Posted on 09/09/2015 2:30:16 PM PDT by AJFavish
In Senator Ted Cruz’s excellent Senate floor speech against President Obama’s catastrophic Iran deal, he urged Republican leadership – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) – to reject the claim that Congress must vote on the deal in the next few days. He is absolutely right. By the unambiguous terms of the Corker law, the period for congressional review of the Iran deal has never begun because Obama has failed to provide the entirety of it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
>> But right now the Corker law can be used against Obama <<
Dream on. As far as I can tell, the precedents are well established and could not be clearer to the effect that the courts won’t get involved in such a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.
Evidently Cruz if he voted for a bill that would cut in half the number of Senators that would have to approve of the Iran deal for it to be accepted by the Senate.
I didn’t say anything about the courts.
...and people talked trash about Cruz because he did this...
Guess that makes people look stupid when they don’t stand 100% behind their candidate...
Cruz knows what he is doing...
Trump/Cruz 2016!!! All the way to the White House!!!
This is a President and Congress who regularly violate the "RULE OF LAW", by which this Nation is governed.
They make up the rules as they go along : The King and the Fosilized Politicians.
By virtue of the Corker Law the 'Iran Agreement' is 'null and void', and no legislator has yet seen all the side-agreements even yet .
How can any legislator vote on a bill when they acknowledge that they haven't seen the complete agreement.
Here in Michigan we have had the Iran economic sanctions act in place since 2013. Any Michigan company that wants to do business with Iran is going to pay major fines and lose any contracts they may have with the state.
Something else that Ted Cruz mentioned today that I hadn’t thought about are the pending lawsuits against Iran. That 100 billion in frozen funds is what those victims seek in damages and the banks could end up assuming liability if they release the funds to Iran.
No, that’s not “evident” at all. Just the opposite. Cruz went on record to say the agreement was a sham— that the lawless administration, the Dems and the Pubs were intent on approving the Iran deal no matter what.
If you want a cite, I can get it for you— but I’m sure you know that’s what Cruz said.
VinL, you can say what ever you want. You can back it up with Cruz comments too if you like.
None of that changes the fact he voted to reduce the Senate’s required 2/3rd approval, to one of only 1/3 being required for approval.
The vote itself is problematic for me, and the spin on it only makes it worse.
There isn’t 1 chance out of a gazillion that I would vote to lower the requirements for the deal to be approved.
I would do everything in my power to object to anything that gave the Left a glimmer of hope on this.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, and Russia promising to provede state of the art delivery systems should tell us exactly what is on the line here.
What if Iran gets ICBMs?
What is Cruz’s spin going to be then?
“>> But right now the Corker law can be used against Obama <<
Dream on. As far as I can tell, the precedents are well established and could not be clearer to the effect that the courts won’t get involved in such a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.”
You know, sometimes strong leaders stand up for things they know might fail because they have something called principles. Go Ted.
Makes sense. The way Obama is progressing, all you would ever need is 1/3 legislative approval to get any treaty through. Been a long time since I have checked, but i am pretty sure that is not the way it was intended,
Unfortunately, Obama will simply ignore the law and McConnell will acquiesce.
This has been going on since TEFRA in '82 - the democrats (and now republicans join them) make what seems to be reasonable promises to give and take, they end up taking and give nothing.
We must stop dealing with these people as if they are honorable. They are anything but.
I am not implying that Cruz’s vote for the Corker law was the right thing to do. I think it was the wrong thing to do.
I appreciate your response. I apologize for leaving the impression you thought it was the right thing to do.
I’ve always thought highly of you and wouldn’t intentionally mischaracterize your beliefs.
Hope all is well with you.
I don't think anyone really believes he intended to diminish Congresses Constitutionally mandated role and help Obama put the world at risk.
There isn’t 1 chance out of a gazillion that I would vote to lower the requirements for the deal to be approved.
I would do everything in my power to object to anything that gave the Left a glimmer of hope on this.
**************
First, I’m not “spinning” anything. I just replied to your initial post.
Now, you veer off and wish to discuss the agreement proper. That’s fine. So, let’s put you in Cruz’s seat, you’re now the junior senator from Texas.
Tell me what you would have done relative to the iran deal, the agreement and how you would have stopped anything that would have given “the Left a glimmer of hope.”
Perhaps you’re right- sincerely- please tell me what you would have done as a Senator in Cruz’s place? Thanks.
This legislation actually took power back from the president, and without it, he could have unilaterally implemented the deal immediately. The president never would have been forced to submit the agreement to Congress and there would have been no review and no debate on this critical national security issue.
The above is a paragraph from a letter sent by Sen Corker
on Sept 5 2015. If there was no Corker bill, Obama would have released the funds in July.
I would have voted against lowering the requirement of 2/3rds senate approval to 1/3rd.
It doesn’t mean Ted or I would prevail, but I’ll be damned if when Iran starts raining nukes down on others, I would have to admit I voted to make it easier for them to do it.
I would have avoided that like the plague.
Ok— Cruz voted against cloture, he tried to amend the agreement (but was blocked by McConnell), voted for the agreement and then tried to void it as a nullity when Obama didn’t comply with deadlines (blocked by GOP).
You, instead, would have voted against it— so the agreement passes 98-2.
Now, what?
You indicated you’d to do everything in your power to stop the deal— so what’s your next move?
Surely, because the proposed deal wasn’t presented until after July 15, 2015; the law must be read as intending to say July 15, 2016.
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.