Jerry Brown Violates Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution

California BTFO

send it to breitbart, washington examiner, and drudge
and hannity

California is in the right here, we have to resist this Nazi president before he ruins our mother earth.

File: dennisreynolds.gif (2MB, 237x304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 237x304px

>>128901100
Jello Biafra had this faggot's number back in the 80's
California is the Canadian Germany of America

>>128901100
Way to get Wang Ganged.

>>128901467
>California is the Canadian Germany of America

lmao <3

>>128901100
Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3

also,

Logan Act

Where the FUCK is AG Sessions?

>>128901100
>>The agreement, though nonbinding

>>128901100
He can violate the constitution all he wants since the law does not apply to elites.

CIVIL WAR NUMBER TWO ELECTRIC BOOGALOO HERE WE GOOOOOOOO

>>128901884
>Article 1 Section 10:
>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
>any
Still unconstitutional.

>>128901100
Bumpity bump

>>128901100
We need to get this shit trending on twitter.
I'm so glad I didn't apply to any job openings in such a retarded state.

>>128902104
They will say it's not a treaty, alliance, or confederation.
A non-binding agreement. Don't states work with foreign nations? Like trading with Canada and stuff?

>>128902312
PARAGRAPH 3 YOU FUCKING DOLT

ANY agreement. ANY. Without the approval of Congress, is unconstitutional.

>>128902312
No. Private companies can, but States have to go through the Federal government for everything. It's why we have a Department of Commerce.

>>128901670
motha love me long time
>long time
suckysucky fucky fucky wan time

>>128901324
But seriously we can't let this guy control our carbon emissions.

>>128901100

CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES

>>128901467
Hahahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG8UuZ0NZGY

>>128902312
>they will say it's not a big deal because it's non binding
You mean exactly like the Paris one was?

retard-tier levels of virtue signaling

everything is fucking virtue signaling these days

Still doesn't stop these faggots from violating all the rest of the Constitution. They do it on a daily basis. Fuck brown and the rest of these niggers.

>>128903725
bomb china

So why isnt Trump cracking down on this traitor?

entirely illegal

>>128902312
A State has to go through the U.S. State Department first.

>>128901100
I hope this cocksucker gets arrested. I know he won't because democrats don't have to obey the law.

>>128901100
>make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

LOL, the dollar hasn't been backed by anything for almost a century.

>>128904076
Because it is a non-binding. It is as legally binding as a promise from a 3 year old to clean their room.

>>128901100

>commiefornia selling out to China

Sasuga.

>>128904076
Everyone is quiet as fuck...

>>128904798
The Constitution makes no distinction

File: keystone.jpg (34KB, 624x537px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 624x537px

>>128902312
>Don't states work with foreign nations? Like trading with Canada and stuff?
Look what happened with the Keystone Pipeline delays, the individual states wanted it but obongo said 'muh global warming' and that was that unit Trump came along.

>>128905098
*until

>California lawmakers voted to pass a bill Wednesday that will add a third gender option — non-binary — on state identification cards.

>Senate Bill 179, introduced by Sen. Tori Atkins, will now move onto Assembly after the 26-12 Senate vote. If it passes Assembly, California Gov. Jerry Brown can sign the measure into law, making California the first state to add a third gender option on IDs.

>The bill, if signed into law, will allow minors to apply for a gender change on their birth certificates with parental or guardian consent.

>Senate Bill 310, if signed into law after passing through assembly, guarantees prison inmates the right to ask the court for gender change or name change. In addition, the bill states that if a name or gender change is granted to an inmate, then correction officers must refer to a prisoner by their new alias.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/annabel-scott/california-senate-passes-bill-allowing-third-gender-option-ids

How can one state be so awful?

>>128904379


You guys are just children that crow "PERJURY, UNCONSTITUTIONAL" like fedora wearing faggots.

Like there doesn't exist one conservative idealogue smart enough to sue or bring legal action.

You're literally acting like retarded children in a secret club house.

>BASED TRUMP HILLARY FOR PRISON ANY DAY NOW
>we won't be prosecuting Clinton
>BASED TRUMP. SETH RICH. MAGA MAGA MAGA

It's crazy watching you guys voluntarily shill your dicks off for a globalist power broker because he pisses the left off

File: jew_MSM_unplugged.jpg (109KB, 675x675px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 675x675px

>>128905295
>How can one state be so awful?
Commies and jews

I'm just Californians are thrilled..... How disgusting.

>>128905396
Yeah that's it, faggot... Go spread your cheeks for Tyrone.

>>128902312
While, to my knowledge (and I don't feel like poking through Westlaw right now), there is no case law defining agreement as it is written in the Constitution, a SCOTUS ruling in favor of California would be highly volatile for the US and would possibly plant the seeds of fragmentation.

File: china0511-038-2.jpg (50KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x540px

>>128901100
>climate deal with China

>>128905295
LOOOOOOOL yeah and then what prison do these new special inmates go to?

>>128902607
>ANY agreement. ANY. Without the approval of Congress, is unconstitutional.

A non-binding agreement is not an agreement, legally speaking. I doubt a state governor and the respective attorney general would stick their asses out as far as you suggest.

File: 436.png (835KB, 815x615px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 815x615px

>>128905547

More like a bunch of Democrat-voting Latinos, which is weird because I don't believe Latinos are generally more pro-tranny than whites, but it hardly matters when they're such sheep and vote Democrat regardless.

>>128905913
Funny isn't it. How they get to make everything, pollute the world, and ship their ugly people across the globe, but fuck no, don't you dare think about making anything or burning some coal. Here, read this article about how great it is not to fuck or have children.

