Posted on 05/14/2015 4:09:49 AM PDT by Dave346
On Thursday, the House will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. First votes expected: 2:30-3:30 p.m. Last votes expected: 6:00-7:00 p.m.
One Minute Speeches
Legislation Considered Under Suspension of the Rules:
1) H.R. 1191 – Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Sponsored by Rep. Lou Barletta / Foreign Affairs Committee)
2) H.R. 2297 – Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015 (Sponsored by Rep. Ed Royce / Foreign Affairs Committee)
Continue Consideration of H.R. 1735 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Rules Committee Print (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry / Armed Services Committee)
The Rule provides for no further general debate, makes in order the following amendments, and allows for the Chairman to offer amendments en bloc:
A full list of the 135 amendments made in order can be found HERE
Special Order Speeches
The Hezbollah Sanctions bill was passed by the House unanimously last July but died in the Senate (obviously due to the blocking tactics of Harry Reid).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4411
The prior House also passed an Iran Sanctions bill in 2013 (400-20 vote) which was also blocked from a vote in the Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/850
Is there any reason to believe that a vote on this Iran bill in any way negates the Senate’s power to advise and consent on treaties?
The best result would be for it to fail in the House, or to be amending in such a way that it won't be acceptable in the Senate (nor to the regime).
And they’re voting on the Pure Symbolism Act later this month.
Is there a part of the bill that says it rescinds the constitutional provision that the Senate must consent to all treaties?
First, I can’t imagine that such a thing would be remotely legal.
Second, what PREVENTS the Senate Rupublican leadership from simply affirming their power to consent?
First, I can’t imagine that such a thing would be remotely legal.
Not to my knowledge (I have not read the complete text), and yes, the Congress can not unilaterally change the Constitution to rescind or remove that clause (nor any other!).
From what I understand, this bill purports to functionally replace the Treaty Provision. The regime and the Senate have essentially agreed to not treat the Iran 'deal' as a Treaty. Instead, they have fabricated this legislation to serve as the review process for the Iran 'deal.'
Andy McCarthy has been writing some good columns on this topic, here is an excerpt from The Corker Bill Is Worse Than Nothing:
"As I argued in a column this weekend, the Corker bill undermines the Treaty Clause. The latter puts the onus on Obama to find 67 votes to approve his deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on opponents to find 67 votes to disapprove the deal. The supermajority approval requirement for treaties is in the Constitution because we should not be making lasting agreements with other countries, even allies, unless there is a strong consensus that the arrangement is in the national interest. Corker’s bill turns that presumption on its head, requiring supermajority disapproval for an arrangement with an enemy regime that is plainly not in the national interest."
Second, what PREVENTS the Senate Rupublican leadership from simply affirming their power to consent?
Nothing PREVENTS them from doing just that, other than the lack of desire to do just that.
Another good column by McCarthy on this Corker bill is: The Corker Bill Will Not Block Obama’s Iran Deal
Supporters would argue the bill doesn’t change the Constitution - it merely says that any “deal” reached between Zero and Iran the Senate will have an opportunity to pass a “resolution of disapproval” which Zero can veto, then Congress can attempt to override the veto.
Functionally it does though because any such “deal” of the likes of what is being bargained (to relieve Iran of over $100 billion in sanctions) would clearly qualify as a treaty.
The leadership has already decided that both the Iran bill and the Hezbollah sanctions bill will be brought up today under SUSPENDED RULES. Which means no amendments allowed but they need a 2/3rds super-majority to pass.
In a sense the Hezbollah bill is a way to sanction Iran indirectly, as Hezbollah is funded and controlled by Iran.
It shows how far the Senate Democrats in the last Congress went to protect Iran and Zero’s appeasement that they wouldn’t allow even that bill to pass.
However it also demonstrates how weak the GOP approach is that they’ve controlled both houses for over 4 months now and are just now resubmitting the bill for a vote in the House. And it remains unclear whether the Hezbollah bill will be quickly be taken up by the Senate, or if the GOP leadership is going to give Iran a further grace period (for example until June 30) in deference to Zero’s endless talks with Iran before taking it up.
So, nothing prevents the Senate from getting some courage and saying they’ll treat this as a treaty even after the bill is voted on.
Yes, they could, but the problem is the Democrats can filibuster anything in the Senate.
The Senate also voted on this very issue in an amendment 2 weeks ago and only 39 Republicans and 0 Democrats votes that any final deal would be a treaty.
A strong argument in my view could be made that any deal Zero makes with Iran lifting sanctions that he refuses to submit to Congress as a treaty would Constitute an impeachable offense, but clearly the GOP doesn’t have the spine to impeach Zero for anything.
The House debated the Iran bill for 60 minutes and the Hezbollah bill for 40 minutes and has now moved on to the NDAA bill.
No votes have been taken yet.
https://twitter.com/RepCloakroom
House now taking 3 votes:
Adoption of H.Res. 260 - Rule providing for the further consideration of H.R. 1735 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 – 15 minute vote
H.R. 1191 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 – Suspension – 5 minute vote
H.R. 2297 Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act of 2015– Suspension – 5 minute vote
The House is going to allow 135 amendments to the NDAA bill but 0 amendments to the Iran bill!
NDAA rule has passed but the vote is still open.
Iran bill vote now under way.
Iran bill passes 400-25.
19 of the 25 Nays came from Republican side.
Hezbollah bill passes 423-0.
It doesn’t matter if a treaty is filibustered. It isn’t valid until 2/3rd of the Senate approves it.
The Senate simply needs to announce it is treating it as a treaty. That Obama initiative would then be non-binding on the USA unless it received 2/3rd majority in the Senate.
Any little deal Obama makes would only be an issue as long as Obama is president. It would never be binding on the USA until 2/3rd of the Senate approved it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.