RUBIO FILES AMENDMENT TO FORCE IRAN TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL

Breitbart ^ | April 24, 2015 | Dan Riehl

[entropy12]

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has already filed seven amendments, some with the backing of Republican colleagues. They include a proposal to require certification that Iran has recognized Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and another to require certification that the Iranian government has released all detained Americans.

Depending on your perspective, the Senate is looking for pass a “foundationally” solid bipartisan Iran bill, in the words of Sen Lindsey Graham, or a watered down nothing burger that really does nothing but allow the Senate to express their disapproval of Obama’s Iran deal, without the teeth to stop it.

[entropy12]

My guess is the Amendments will pass the senate.

[dp0622]

I admire and applaud this effort but um, guys (republican senators) you can help Israel AND help your own country at the same time, like er...securing the borders, not voting for an attorney general who is planning on doing illegal acts and has said so ahead of time, not passing cromnibus bills in the middle of the night, cutting Obama’s access to funds for his amnesty program (that bird has already flown) forcefully stopping the settlement across America of illegals. halting the inflow of unvetted Syrian refugees some of whom will surely end up causing trouble in the US.
Israel is a great and dear ally, and they have shown time and time again they can take care of themselves an they do a great job of securing their borders and even making buffers while ours Is a joke.
sometimes it seems repubs are trying to score easy brownie points with this kind of stuff because they cant get Anything done here.
if I were a gambling man, I'd be betting Israel is around and doing great long after we have become a third world country

[nathanbedford]

“Without this bill, there is nothing stopping the president from bypassing the American people, immediately waiving sanctions imposed by Congress and unilaterally implementing an agreement with Iran,” Corker said. “This legislation ensures the president will submit an agreement to Congress for review and a vote.”

The truth of this quoted statement depends utterly on whether Obama is negotiating a "treaty" or rather a "political agreement." If he negotiating a political agreement the truth of the quotation stands, Obama will simply submit the political agreement to the United Nations, the Security Council will rubberstamp it and Iran will have its way to the bomb paved with treacherous intentions. The Congress of the United States may or may not seek to approve or disapprove of Obama's political agreement but any conclusion it expresses in legislation is liable to be vetoed by Obama himself in defense of his own "political agreement" because it will not be subject to being disturbed by the Congress short of a two thirds vote.

On the other hand, if Obama is negotiating a " treaty" he is bound to bring it before the Senate to seek approval of two thirds of that body which is present. So Senator Corker, a Republican sellout on virtually every issue, has brilliantly crafted a way to reverse the Constitution's requirement of two thirds approval by the Senate for that which the president negotiates at the international level, to two thirds of the Senate required for rejection of that which the president negotiates on the international level. In short, this legislation as it came out of Corker's committee 19 to 0 simply amends the Constitution and severely reduces the power of the United States Senate to participate and concur in international treaties. This becomes even more significant when one understands that the Constitution itself declares that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land and it is questionable whether treaties which restrict even personal liberties, such as the right to bear arms, would be declared unenforceable. Hence, this legislation opens the way not only for ill considered international agreements but agreements with the potential for actual tyranny at home.

Article 6, clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Let us consider an example in which the treaty power is used to restrict the power of states to impose capital punishment. This is a constitutional barrier much more easily negotiated by leftists through the treaty power their attempts to restrict the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment so the possibility of prohibiting capital punishment is obvious. It is the historic habit of the left to broaden the scope of encroachments on the Constitution over time to impose more and more tyranny.

To return to the legislation that has moved out of committee to the floor of the Senate and the House: The author of this piece queries whether senators are trying actually to structure this legislation to require some substantive elements to the agreement (presumably in lieu of "consent") or whether these series of amendments currently being advanced are simply there to permit senators to go to their home districts and tell their Jewish, evangelical and interested constituents that they tried to do the right thing but, alas, those pesky Democrats frustrated them. Later they can return to their same constituents and plead that they simply could not muster the two thirds vote needed to overcome a president's veto. Few among their constituents and almost no one in the establishment media will point out that the Constitution has been stood on its head and tell the people that, where two thirds to approve were required, now two thirds to disapprove will be required.