>People still pretending China isn't the biggest most evil scammers in the world.
Jews wish they were chinks.

File: 2007-02-05-ABC-GMA-Assad.jpg (40KB, 632x402px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 632x402px

>>128906133
Just like the Paris Agreement

>>128905701

>40bn in weapons to Saudis
>/pol/ applauds
>Gobbles Israeli cock
>/pol/ applauds

Gimme that sweet ass. I'll fuck you til you love me faggot. You'll be shilling sissy culture on pornhub forums in days.

>>128906133
You're crossing your steams, my man. While contract law might specify that a non-binding agreement is not an agreement, no such decision had been made as it pertains to a constitutional question. And to preempt a potential response, no the two are not so similar as to necessitate similar definitions. One is more concerned with mutual it of obligation, while the other is concerned with stability amongst the states by restricting lone wolf allegiances. I will be supremely shocked if this does not reach SCOTUS.

>>128906133
it's negotiation with intent to influence. that's all you need to prove to show a violation

>>128905951

They stay in the prison of their biological sex, which is fucking hilarious.

Even reality-denying, far-Left progressive California politicians know the voters won't tolerate them putting a convicted rapist man with a penis who identifies as a woman in a womens' prison, so they're reduced to just making hapless correction officers call them by their chosen gender/drag queen name.

>>128906594
Mutuality of*

Phone posting during the day is suffering.

>>128904633
The Federal Reserve is as unconstitutional as you can get, yet nothing happens.

>>128901324
It wouldn't matter if California was right (their not) its still illegal.

File: jews_eternal.png (951KB, 925x756px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 925x756px

>>128906160
>a bunch of Democrat-voting Latinos
Fair enough, but the kike media spewing out pro-commie, Trump is Hitler and wants to deport EVERYONE has to be a factor. The eternal globalist jew has been in propaganda overdrive for the last 18 months+

>>128906657
oh man, I feel for the prison guards on that actually

>>128905098
Hmm, never realize how logical it would of been to build that pipeline.

>>128906823

So was the Patriot Act.

>>128906514
>Just like the Paris Agreement
?

>>128906823
somehow because Congress "has the purse" they were able to vote to give that power to the FED. Which also isn't in the Constitution lol it doesn't say that a branch of gov can give their authority away...

>>128901100
The archive has arrived.

http://archive.is/0D2pu

>>128901100
>Article 1 Section 10

Good luck with that.

>>128906594
Update: I've heard claim that there does in fact exist such a case extending this contract principal to this constitutional provision. However, no citation was provided so I'm uncertain as to the veracity.

>>128906594
>no such decision had been made as it pertains to a constitutional question.

The preempted powers refer to treaties and the like. That which is not reserved to the feds are left with the states. Nothing here rises to the preempted powers and is therefore within states' rights.

File: 1496371066629.jpg (182KB, 1242x1141px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1242x1141px

>>128906515
no one believes you, sissyboi

>>128906601

Nothing, in this example, counts as negotiation.

>>128901100
>nter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
None of these are being done though.

At best this is a trade agreement, which states have historically done for years.

>>128907319
It explicitly violates the Constitution as it is written. This is an open and shut case.

File: image.jpg (153KB, 1000x900px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1000x900px

>6th largest economy on the planet.

>Personally responsible for feeding at least 4 other states.

>Muh Moonbeam, muh Governator.

>Has the largest stockpile of activated almonds on earth.

Remain distressed, flyovers.

File: 3a7.jpg (77KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 680x680px

>/pol/ lawyers

>>128907413
>treaties and the like
So they are in violation.

>>128907630
>Brown later held a closed-door meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which the two pledged...

hmmmmm

>>128907824
Individual states do not make trade agreements. That has to go to the Fed.

>>128907824
PARAGRAPH 3
I don't know why everyone keeps referring to paragraph 1...

>>128908252
This. It wouldn't of mattered if he were just signing things by himself, but that meeting is key to showing negotiations occurred.

Whelp boys, looks like we won't have to wait for Commifornia to secede before we roll in and put a foot up their ass

>>128907824
>>128908438
Got you.
>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

>>128908064

None of what took place could count as anything reserved to the feds in Article 1 SS 10.

prove me wrong

>>128908496
yep. would have to testify as to what was said during the meeting too

When is trump going to drop kick CA?

>>128907987
>6th largest economy on the planet.
>>Personally responsible for feeding at least 4 other states
Don't worry, we here in the Gunshine state could easily pick up your slack and you would not be missed.

File: jonestown_gallery_09.jpg (62KB, 545x430px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 545x430px

Jim Jones and Jerry-
“Governor Jerry Brown sang the preacher’s praises. Congressman John Burton, Phil’s brother, lobbied the governor to appoint Jones to the high-profile board of regents, which oversaw California’s sprawling public university system. San Francisco Supervisor – now U.S. Senator — Dianne Feinstein accepted an invitation to lunch with Jones and to tour Peoples Temple.”

http://calwatchdog.com/2013/12/18/actually-jim-jones-cult-was-bay-area-democrats/

>>128908252
>>128908496

Negotiations? Please prove that negotiations took place. Nothing of value was exchanged between to parties. Neither did talks of such take place.

>>128908869
>Compact
def 2: a -->formal agreement<-- or contract between two or more parties.

>>128908869
See >>128908744
>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power
>any Agreement
A non-binding Agreement is still an Agreement.

>>128909366
Negotiation: discussion aimed at reaching an agreement

They obviously came to a fucking agreement didn't they?

>>128908744
>lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
>>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power


Again, none of this took place. Pull out a legal dictionary and look up "agreement."

>>128909366
Doesn't matter. See >>128909499
It's on Brown to testify that he didn't.

