47 Senators signed an open letter to Iran

Well said SGT Jeremiah B.. Additionally, when the President says "If Congress won't act, I will"...(if he actually takes action) he is acting outside the Constitution's separation of powers. The Congress is under absolutely NO obligation to act on the President's political wishes, and taking steps to circumvent the Constitutionally mandated process should not be tolerated by the Congress, or the Court.

I slightly disagree, SSG Gerhard S.. I'm not entirely sure anything the POTUS has done so far has actually violated the Constitution, despite the histrionics claiming otherwise. Otherwise we'd be seeing more action in the courts instead of law firm after law firm dropping Boehner's case.

I'm sure some of it has walked the edge, but to be honest, I don't know that he has many options. Congress has consistently demonstrated that it can not and will not govern.

Alas, in our current political climate everyone wants to point fingers at the other team instead of holding their own accountable. Personally, I've begun voting against anyone that campaigns on absolute opposition, holds good initiatives hostage for unrelated reasons or has a habit of putting poison pills into legislation. It isn't helpful and if they were my employee, I'd fire them no matter how much I agreed with their opinions at times.

Disclaimer - I am well aware that my political leanings color my opinion. Like most people, I'm far more generous to my "side" when it comes to failings.

SGT Jeremiah B. , Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. First I would like to add that I don't believe JUST the President has been acting unconstitutionally. I would like to clarify that Previous Presidents and previous Congress' as well have acted unconstitutionally. If one considers this fact, it is not difficult to understand why there have been so few challenges to unconstitutional activity from either branch or party. They are all guilty of acting Unconstitutionally in many regards. Just a few examples here.

When Harry Reid's Senate refused to pass a budget for 4 years, (Including in 2010 when Democrats held both houses and the Executive branch) they acted Unconstitutionally (for political purposes). The Constitution requires the passage of a budget, and Federal law requires it to be passed yearly by September 30th. There is no clause, or law that allows for perpetual "continuing resolutions" as we saw over the nearly 4 years from 2009-2012.

When a Congress, or a President acts in a "non general" manner, that is, to benefit one person, group of persons, specific corporations, industries, specific States, or groups of States, they are violating the General Welfare Clause, AND Article I Section 8 which says "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

When the President says he will act without Congress regarding the status of illegal immigrants, he is acting unconstitutionally. Article I Section 8 says Congress has the power to "To establish [sic] an uniform Rule of Naturalization,".

When the EPA or Parks service, or any other Federal entity (under the control of the President) brings any lands into Federal possession for purposes other than those outlined in Article I Section 8, they are acting UN-Constitutionally. The President by allowing such action, and Congress by funding their maintenance. "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;"

When the President makes Federal appointments when the Senate has NOT declared itself out of session, he is acting UN Constitutionally. (Just because the Senate is not meeting on a particular day does not mean they are "out of session". The Constitution says in Article I Section 5 "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

These are just a few examples, there are many more. Our Constitution is largely and blatantly ignored by Presidents, and Congress' of both parties. The Supreme court can't intervene unless cases are brought before it, and the RepubliCrats are ALL reluctant to do so for any serious matter because it will leave their own Constitutional Transgressions vulnerable to like attacks.

So, while I am not approaching this from a political stance (I don't care much for Republicans, OR Democrats) I am approaching it from the perspective that it is a timely (happening now) situation that is in the news and being actively debated. As you see, I am more than willing to call out transgressors of either party.
Lastly, the Executive branch was never conceived to be one iota more powerful than the other two branches of government. In fact, the Federal government has usurped far too many powers granted to the States, and acts Unconstitutional on a wholesale basis with it's layer upon layer of Regulatory, and police powers that are not specifically granted by the Constitution, to the detriment of the States, and of the people. I would also add that the fact we have a perpetual standing army (the enormous size and scope of our Federal police forces likewise) is not permitted by our Constitution. The Framers saw this as a path to tyranny. And though the President IS the CIC, Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Since there is no clause permitting a Standing Army, (a Navy IS permitted) the Constitution is being perpetually ignored since WW II. I'm not saying there aren't times we need armies in place for extended periods of time. I'm only saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for it, and if we are to keep a Standing Army, and Air force, then there should be a Constitutional amendment allowing for it. Absent that, Pres Obama, and ALL other Presidents since the end of WW II are guilty of violating the Constitution, as are each of those Congresses for funding it.

One more thing, regarding the point of this discussion, the President IS allowed to enter into executive agreements with the executives of other countries, AND to do so without consenting with Congress. That being said, there is NO requirement that Congress either agree, support, or fund any such agreements. Additionally the very next executive that comes into office is free to make that agreement null and void with the stroke of a pen. The letter from those Senators simply laid out these facts to the Iranian leadership to ensure they understood the limitations of the agreements they were entering into with Pres Obama. Additionally, as outlined elsewhere in this discussion Congressional or individual "negotiations" and letters have been submitted or conducted by Democrats and Republicans alike with foreign leaders, often to thwart the aims of the Executive in power. The fact is, our Constitution sets up balances of power and places checks at every turn, precisely for the purpose of making it difficult to enact rapid change by one individual, or by a group of representatives caught up in emotional frenzies that may arise. It is by design that the President may not enter into binding agreements without 2/3 of the Senate in agreement. It is by design that budgets are to be passed by both houses yearly, to be signed, or rejected by the President. It is by design that the Amendment process takes so long.

