caves to the Dems, they refuse to stand and fight for the things they were elected to do but they are willing to risk a large scale war for nothing.

I saw on the news that after Repubs took charge in Illinois, after running as not being as corrupt as the Dems, one of them is resigning after being caught faking expense accounts to the tune of large sums of money and wasting tax payer money in other ways.

Sadly, the Repubs are playing the same game with their base as do the Dems with theirs: say what they want to hear and then do whatever you want to do after getting elected. The real difference being, most Dems actually believe in and stand and fight for the Leftist cause while most Repubs seem to have no true conservative beliefs they are wiling to to stand and fight for.

For a long while now the Repub voting appeal has amounted to, "You don't want a Dem do you? So who else you gonna vote for but us?"

I don't recall who wrote it, but this past week I read an article pointing out how most of what the Repubs and so-called conservatives support today are the very things President Wilson was unable to advance nearly a hundred years ago because the Repubs and conservatives back then stood firm in opposition to his globalist and Leftist ideas.

What passes for conservatives today are yesterdays liberals.

Is it any wonder no matter which Party controls the government things continue to go from bad to worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Logan Act was designed to stop private citizens from interefering with other nations without authorization of the US govt at a time when issues are being dealt  with. The act itself says "unauthorized", which means private...because Congress most certainly is authorized. That is their job. POTUS is not a single authority who grants permission for our elected servants to do the job they are supposed to do. A job that includes reining in a run-amok POTUS who is trying to make deals with terrorist nations that would harm America.

The media has had a hay-day implying those 47 men broke the law. They did not. They are authorized - by virtue of being elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong not looking up all the pertinent facts before I post this, but, What are they authorized to do by the Constitution of the United States?  I do not believe they are authorized to do things that only the Executive branch is authorized to do, such as dealing with foreign governments.  They have the right to veto treaties I believe, not negotiate or interfere in those negotiations directly.  They can sit in Washington and shout to the world how bad the negotiations are just like any other citizen can then if it doesn't go their way, veto the treaty.  If the president does something unconstitutional they can impeach him.  Something which none of them seem to have the guts for.  Congress seems to like to make a lot of noise about this and that but really do nothing about anything important.  

This Iran negotiation stuff is a prime example of that.  Make noise and impress the voters back home, but really do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Tom's letter spells it out pretty clearly. Some on here have said it seemed to be childlike in its writing. I would say rather than childlike it is simple and clear.

It is Congress's job to ratify or not. As Tom said, anything else is simply an executive agreement. While POTUS negotiates, it is up to Congress to make sure things are in American interests. 

The intent of the Logan Act was to stop interference by non-governmental persons. It was named after a man who, as a private citizen, took it upon himself to go talk to France. It angered Adams and so he pushed for the law. Interestingly enough, there are legal scholars who do and have considered the Act unconstitutional.

Congress decides on treaties, not the POTUS. He negotiates, they fine tune and accept or reject. And, if they reject but POTUS goes ahead, it is not a binding treaty upon the US - it is simply an agreement that can be retracted later by either Congress or POTUS. Nowhere in the Constitution does it forbid our elected servants from pointing out truths to countries with which POTUS might be dealing. And, honestly,  all the letter did was explain the treaty process in simple enough terms for anyone to understand.

Rather than being vilified for breaking a law, Cotton ought to be thanked for clarifying how treaties are made. Too may US citizens  -  and foreigners  -  believe POTUS has more authority than he does.

Heh - if they have the right to sit in DC and shout disagreement about a treaty (or, as this will likely end up, an executive agreement), then posting an open letter explaining the treaty process is ok...same/same, IMO.

Yep, Congress has a lot of hot air do-nothings in it. And a few of those signed the letter. But there are some - and their numbers have grown in the last couple of elections - who are not just hot air.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, the Logan Act was designed to stop private citizens from interefering with other nations without authorization of the US govt at a time when issues are being dealt  with. The act itself says "unauthorized", which means private...because Congress most certainly is authorized. That is their job. POTUS is not a single authority who grants permission for our elected servants to do the job they are supposed to do. A job that includes reining in a run-amok POTUS who is trying to make deals with terrorist nations that would harm America.

The media has had a hay-day implying those 47 men broke the law. They did not. They are authorized - by virtue of being elected.

​I really like it when I see people use the word "servant" when talking about public servants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify...when I say Congress,  I specifically mean the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the authority to advise the POTUS on treaties, as well as ratifying authority. As part of the advice council, Tom had the right - and I would say responsibility - to explain procedures.

Can you tell I'm in Tom's corner?  B) I find it refreshing when folks who promised to uphold the Constitution actually do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HappyChristian, Amen and Amen. Mr. Cotton and his fellow signers of the Letter to Iran were in perfect agreement of the Lgan Act. Thank you for giving a clear explanation of it and the right, a clear legal right, for Mr. Cotton and his fellow elected representatives doing what is right for America. POTUS is the one that is going against the Consitution, and the will of the people, of the United States.

It is the right, and responsibility, of our elected officials, like Mr. Cotton, to do exactly what they did. The only right that our legal representatives ought to do (legal and moral right), is to impeach Mr. Obama for disregarding, and disobeying the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Happy christian, please keep up the good work of providing us with factual information that is presented in a clear and forthright letter. Extackly like the Letter that Mr. Cotton and his fellow representatives sent.

The liberal news media is lying about the legailily of the Logan Act in connection to Mr. Cotton and is purposely trying to make them to appear as lawbreakers through slander and deliberate miss-information.

It would be good if the saints of our age, and the world in general, would read, study, and menorize Proverbs 26:22-26 concerning the words of a talebearer (slanderer, liar, back stabber, liberal media, etc...). "He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart." Proverbs 26:24 and 25

A talebearer hides his hatrede throughlying, slander, and miss-information. God says that it is a heart problem (as with all other sins), and there are seven abominations in that individuals heart. So, even when he speaks with conviction, do not believe him but check out the facts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...