>>128909463
>formal agreement<-- or contract

They're basically the same thing.

>>128909499

See

>>128909662

>>128909662
>none of this took place
>there is now an agreement between CA and China

>>128909717
>>128909717

How so? You're saying Brown is guilty until proven innocent.

Again, See >>128909662

>>128909918
>>there is now an agreement between CA and China

Prove it. See >>128909662

>>128909835
does your stupid ass deny that they reached and signed an agreement?

>>128909662
>>128909835
>agreement - Legal Definition. n. A mutual understanding between two or more legally competent individuals or entities about their rights and duties regarding their past or future performances and consideration.
An agreement on green house gas emissions falls into this.

>>128908252
Brown bending over in private

File: 654ec138-b1d9-46ea-a525-51917b785852.jpg (129KB, 753x1008px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 753x1008px

>>128901324
>carbon faceplant

>>128909953
Negotiations aren't a pretext. The agreement is all you need.

>>128908744
>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

If someone is reading the Compact Clause this literally, they'll be sure to note it actually says:

>another State, or with a foreign Power

That means states can't enter into agreements with other states, not even considering foreign countries. We should know better than that. Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) pretty well settled that the feds don't have to greenlight every single agreement.

>>128910064

cool ad hominem, bro.

You have yet to prove that anything non-binding creates parties that are bound to anything.

>>128910443
>The agreement is all you need.

Yes, but there is no agreement. You need a legal dictionary to understand what "agreement" means in this context. It's mainly in reference to creating parties to a contract or treaty. None of that occurred.

>>128909097

>Norcs think the state's economic prosperity comes from their farming.

It's 2% of our GDP senpai. If you ever got really uppity we'd drip irrigate the fucking Mohave and grow our corn there. You're basically our sharecroppers.

>>128910675
>>128910675
>he doesnt know how they work
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China

brown is asking for it

>>128910474

This guy.

>>128910496
Oh we did. You just keep ignoring the facts.
How about Brown's own words where he says he signed an agreement between California and China? Are those parties in this signed agreement? Yes, yes they are.

>>128901100
>>Article 1 Section 10:
>>No State shall enter into any Treaty...

A non-binding agreement seem to me to be technically not in conflict with this.

>10th Amendment:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This would seem to expressly allow what Brown did, as it reserves powers to the states -- and the power to enter into nonbinding agreements with foreign powers is not explicitly delegated to the US Government by the Constitution.

Don;t get me wrong, Brown is a knuckle head -- I just don't think your argument holds water.

On the plus side, since California is committed to hamstringing its economy by pursuing leftist nostrums on things like climate change, it is actually in the US interest if they can drag China into following suit.

>>128910851
>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/6/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China

"The California Department of Transportation's decision to save money by hiring a Chinese company that had never built a bridge to build major parts of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was troubling to begin with."

a private company from China... Nothing illegal there...

>>128910474
>The court decided that because the states informed Congress of the original survey that both states hired people to carefully establish, and subsequently enacted as legislation by the two states, the agreement was implicitly approved by Congress, and the border between the two states was that which was set forth in the survey.
>informed congress
>implicitly approved by Congress
Needs Congress's approval.

Your argument is here.
>As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state.
It would increase CA presence on the world stage. Also that case had to do specifically with States making deals with each other.

>>128902615
Employed in my state's Dept. of Commerce. This is untrue. States make business deals with foreign powers (especially in countries like China, where the government is so deeply embedded in the workings of industry) all the time.

>>128910933

again, if it's a non-binding agreement, then it's not an agreement. Your bill at a restaurant has more legal relevancy than that.

And ? California, thanks to their progressive ideal, is the most prolific and productive state of the US. What you gonna do ?

>>128911044
PARAGRAPH FUCKING 3 READ THE DAMN THREAD

>>128911360

This guy.

>>128904633
>>128906823
>No STATE may...

The Federal Reserve is not a state,.

File: BicyclePlayingCardsJokerKing808.jpg (26KB, 300x393px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x393px

>>128903574
one of my favorites

>>128911380
you're just fucking delusional is all.

>>128901100
nuke california

>>128905295
>How can one state be so awful?

They work at it.

>>128911044
See >>128908744
This is the third paragraph from Article 1 Section 10.

>>128911595
Do you pay you state taxes in gold and silver coin?

>>128911360
They make deals with PRIVATE COMPANIES in foreign countries. That's different than making a deal with the government.

>>128911580
See >>128911170
You admitted it yourself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

8 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 744; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

>>128911745
Futile things like this agreement doesn't concern California, Texas or New York

>>128906601
Sincerely interested in a citation for that assertion.
I'd love to see Brown get his dick in a wringer, I just don't think this actually does it.

>>128906916
Just call 'em by prisoner number. Problem solved.

>>128912156
See >>128912083

>>128912140
Then why do it and get yourself in trouble?

>>128912011
>That's different than making a deal with the government.

You're missing the point: no deal took place.

>>128907085
>Constitution lol it doesn't say that a branch of gov can give their authority away...

Yet Congress has sloughed off powers to the Executive like a MOFO. War Powers Act, legislation that sets some vague goal then allows executive agencies to write enabling regulations, etc.

Would love to see Congress grow a pair and take back the powers they have.

>>128901100
the agreement is nonbinding which means it's not technically a treaty .

>>128912083
>in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States
About as blatant as you can get with the Paris Agreement controversy. Even says in the Hill article that Brown is acting in relation to us pulling out.

>>128912308
>in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States
^This is where Brown gets in trouble

Trump specifically said we are trying to negotiate to re-enter or create a new agreement.

