Obama Caves to Senate on Iran Deal

[TemplarKormac]

We're not "following" them, we're negotiating alongside them. Any "deal" will be negotiated by all, including us.

I'm sorry, but you were the one who used the term "follow" in this context. So what happens if we stop negotiating "alongside" them? Shouldn't that send a strong message to the other 4+1 nations that Iran shouldn't be trusted at the negotiating table? Haven't they already demonstrated their untrustworthiness to the major world powers by now?

But we're not going to stop negotiating. It's just not going to happen, no matter how much you want us to. We're already at the negotiating table. And no - Iran has not "demonstrated their untrustworthiness" to the major powers.

Let me try to explain the timeline to you. Right now, the P5+1 countries are negotiating with Iran. Congress won't have "a say" until after the negotiators arrive at a deal that appeals to all the parties negotiating.

If Congress decided to ignore the negotiations and deal that we took part in, why would that impact the other members of the talks?

Congress is well within its rights to ignore the negotiations. And there was no "we" involved. Just Obama and his subordinate, John Kerry. There is no "I" in "we."

As for the impact, see the the previous response.

Congress can "ignore" whatever it wants, but as we all learn as young children, ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

As for my use of "we", that's how it works. The President officially represents "us" in foreign policy negotiations. It's in his job description.

And no - Iran has not "demonstrated their untrustworthiness" to the major powers.

That is a very uninformed statement. I can demonstrate two in a million ways they have demonstrated their untrustworthiness.

One "Israel's destruction is non negotiable." Two, from President Rouhani, (paraphrasing) "There will be no deal unless all economic sanctions are lifted immediately." Now, why would Iran spend all that time sitting there negotiating with us, agreeing to preliminary deal, only to come back and say "psyche!"?

In reality it must mean they only went through the motions. They never had any intentions of holding themselves to a bargain. Moreover, the fact they want to destroy Israel and place the fate of any further negotiations on sole basis among other things, of being allowed to destroy Israel should demonstrate that are untrustworthy.

Congress can "ignore" whatever it wants, but as we all learn as young children, ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

And I'm sure Obama found that concept out the hard way today.

The President officially represents "us" in foreign policy negotiations. It's in his job description.

As for ignorance, read the Treaty clause.

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Now, the The Head Money Cases 112 U.S. 580 (1884) stated that no treaty (while being described elsewhere in the constitution as "the supreme law of the land) trumps an act of congress, and other laws affecting its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate. Obama has no leg to stand on without assistance from the Senate. If such modification or repeal violates international law, so be it. By all rights, any deal made with Iran is a treaty.

As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist 75:

"The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them."

So, both Obama and the Senate represent us in foreign policy negotiations.

Right now, the P5+1 countries are negotiating with Iran. Congress won't have "a say" until after the negotiators arrive at a deal that appeals to all the parties negotiating.

Your point? I know how it works.

Congress gets a final say on any deal reached between him and Iran. If there is a deal reached between now and June 30, Congress can't move against it or try to stop it. It appears to me that after June 30, Congress has 30 days to review and/or amend the deal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The French have more political sense than Obama. Says it all.

I wouldn't call it political sense. I'd call it common sense.

"Common sense" is what people say when they have strong opinions about something they don't understand.

Yeah, and that describes Obama's negotiations with Iran just perfectly. What he sees as "common sense" is actually destructive foreign policy.

 

[Obiwan]

Have enough Democrats come to their senses to make it a veto-proof vote?

This bill? Yes, which is why Obama is going to sign it.

On the other hand, it's unlikely they'll have enough votes to override the inevitable veto of any rejection of a deal.

Are you taking too many of your meds?

If Congress has to OK any deal, and they don't, there is no deal as far as the U S is concerned.

Obama can't veto anything that Congress doesn't pass!

 

[Siete]

the US has been working on a deal with Iran ever since 43 started his 2nd term. Now a deal looms on the horizon the do nothing but swear on Obama's grave Republicans have a chance to kill it and the decision made by 5 other countries ..

IMO that's scary.

Nuke em all Republicans protecting the world from nukes .. Wow.

 

[Obiwan]

the US has been working on a deal with Iran ever since 43 started his 2nd term. Now a deal looms on the horizon the do nothing but swear on Obama's grave Republicans have a chance to kill it and the decision made by 5 other countries ..

IMO that's scary.

Nuke em all Republicans protecting the world from nukes .. Wow.

Do you want to nuke all the Democrats that say Congress has a say, too? The Committee voted 19-0 that Congress will have a say, and it looks like a veto-proof majority now.

Seems like everybody is starting to think Obozo needs adult supervision.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Have enough Democrats come to their senses to make it a veto-proof vote?

This bill? Yes, which is why Obama is going to sign it.

On the other hand, it's unlikely they'll have enough votes to override the inevitable veto of any rejection of a deal.

Are you taking too many of your meds?

If Congress has to OK any deal, and they don't, there is no deal as far as the U S is concerned.

Obama can't veto anything that Congress doesn't pass!

Congress doesn't have to OK the deal. The negotiations are being done under a treaty the Senate ratified decades ago.

The bill in the OP demands that Congress have the ability to reject the deal, but that rejection can (and will) be vetoed.

Read the article in the OP.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As for ignorance, read the Treaty clause.

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

Now, the The Head Money Cases 112 U.S. 580 (1884) stated that no treaty (while being described elsewhere in the constitution as "the supreme law of the land) trumps an act of congress, and other laws affecting its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate. Obama has no leg to stand on without assistance from the Senate. If such modification or repeal violates international law, so be it. By all rights, any deal made with Iran is a treaty.

