Posted on 08/28/2015 6:16:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I asked this question to Senator Cruz last week when he was in my town for a stump speech and fundraiser. The answer was as disappointing as it was swift: No. There are not enough Democrats willing to put love of country ahead of partisan politics.
Donald Trump has not helped. He is sucking up all the media attention, and Iran is not important to him. In Trumps stump speeches, Iran is just one in a list of deals he could have done better. In the crucial few weeks leading up to the Iran vote, the Donald is helping to lull the public into complacency on Iran. This is very damaging to America and Israel, despite all of Trump’s professions of love.
Obama will get his veto-proof vote. He will be allowed to capitulate to Iran, with $120 billion thrown in for them to splurge on terror to their heart’s content. We will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and purchase ICBM missiles that can reach America. We will give birth to a Shi’ite-Sunni nuclear arms race. We will sow this whirlwind and live with the consequence for years. Because Democrats in Congress will give Obama their votes.
I understand Obama very well – he is a leftist hater who wants America (and Israel) punished and whittled down to size. But almost half our nation are Democrats. Not every Democrat in Congress is as radical as Obama. Few of them share his personal history and characterological problems. Why aren’t they standing up to him?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How is it that the Senate has allowed this reversal of the Constitution? Treaties are to be approved by the Senate, not voted against, allowing passage by non-action.
Call Mitch McConnell and ask him how, and why, he willingly conceded the Senate’s authority and Constitutional duty to Obama and the Executive Branch.
This treaty can only advance because of what McConnell and the Senate GOP-e did.
Now it’s up to Israel.
Bad timing on this piece. Cruz and Trump are already planning something big in DC to protest the Iran deal.
Can I ask a stupid question?, Since they structured this as a deal or arrangement , not as an official treaty which would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate, can the next president simply disregard it????
Cruz and the rest voted for the Corker bill that made Obama’s Iran deal possible :
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/forget_obamarepublicans_made_the_iran_nukes_deal_possible.html
Now some are posturing like they are against the Iran deal and obama trade. so they voted for it before they voted against it. typical politician trick vote for it in cloture or in an empowering bill and then vote and rant against it later so both pass and the masses still believe them
The Iran deal and this Obama trade are arguably the 2 worst bills ever
Obama only needs 34 votes. If it even comes to a vote because now it looks like he may get it filibustered. If he does it’s deemed approved in 60 days.
Corker didn’t even think to insist on an up-or-down vote in his bill.
The Republican Party that engineered this outcome does not deserve to continue in existence. Go Trump!
All the U.S senators already gave up their power to Obama on the Iran deal by all of them voting for the Corker bill .now it only needs 51 votes and the Senate is neutered with other restrictions on the Senate:
Exactly . they All voted for the Corker bill which made the Iran deal unstoppable and now they are acting like they are against it, typical politicians .
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/forget_obamarepublicans_made_the_iran_nukes_deal_possible.html
Well all the senators voted for the corker bill except cotton.
Trump is the only one that can save America
but in doing this crazy political manuvering in how this is being voted on, does this mean that this “deal” or “arrangement” with Iran is not officially a “treaty”?? Legally speaking? I would question that from Day 1 of a Republican presidential administration, as far as whether it’s legally binding or not.
Is is really legal for the Senate to do parliamentary shenanigans to get around the constitutional requirement of a 2/3 approval vote for a treaty???
And if not, then this “deal” with Iran is not really a treaty, the way it appears to me. It’s an “understanding” between Obama and the mullahs of Iran, an understand which the next president may not have.
Does anyone else agree with me that this whole thing is questionable on the face of it???
This writer is showing her ignorance. Trump and Cruz are combining to hold a rally in opposition to the Iran deal in Washington on September 9. What other candidate, or politician of any sort, is doing that much to draw attention to a deal that should not be accepted by Congress?
Well, let’s see.
Conservatives are against the Iran deal.
Let’s look at the history of things that conservatives are against which have been stopped.
No, it can’t be stopped.
....and Slim just left town.
I have to hand it to Obama, he really is a constitutional scholar and political genius as much as I hate to admit it.
He’s continued to run circles around the GOPee for years. The way I understand the order of events surrounding this whole Iran deal - Obama wanted an “agreement” with Iran but NOT in the form of a treaty. Therefore no 2/3 Senate approval required. Congress still wanted a voice in the deal and hence the Corker bill was passed. If I didn’t know better, this was planned by Obama from the start and executed with perfection. Everybody was fooled!! Now the world will suffer...
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.