Therefore, I would absolutely say that this issue is a "dispute", especially with China as Trump specifically cited China as one of the reasons for US withdraw

>>128907922
A) It is not "open and shut," you an read some good counter arguments in this thread.

B) If you actually still believe that the Supreme Court will always follow the Constitution as written in their rulings, you need to exit basement more.

>>128912083
>with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States

>>128912473
no you're missing the point.

"agreements" includes type a or b or c, doesn't matter it's still an agreement.

>>128912427
They won't get in trouble you can't do shit about it. Those 3 states are countries by themselves. There will be talks, scream and conservative tears but that's about it.

>>128912491
Read the thread. Paragraph three specifically mentions any Agreement is in violation.

>>128912743
i know, according to the text of the law, there isint much he can do. What Brown did was illegal and unconstitutional

File: 1478340317887.jpg (45KB, 618x379px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 618x379px

>>128901100
tai hao le lao wai!

>>128911359
That's not the full requirement. It's not that it would simply "increase the power of a state", it's that it would

>increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states, so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States, or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control

That's what would be necessary to prove to invoke the Compact Clause to invalidate this agreement.

>>128909070
Doesn't California have some pretty strict laws on open meetings? Since it took place in a closed meeting, though, it is not possible to prove that he did or did not negotiate. Or that he did or did not do anything else.

Rules are for Republicans.

>>128912891

You wish that anything he did fit that law, but it doesn't. Please prove that he broke this law.

>>128912717
The counter argument is it's not an Agreement, even though it says it's an Agreement. Prove that it's not.
Also >>128912083 >>128912654 brings up a good point that Brown has violated other laws as well in this debacle.

>>128909366
>Neither did talks of such take place.

This is an awfully sure-sounding assertion about what happened in a closed meeting.

>>128901100
You could literally just say the Import-Export Clause.
It covers every illegal activity that is being performed.

>>128910297
A non-binding one likely does not.

But it helps Fruit-fly Moonbat convince his base that he luvs teh Urth.

What a shitty law.

>>128913171
>intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof
>reduce China's emissions
A non-binding agreement is still an influence.
>in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States
It is explicitly stated that this agreement is because we pulled out of the Paris Accord. Controversy.
>to defeat the measures of the United States
Trump signaled he wanted to renegotiate. Can't really do that when CA is undermining that.

>send money to china
>they ignore the "demands"
>califnoria can't do shit about it
lmao I love how fucking daft people are because they think china cares about words on paper.

>>128913025
I thought it was the Brown Act but that's not it...

>>128913171
Well, the Paris Accord was a non-binding agreement as well but it was an agreement nonetheless. You, as a state or citizen, cannot enter in to any agreement, binding or non-binding, with a foreign government, especially when the US government has openly stated their intentions to engage said government diplomatically

>>128911513
Quoting what somebody else posted and discussing it. Sorry of that harelips you.

>>128901100
Score one for State's rights. Let Commifornia impose a big fat pollution tax on all things!

>>128913414
Import-Export is 45 pages
Would you mind sharing the specific sections you believe are relevant so I can find them?

>>128912961
>increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states, so as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the United States, or interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control
>interfere with their rightful management of particular subjects placed under their entire control
Trump wants to renegotiate the climate deal, but CA is getting in the way by making climate deals behind the US's back.

>>128911935
I do not pay my state taxes in any currency issued by my state. My state does not issue currency. My state did not make anything a tender for payment of anything. I use currency issued by the federal government.

>>128913184

A "non-binding agreement" is NOT binding, which is short for legally binding. it is not the type of agreement which legally binds anyone to anything, therefore, legally, it is not an agreement. This isn't hard, senpai.

File: 1492680612680.jpg (114KB, 540x762px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 540x762px

>>128901100
>Article 1 Section 10:
>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

California has neither entered into a treaty, alliance, nor confederation. Marque and reprisal in this case are to do with seizing vessels and revenge, which this agreement is obviously not doing. Debts are also not being paid. California is not committing Attainder as it is not giving up civil rights or land to China. It is not criminalizing anything, so ex post de facto law does not apply. It is not violating the Obligation of Contracts, as this bill is not relieving anybody of previous contracts. And, of course, no titles of nobility are being granted.

Therefore this:
>10th Amendment:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Would mean in thus case that California is well within their state rights to enter into a green energy agreement with China.

So pray tell me how this is in violation of the Constitution.

>>128914081
Agreements would include all subsets of agreements. There is no type of agreement outside of agreements...

>>128913507
>A mutual understanding
When did a mutual understanding have to be binding? Non-binding is also an agreement since they developed a mutual understanding to curb green house emissions.

>>128913674
>You, as a state or citizen, cannot enter in to any agreement, binding or non-binding, with a foreign government

I have here a visa that allowed me to travel to Vietnam and another for Cambodia, in which they agreed to let me in and I agreed to leave before the stipulated number of days had elapsed.

Seems I can, in fact, enter into an agreement with a foreign government.

>>128914081
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d95553a2-fb28-4d46-9a22-4533682627e2

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5fdf5504-2c25-49b6-84bb-7e729eed6f93

http://danashultz.com/blog/2014/07/02/what-does-non-binding-mean-and-why-should-i-care/

>>128903479
I came here to post this.

>>128913522
>is still an influence.
How? I'm sure the governor felt that way already or else he wouldn't have accepted to speak with China on the topic.

>It is explicitly stated that this agreement is because we pulled out of the Paris Accord.

That is legally impossible until 2020.

>Trump signaled he wanted to renegotiate. Can't really do that when CA is undermining that.

Trump is not the united states incarnate. The US is still bound to the Paris Accord until 2020.