As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist 75:

"The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them."

So, both Obama and the Senate represent us in foreign policy negotiations.

No. The President represents us in negotiations, and the Senate gets to approve them - which is exactly what Alexander Hamilton is saying in that quote.

It's irrelevant to this though, since the treaty under which the negotiations are happening was ratified by the Senate decades ago.

 

[Siete]

the US has been working on a deal with Iran ever since 43 started his 2nd term. Now a deal looms on the horizon the do nothing but swear on Obama's grave Republicans have a chance to kill it and the decision made by 5 other countries ..

IMO that's scary.

Nuke em all Republicans protecting the world from nukes .. Wow.

Do you want to nuke all the Democrats that say Congress has a say, too? The Committee voted 19-0 that Congress will have a say, and it looks like a veto-proof majority now.

Seems like everybody is starting to think Obozo needs adult supervision.

what gives you the idea I want to nuke anyone ?

are you nuts?

 

[Obiwan]

Doctor

The veto the article refers to is for the bill giving Congress oversight, and they have the votes to override that veto.

Are you actually so high that you're claiming Obama can reject a rejection?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doctor

The veto the article refers to is for the bill giving Congress oversight, and they have the votes to override that veto.

Are you actually so high that you're claiming Obama can reject a rejection?

Funny you should mention that. I am high, and that is what I'm claiming.

...but I'm still right.

The bipartisan bill is likely to move quickly to the full Senate after the Foreign Relations Committee voted 19 to 0 to approve the measure. It would give Congress at least 30 days to consider an agreement after it was signed, before Obama could waive or suspend any congressionally mandated sanctions against Iran.

During that period, lawmakers could vote their disapproval of the agreement. Any such resolution would have to clear a relatively high bar to become law, requiring 60 votes to pass and 67, or two-thirds of the Senate, to override a presidential veto.

Congress and White House strike deal on Iran legislation - The Washington Post

 

[Siete]

Bipartisan support for the bill had grown in recent weeks to near the 67 votes needed to override any presidential veto. But senators from Obama's Democratic Party did succeed in adding amendments to water down the bill, making it more palatable to the White House.

The bill that passed cut to 30 days from 60 the time in which Congress can review any final nuclear agreement and eliminated the requirement that Obama certify that Iran is not supporting acts of terrorism against the United States.

not too big of a CAVE from the Dems ..

 

[Obiwan]

Doctor

Exactly what treaty are you claiming was ratified decades ago?

I've never heard of us having any kind of treaty with the nutcases currently running Iran.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doctor

Exactly what treaty are you claiming was ratified decades ago?

I've never heard of us having any kind of treaty with the nutcases currently running Iran.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

The President represents us in negotiations, and the Senate gets to approve them

Like I said, the road to any deal goes through the Senate. It was during the Constitutional Convention that it was originally agreed to give treaty power to the Senate only, but then the framers decided to allow that power to both the Senate and President. He is a representative, he doesn't enforce the treaty. The Senate is allowed to change it or repeal it if in fact it is finalized.

As for your WaPo article:

"During that period, lawmakers could vote their disapproval of the agreement. Any such resolution would have to clear a relatively high bar to become law, requiring 60 votes to pass and 67, or two-thirds of the Senate, to override a presidential veto."

Actually, they've already cleared the hurdles. There is major bipartisan support for congressional oversight.

 

[Obiwan]

Doctor

Exactly what treaty are you claiming was ratified decades ago?

I've never heard of us having any kind of treaty with the nutcases currently running Iran.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You must be high..... Iran's current regime never signed the treaty. Check your dates.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's irrelevant to this though, since the treaty under which the negotiations are happening was ratified by the Senate decades ago.

And the the NPT has what to do with this? Just because the Senate ratified the NPT does not negate its power under the Constitution to approve or repeal a finalized deal.

Not happening doc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"During that period, lawmakers could vote their disapproval of the agreement. Any such resolution would have to clear a relatively high bar to become law, requiring 60 votes to pass and 67, or two-thirds of the Senate, to override a presidential veto."

Actually, they've already cleared the hurdles. There is major bipartisan support for congressional oversight.

Oversight, yes. Rejecting a hypothetical deal with Iran? Not so much.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doctor

Exactly what treaty are you claiming was ratified decades ago?

I've never heard of us having any kind of treaty with the nutcases currently running Iran.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You must be high..... Iran's current regime never signed the treaty. Check your dates.

Treaties don't disappear when a "regime" changes. They haven't left the treaty, therefore they're still in it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's irrelevant to this though, since the treaty under which the negotiations are happening was ratified by the Senate decades ago.

And the the NPT has what to do with this? Just because the Senate ratified the NPT does not negate its power under the Constitution to approve or repeal a finalized deal.

Not happening doc.

Why do you think Congress is passing the bill in the OP, if they already had that power?

This isn't a new treaty, it's a new agreement under an old treaty.

 

[Jroc]

i have a feeling in the end the reps will cave. they do that so well.

They already caved, they don't need this stupid bill. They already had the power to vote on this treaty. I was wondering, why a bill to supersede the power they already have? Them I heard on Levin today they screwed themselves. Obama likes this stupid bill and will sign it because it's a win for him, and you people suck it up as if they actually did something useful. All the senate committee did was vote to make it harder for them to block a "bad deal"...Stupid