By this definition how can you stand by your comments?

Oran's Dictionary of the Law defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

LTC (Join to see) You will note I said specifically "BORDER" on treason. I did NOT say treasonous. I was very specific in my wording.

Not to mention that if history repeats itself and this Congress tries to impeach the President on trumped up charges, the way they did for Clinton, which was a farce and a national embarrassment, it will only get worse...

Just a point of fact here LCDR. President Clinton was not impeached on "trumped up charges"
"President Clinton Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote)."

There is little doubt as to the validity of the charges or facts of President Clinton's impeachment unless you wish to suggest Pres Clinton actually "did not sleep with that woman... Miss Liewienski" Of course, there's a stained blue dress that proved that statement a lie, and THAT is what got him impeached.

It wasn't that he slept with Lewinski. It was the fact that they decided to impeach, on a purely politically motivated agenda. Consider how many Presidents have had female "guests" in the White House. Clinton wasn't the first, and sadly, I suspect he won't be the last.

There was absolutely no reason for this impeachment - it was not the sort of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" for which a President might be impeached. There have been much much worse crimes committed in the White House, for which impeachment has never been considered. You have to ask yourself, why would they carry out this action? Especially, given the number of people in the House who are also guilty of such crimes!

It WAS trumped up from the point that it never should have gone there in the first place.

Given the whole "Birther" thing and everything else that the GOP and Tea Party have been throwing at Obama, it's only a matter of time.

Now, let me be very clear. Obama has been an atrocious president. I am not a fan of his in any way shape or form. But, that being said, he is an American citizen, so the whole birther thing was a farce, and it's only a matter of time before this Congress decides to do this as well.

They have shown that they are out of control. Claiming "well he did it, so why can't we" is outrageous. That's the behavior of 3 year olds, not the leaders of this country.

Sadly, Congress couldn't find the high ground with every radar, map and other tool available to them, and these acts are a new low...

It should be clear by now that the current leadership in Iran has little interest in peaceful relations with the US, Israel, or most of the rest of the western world. And lets not forget that Iran was supplying the insurgents with copper tipped explosive devices for use against American forces the entire time we were in Iraq. Peace with the US does NOT appear to be their goal. This is little more than yet another stall tactic to allow them to further enrich uranium with the ultimate goal of becoming a Nuclear power in the Middle East.

SSG Gerhard S., it's definitely true that Iran is not friendly and has proven that repeatedly. However, there's only so much we can do short of war. Sanctions have done little more than make Iran even more intractable. You catch more flies with honey.

Besides, we NEED an agreement to ultimately make any headway. Sanctions only get you so far, and after decades of them, the answer with Iran has been "nowhere at all really."

Even worse, there is a bit of a culture shift with younger generations of Iranians. The urban ones are more liberal and less prone to hate the West. In some ways, the long game is to keep Iran slowly coming around until that generation holds more influence. Yeah, it'll be a couple of decades, but any nation wanting to survive can't think entirely in the short term.

Though I would agree it would be good to have a GOOD Agreement with the Iranian government, I would respectfully disagree that we need ANY agreement for the sake of an agreement. The Iranian leadership are continuing to expand their nuclear program with, or without an agreement. This has been their modus operandi for decades.
Do what they want to do....
Have sanctions imposed on them....
Keep doing what they want to do with less money for their people...
Negotiate an agreement to have sanctions lifted or lessened...
Keep doing what they want to do with more money to do it....
Have more sanctions imposed...
Keep doing what they do and the people suffer, petition to have sanctions lifted....
Well, you get the idea... it's like a broken record with the same results every time. By the way, the North Koreans have pretty good success with the same tactics. Also, in the mean time, Iran continues to train, fund and otherwise support terrorism, and calling for the destruction of the Great Satan (U.S.) and of the Little Satan, Israel, and for the genocide of all Jews.
To conclude, the President's "executive agreement" is NOT unprecedented, nor is the interference by the members of some Senators (or others). I think there is little doubt that Iran will keep doing what it wants to do with, or absent sanctions, with or absent a non-binding 3 year executive agreement with a President that has less than 2 years to serve.

Regards.

One has to wonder if sanctions only get you so far, why is it that the present administration limits it's actions to sanctions against Russia, when we already have a TREATY signed by President Clinton in 1994 to defend the borders of the Ukraine.

Though I agree that the Iranian people may be ready for change in another generation or two, their leadership IS taking them on a path to nuclear proliferation along with ICBM technology.

It makes little sense to enter into agreement with the radical leadership of Iran which only strengthens their position and makes it easier to continue their nuclear aims.

Remember, we are talking about a regime that STILL executes men and women for being gay. One would think Pres Obama would have something to say about their human rights abuses, as he has no difficulty telling the rest of the world about ours.

Prove it. By this I mean examples where the arbiter of the constitution has stated that the administration has violated the constitution. Personally I think it is a media myth.

Nope, the constitution mandates checks and balances, telling an enemy of the state what the legal authority of the president is certainly fits into their rolls as protectors of the constitution, even if it is poor form.