>>128913988
But that would mean that the federal government's argument here is that "You cannot voluntarily reduce your emissions until we give you permission to do so because it might harm our negotiation position."

Is that correct?

>>128901324
So you support the violation of our constitutional rights.
Kys faggot.

>>128914393
And who issued you that Visa?

>>128913674
>non-binding agreement as well

How so? This agreement is *enforced* by the United Nations.

>>128914081
>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power
>any Agreement
>lol non-binding agreements don't count
Your argument is weak.

>>128914287
The word "agreement" may have one meaning in common usage and another in legal usage. Just a thought.

Or do you think laws governing the bringing of suits also apply to having a nice set of formal clothing delivered?

File: 1470390661517.jpg (205KB, 776x452px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 776x452px

>California entering into an agreement with China
I know Californian politicians are not the smartest people. But they're asking for an ass-raping of the century.

>>128914126
Paragraph 3.
>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
>No State shall enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power
>any Agreement
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html

>>128914617
The governments of Cambodia and Vietnam.

>>128914194
>>128914436

http://thelawdictionary.org/agreement/

>>128914658
Are you saying Paris was enforced by the UN?
And if you are, what enforcement measures did the UN have in this agreement?

>>128901100
How big is this?

Can they realistically try him for sedition, or would it just be shot down by the 9th court?

>>128914881
so the United States didnt issue you a passport for you to use for your travels?

>>128914811
>I know Californian politicians are not the smartest people.

Moonbat is pretty smart -- he's just loony.

>>128901100
This guy is a nut. Please do something to stop this maniac.

File: 3c8.jpg (34KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 448x252px

>>128914864

>>128914746
>agreement - Legal Definition. n. A mutual understanding between two or more legally competent individuals or entities about their rights and duties regarding their past or future performances and consideration.
>LEGAL DEFINITION
What are you even arguing? We're using the legal definition.

>>128915037
Fuckin got em.

>>128901100
No he didn't

It is a Memorandum of Understanding. It only expresses good will between two parties and indicates that they are working for the same goals.

The only deals to be struck are purely economical/trading deals with provinces in China to which they will be helping build and cell green technology to.

>>128915037
They did. They did not issue the visa in which the countries involved agreed to let me enter, and I agreed to leave within a certain time frame.

File: download (17).jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>128901273
NO NO NO
post it on 4chan!

>>128914970

Since the US entered into Paris, it became legally binding by international law. The UN has a number of methods, albeit worthless against the US, to attempt enforcement, such as sanctions.

File: IMG_5586.jpg (27KB, 294x304px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 294x304px

>>128911439
>Productive

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sure, we make some money, but the US would do better without this state, we take way more than we give and we're just contributing to the national debt a shitton.

>>128915112
How does something that binds neither party define their duties and rights?

>>128914893
Now show me where it talks bout non-binding agreements specifically.

>>128915051
Yes, but does being a loony impede his ability to make good decisions?
Usually, if a country makes a deal with China. It ends in disaster.
The only recent agreements with China that benefited another country was NK and Russia sending gas and coal to China and I guess the US right now...

>>128914893
you seem to be arguing against this, which i dont understand because you are linking definitions that support my argument.

Are you really advocating, that any state in our country should be able to enter in to any kind of "non-binding" agreement with foreign governments because in your world (not even the legal world) a non-binding agreement isint an agreement.

I wish the olympics had a category for mental gymnastics cause we would take the gold every fucking time with people like you walking around

>>128914593
>voluntary
>being bound to an agreement (read: contract)

pick 1

>>128915400
UHHH retard it doesn't matter because MAGAGAGAGA

>>128915217
>cell green tech
sell cell nigger

You know what I mean. It's not an agreement at all is the point.

It's basically a liberal and a jew saying
>HEY I'LL GIVE YOU 50% OFF BRO
>>oy vey 50%. I want 95%
>Well lets see what we can do I guess

>>128915262
No, but those countries stamped your visa in your US Passport.

Its an agreement between our government and the foreign government to permit you to travel, unmolested in their country for the period of time corresponding to the visa.

>>128915112

You're not going far enough.

>A concord of understanding and intention, between two or more parties, with respect to the effect upon their relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or performances. The act of two or more persons, who unite in expressing a mutual and common purpose, with the view of altering their rights and obligations.

>with the view of altering their rights and obligations
>altering rights and obligations
>altering

>>128914521
You're bullshitting pretty hard here mate.
>California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an agreement to work with China to lower greenhouse gas emissions Tuesday, just days after President Trump pulled the United States out of an international climate change agreement.

>>128915443
>Yes, but does being a loony impede his ability to make good decisions?

Of course. He makes a lot of bad decisions based on his loopy ideology. He's still a pretty canny politician.

>Usually, if a country makes a deal with China. It ends in disaster.

Possibly -- China certainly has a history of only living up to treaties and agreements when it benefits them.

>>128901324
kys SanFagsiscan, also I hope they run Moonbeam up the flagpole for this, I hate this son of a bitch so much, is there anyway to implicate Dianne Feinstein, Barbra Boxer and Kamala Harris so we can get rid of them too?

>>128915355
Be specific anon, not vague
Give me specific enforcement activities that the UN could have engaged in

File: 1462326718504.gif (861KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1600x1200px

>>128907987
>Receives the largest amount in benefits and subsidies then any other state.

>Needed 4 other states to supply you water

>Can barely even keep your own dams in order

I WISH Commiefornia would secede from the US, you niggers would be dead within 5 years tops

>>128915112
>about their rights and duties

In other words, nothing affected their rights or duties, so it's not an agreement!

File: python chapman.jpg (10KB, 300x248px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x248px

>>128915501
Ha, fair enough, you run rings around me, logically.

>>128903574
jello is a big fag but DK had some good ones

>>128915404

http://thelawdictionary.org/legally-binding/

Lrn2UsetheDictionary

>>128915622
>Its an agreement between our government and the foreign government to permit you to travel, unmolested in their country for the period of time corresponding to the visa.


Horse.

Also, shit.

The commies did not issue an agreement to the US Government, they issued it to me. I filled out paperwork, they accepted (or could have declined) my request to be let in, I paid them money. At no point was the US government consulted or informed about what we were agreeing to.

>>128909366
you're an idiot

>>128915832
"The purpose of an LOI is to summarize the basic terms of a relationship into which the parties wish to enter. It also specifies that the parties will enter into negotiations to prepare a definitive agreement establishing that relationship."

See, there is the problem. California isint supposed to have a relationship with China, so how can they "summarize the basic terms of their relationship"

If it is non-binding, its a LOI or a MOU, neither of which a state entity can enter into with a foreign government

>>128915400
Because it does define the reduction of green house gasses. You're arguing that it has no enforcement protocol, which makes it magically not an agreement.

>>128901467
Didn't Jello endorse Hillary or something?

>>128916158
> I paid them money
Nigga you got extorted

10/10 good story, im saving this one

>>128903773
This right here. 2a is raped in new and interesting ways every week this year. California is in constant violation of the Constitution and nobody is doing a thing about it. (looking at you, Sessions)

>>128916033
Yeah just show me where the Constitution says that non-legally binding agreements are a different thing from an Agreement.

>>128901837
>Where the FUCK is AG Sessions?
Thinking pot is the worst thing to ever happen to mankind.

>>128901100
so when do we send in the military to kill these faggots?

>>128901324
Fuck off cunt

T. a real Californian

File: beep beep passport visa stamps.jpg (74KB, 640x443px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x443px

>>128916283
Yeah, I like to travel, some countries, you have to pay for a visa. Not being broke, I'm OK with that.

>>128915005
We've got a lot of laws that have been violated in this thread. We just need to make a summary and ship it out.

>>128916557
Isn't there a precedence for this?

>>128915217
See >>128916186
MOU's are also illegal if done between a State and foreign government.

>>128910675
Nigger a Non binding agreement simply means that they are not explicitly bound by the terms of what is written and that they can leave the agreement at any time without being taken to court. It is still an agreement by all legal definitions.

>WERE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE FIX CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!
>FISH ARE SWIMMING IN THE STREET OH SHIIIIIT

>Make a NON-BINDING agreement

So... We're all going to die but we aren't serious enough to even make it binding... K

>>128915646
>altering obligations
>reduction of green house gasses
Proving my point.

>>128916509
> some countries, you have to pay for a visa.
UH, no you dont
You got extorted, plain and simple and you paid it with a smile on your face

>>128911608
I've played with him many times.

>>128901100
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8mmYwZXiGE

>>128916181

Cool story, bro.

>>128916186


> California isint supposed to have a relationship with China, so how can they "summarize the basic terms of their relationship"

>The purpose of an LOI is to summarize the basic terms of a relationship into which the parties wish to enter. It also specifies that the parties will enter into negotiations to prepare a definitive agreement

Circular reasoning is circular. There is no agreement, so there was never a preparation for one. There were never negotiations: this was just mutual back-patting.

To say that the governor can never go to china for what legally amounts to nothing is nothing in the eyes of the law. Legally, nothing happened except the governor of california going on a stupid-ass vacation. Nothing bans the governor of california from having a conversation with people in china.

>>128901100
Trump should put increasinly heavy sanctions on Commiefornia until they submit.

>>128916931

You can't eat your cake and have it too, senpai.

>>128917091
You can't alter that to which you were already committed.

>>128916806
MoU's are perfectly allowed as long as they do not promise business.

This one is a show of solidarity and that is it. The current MoU has no mention about future negotiations or agreements

>>128916158
The only way you can be given a visa is with a Passport. The US government authorized you to be able to travel by giving you a Passport, but it is up to you to get the visa. No country will give you a visa without a Passport. The US government can take your Passport away at anytime. You did not personally reach any agreement on your own without the US government sanctioning it. Tell me when you travel without a Passport and we can talk.

>>128917272
Except he didn't just have a conversation did he? He signed an agreement.

>>128917272
You clearly cannot fucking read faggot, backroom agreements with other countries is not allowed. period.

stop spewing your ignorant bullshit Jerry Brown

There are clearly two camps here:
Those who feel that state entities can subvert the authority of the US government and enter in to agreements with foreign government and those who feel that that power and privilege lies with the federal government alone.

One of these views is supported by law and the constitution and the other is supported by Feelz Over Reelz

>>128901100
>nonbinding
This hubristic faggot acted far out of his place to negotiate a nonbinding resolution with the foreign power responsible for most of his state's air pollution?

Impeach, imprison.

File: 1496843122934.png (2MB, 2898x2226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2898x2226px

>Oy Vey!!! Muh Carbon Tax!!!

File: dk-logo.jpg (129KB, 659x849px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 659x849px

>>128903479
DIE on organic poison gas!
You'd look nice as a draw-string lamp!
Don't you worry it's only a shower
For your clothes, here's a pretty flower

>>128917747
Just hit them with the "If Brown is allowed to talk to the Chineese, then why wasnt Flynn allowed to talk to the Russians"

>>128917837
Bingo. I'm all for Amendment 10 and States' Rights, but the Consitution makes it clear that the States do NOT negotiate with foreign powers. We are UNITED so only the Federal government negotiates with foreign powers.

>>128917618
It still gets in the way of the US renegotiating the climate deal. It's in violation of >>128912083

Anybody really wanting to spend some time on the legal end of this might want to read the following. It's an interesting view on a very similar MOU between Missouri and Manitoba over a decade ago:

http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Hollis.pdf

>>128904633
>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Get your knowledge sorted.

>>128916757
Would have to check if another State tried to pull something like this in the past.

>>128917747
>>128917691

Again, not an agreement. Keep up your question begging.

>>128917471
So as long as this is your first ever Agreement it's fine since you never had commitments before? Fuck off.

>>128901100
>Getting cucked by the big gay dick of America
What the FUCK happened?

>>128901100
>governors never go abroad on trade delegations and sign trade deals for their state

Retard alert

>>128917910
It's the suede-denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece!

>>128918043
>It still gets in the way of the US renegotiating the climate deal

>Any citizen of the United States
This was done on behalf of the government of California, remember States still have their own government and he is the governor.

>with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof
He has no intent, I know this because he's a brain dead liberal that doesn't think long term.

>>128917992
top kek
It actually works.

>>128918480

There is no agreement. It's your place to prove one happened, *in the legal sense.* Putting one's autograph on a piece of paper, ceteris paribus, doesn't establish shit.

>>128901100
Please show me where he entered a treaty, alliance or confederation

Legally speaking an agreement, much like the Iran agreement, isn't any of those since it's technically not legally binding.

>>128918688
States cannot negotiate with foreign powers. It's reserved to the federal government alone to prevent civil war.

This is explicit in the Consitution.

>>128917992
perfect

>>128918770
Ok, how about this
Flynn was supposedly breaking the law when talking to the russians, they entered in to no agreements, either MOU's or LOI's, neither binding or non-binding. Yet he, according to most like you, broke the law.

Now, how is what Brown did not breaking the law?

>>128918688
>He has no intent, I know this because he's a brain dead liberal that doesn't think long term.
Not exactly a glowing endorsement. We'll see how things pan out. It'll be an interesting case, but someone has to bring it to court.

>>128901467
he was right. Fuck.

>>128916271
I don't think so, he probably supported the green party.

>>128919023
there is not mens rea component to the legislature, but that didnt stop them from not charging hillary despite the lack of a mens rea component

>>128918993

I never suggested that Flynn broke the law. Cool strawman, bro.

>>128918921
Yes but that being said it was the State that did as such if he had any intent to interfere with the Federal government then the State would be held liable.

However this was not the case, these actions are to ensure faith in the market as California invested billions into green energy.

You'd have to prove intent that this was to fuck with Trump to get any type of conviction done, though it is obvious it was so their green power market wouldn't collapse as they already had a lot of trade with China

>>128918921
Fucks sake you're retarded, every state has an international trade department that does deals with foreign entities/governments to promote business within our state

My governor in Massachusetts just did something with Israel to that effect

>>128901100
hang jerry brown from the rafters of the white house before the rest of america takes if upon herself.

>>128901100
>Get the word out that California is in violation of the Constitution.
This. This will give the RWDS justification to "clean" Commiefornia and Make California Great Again.
>By clean, I mean remove all leftists and neocons and relocate them in FEMA camps; those who resist are removed "permanently"
>By permanently, I mean helicopter rides

>>128919304
Here are your arguments so far:
-An MOU/LOI/Non-Binding Agreement is not an agreement
>Proven wrong by citation and legal opinion

I specifically never said flynn broke the law
>Cool, guess you get a pass on that

That's about it.....you keep repeating the same shit despite citation after citation proving you wrong

>>128918091
>The state of Missouri then sued on the basis that the federal government had no authority to negotiate a treaty on this topic.
Interesting, but that was a treaty the federal government made. We're discussing if the States themselves can initiate a treaty or agreement with a foreign power.

>>128919314
It's not about negotiating international agreements, it's about implementing legally allowed trade per the federally negotiated agreements.

Gov. Brown publicly said and signed that as Governor of California, he intended to work against the Federal Government's policy on the Paris Accords in favor of China's view.

>>128918590
With private companies, not governments.

File: DAFLadMV0AAL7H6.jpg (48KB, 750x717px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 750x717px

>>128901273
> aka Russian State Media

>>128918919
Paragraph 3. See >>128914864

>>128915760
Sad thing is Brown is one of the only top Dems in the state that still has at least some common sense about certain issues. He's vetoed some anti-gun bills that any other Dem would've gladly passed.

>>128919776
>>Proven wrong by citation and legal opinion

Where? All you've done is beg the question on his actions being an agreement. The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. You're claiming that he made an agreement. You have yet to prove that. An "agreement" which lacks legal binding isn't an agreement since agreements *require* legal binding as a part of their existence. If anything, the fact that you admit that it was non-binding proves that you're wrong.

File: 1477187190206.gif (808KB, 225x249px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 225x249px

>>128920112

>>128914864
why did the shills forget to reply to this?

>>128901100
STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS , SMALL GOVERNMENT BLAH BLAH BLAH

>>128919312
>>California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed an agreement to work with China to lower greenhouse gas emissions Tuesday, just days after President Trump pulled the United States out of an international climate change agreement.
>just days after
Looks pretty clear.

>>128920358
lurk moar

>>128901100

You don't know what a treaty is, honestly. States have made economic deals like this with other countries from the start.

>>128920559
see
>>128914864

File: 1494809154161.png (296KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 900x900px

LOCK HIM UP

>>128901100
Hey if massively in debt California wants to fuck their residents even harder thsn they already are then let them.

Mexicans BTFO

What the hell is a non binding agreement?

>I AGREE TO THIS BUT NOT REALLY.

The rape of language would be funny if it wasn't subversive to law.

>>128920252
Then what is a non-binding agreement. Classify it.

>>128920559
Do states have authority to make agreements with foreign entities without the Union's approval? No point of a union if any state can do whatever it wants regarding other countries.

>>128920252
Does the document make a promise between two parties? Then its a contract
Does the document lay out provisions for enforcement in case of breach? Not relevant, still a contract

>>128920358
They don't want to and are arguing the semantics that a non-binding AGREEMENT can't be classified as an AGREEMENT. Calling bullshit on them just makes them double down.

>>128920767

I've already done that. Can't you read?

>>128920868

Did any of this happen? If so, prove it.

>>128921091
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

>>128921091
No you didn't. You just said it's not an agreement. I'm asking you to classify it under a different term.
A non-binding agreement is a ...

>>128921076

The burden of proof is a bitch.

>>128921243
How about right here:
The agreement, though nonbinding, aims to expand cooperation between China and California on renewable energy, zero-emission vehicles and low-carbon urban development, Brown’s office said. It will establish a joint working group of Chinese and Californian officials to come up with ways to work together, and to invest in programs that would cut carbon emissions.

>>128921243
What did he just sign?

File: 3995294.jpg (20KB, 400x304px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x304px

>>128921249

moar question begging

>>128921374
What burden of proof? It's an agreement, tell me how it's not.

>>128921243
How about some of that famous "liberal" transparency.....maybe Brown can release his "non-binding, non-agreement" to the press for publication

>>128921403
>though nonbinding

File: codreanu on traitors.jpg (124KB, 760x335px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 760x335px

>>128921374
>>128921567
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power


Soon.

>>128921625
oy vey
it's in Mandarin

>>128921469

legally, nothing.

File: 1365040929599.jpg (12KB, 284x276px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x276px

>>128901100
HAHAHA YO ARE THE IDIOT WITH SMALL SKULL YOU ARE CALI STINK DOG
YOU LAUGH MY ASSHOLEHAHA HAHAHAHAHAH DEADBEAT CALIFAG
2014 CALIFORNIA STEAL WEST US CLAY GIVE IT BACK YOU MUST GIVE BACK OUR RIGHTFUL CLAY TEXAS+ARIZONA+COLORADO+UTAH=FUCK YO UCALIFORNIA
WHERE IS THE CLAY
earthquake will kill 400 californian cities
FUCK YOU CALIFORNIA YO ARE THE SHIT STATE YOU LIVE IN THE YUPPIE ZOO ANIMALS. HAHAHAHAHHAHA
DEAR CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR, I SHIT FROM THE HIGHEST CHIMNEY TO YOUR MOUTH. YOU ARE THE GAY GOVERNER.NO FUNDING FOR YOU!
I WILL DIE FOR WEST AMERICA. I DO NOT FEAR THE LIBERAL YUPPIE WIZARD. I WILL NOT AFRAID
fuck los anglese fuck sacromento a n sandjoser fuck you too san dieago, califaggot ass...FALL INTO OCEAN
texas has wisdom of the falcon. california have dimwit of donkey ass
GO BACK TO YUPPIE SHITHOLE....HAHAHAHAHAHHA FUCK U CALIFORNIA

>>128906994
Non-biding, therefor not an agreement. Therefor Paris-agreement doesn't exist, and Trump never left it, and Obama never joined it, since it's non-binding. World utterly btfo by libtard logic.

>>128921784
I would love to see you take the LSAT's

>>128921606
>tell me how it's not

Tell me how it is. Use the law, please. You're the claimant, after all.

>>128921921
finally a worthwhile swede

File: 1462490439582.png (429KB, 614x682px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 614x682px

>>128921900

>>128919780
No, you're looking at Missouri v. Holland, a 1920 SCotUS case. The paper I linked (although it starts off with that case as background) primarily dealt with a recent MoA that Missouri negotiated directly with Manitoba in regards to water transfer. The end result is that Congress has been negligent in actually overseeing these MoAs, even though they theoretically could under the Compact Clause. Since Legislative Branch takes no action, Executive Branch usually allows them to go through.

>>128921972
How about Brown publishes his non-binding, non-agreement so we can read it and see what exactly was said?

>>128921934

I probably should, but I'm not interested in law school anymore.

File: 1496862714649.jpg (211KB, 1242x1141px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1242x1141px

Fixed

>>128922226

This had to do with water rights and the manipulation thereof. That is a negotiation. No rights were affected by cal and china. You're still question begging.

>>128922568
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power

>>128921972
Here is a sample, non-binding LOI
Tell me how this falls short of the legal definition of a contract or the legal definition of an agreement

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1404597/000100201408001135/exh991.htm

>>128922319

This just makes the burden of the claimants greater.

>>128922793
>Agreement or Compact

File: cambodian water buffalo.jpg (115KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x720px

>>128917107
>UH, no you dont

UH, yes you do. Visa requirements vary by country you are visiting, and each country my charge different amounts depending on where you come from, offer free visas to citizens of some countries, or waive a requirement for a visa to citizens of some countries. Cambodia charged me $25 for a visa -- considering the cost of flying to Cambodia, I'm not sure how that qualifies as being extorted -- but maybe $25 is a large percent of your fluid capital. Vietnam charged a bit more -- $100. But again, compared to other costs of the trip, it was minuscule. My understanding was that a VOA fee would have been less, but I might arrive at the airport there and be denied a visa, so I didn't risk it. Paid a bit more for the certainty.

So, yes, I did enter into an agreement with the governments of both countries, including a financial component. And it was legal.

Sorry of that harelips you.