Mark Levin has offered his view that the power of the Senate to withhold consent to international treaties is not dependent upon mechanical submission by the president of the agreement to that body for approval or disapproval but that body has within itself the inherent power to declare an agreement a "treaty" and vote it up or down as it pleases. In other words it is the Senate and not the president which has the power to put the label on the agreement. So Levin says, when the president produces his disgraceful agreement with Iran the Senate can unilaterally move to disapprove whether or not the president calls it a treaty and whether or not he submits it to the Senate. If one looks at the numbers in the Senate, it appears that Corker has in fact finessed supporters of Israel and finessed those of us who believe that the threat of Iran obtaining the bomb is existential. If any agreement becomes law, the power of the Senate to pin the proper label on the agreement will certainly have been lost.

We now see Marco Rubio once again in the camp of the establishment Republicans, a place where he loitered before on the issue of amnesty, and one wonders whether his substantive amendments are there for any reason except camouflage? His vote, along with all Republicans, on passage of the legislation should be watched very carefully.

In the context of the whole foregoing, one rereads Corker's words quoted above and is forced to the conclusion that he is lying and that he is stating precisely the opposite of the truth: his bill will ensure that the treaty never comes under constitutional scrutiny by the Senate and in fact ensures that the president will have his way. In fact there is a way to stop Obama from "unilaterally implementing an agreement with Iran." Why should Corker and all of the prima donnas in the United States Senate accept Obama's version of the labeling games? Watch how the Republican establishment votes down amendment after amendment.

[okie01]

So Senator Corker, a Republican sellout on virtually every issue, has brilliantly crafted a way to reverse the Constitution's requirement of two thirds approval by the Senate for that which the president negotiates at the international level, to two thirds of the Senate required for rejection of that which the president negotiates on the international level.

Only two conclusions are possible with regard to Corker's legislation: Either Corker is hard rock stupid or he is a duplicitous SOB. The same would go for every Republican member of his Foreign Relations committee, based on the unanimous vote.

Whether bought off or operating out of fear for the media, why oh why would they actually vote to diminish their own power?

[dp0622]

yeah, how in the h.ll did we end up needing 2/3 to REJECT the bill? what a bunch of worthless pieces of garbage this republican bunch is, minus Cruz and maybe a few others.

Yea, the idea that we would agree to any terms with a country that calls for the destruction of Israel is absurd,
but more absurd is that this agreement is being entertained at all!!

This TWO CENT muslim dictatorship whose nuclear facilities we could destroy in two weeks and set back five yeas if we had the courage (and do it again in five years and repeat as necessary), is making us look like fools. They destroy a mock aircraft carrier, (the real deal would be a little more difficult) their leader chants death to America, we had the chance to help the young pro western advocates put severe pressure on this ridiculous regime four years ago and did nothing, China intends to build five new reactors in iran, Russia is sending SAMs...this is a JOKE and our president is a clown, the head clown, the rest of the cast are the republicans.

[dp0622]

and yes I have insomnia tonight and I apologize for rambling and ranting lol. gonna drink some warm milk and take two Advil pm

[nathanbedford]

That's okay, I am recovering from hip replacement surgery and cruising on ibuprofen 800.

[knarf]

You can't legislate morality ... only IMmorality

I've written my congresscritter to file an ammendment to force my neighbor to stop ignoring me and say HI, when I say HI to HIM

But my neighbor CAN file a PFA against ME because I insist on saying HI to him.

See how it works ? !

[DH]

“We now see Marco Rubio once again in the camp of the establishment Republicans...”

Thanks for a very good article.

The establishment RINOs are craving Rubio to be their champion since he appeals to the millennial generation who are totally naive to the “real world” and embrace entertainment over freedom.

Kennedy was voted into office by those who swooned over his looks and his “Cinderella” wife. The most important thing to the “young democrats” organization in my school at that time was how Kennedy and wife looked...not his message.

Now we have this Republican that looks like a young boy and the movie crowd is “twitterpated” about him. When these ignorant voters go to the polls it will be a beauty contest...not a loyalty test of the Constitutional rights we are quickly losing.

We only have one of two real choices to save what is left of our freedoms and liberties: Cruz or Walker.

[Hattie]

This is humor, right?

[JimRed]

If Iran did so, it would only be taqiyya.

[ClergiesDoing]

Let’s hope so. It would be interesting to see Iran’s response.

[Din Maker]

Rubio is doing everything right (politically) since he “announced”. Guess that’s why FOX News has him at the top of the heap in the latest polls this morning. Ted Cruz in in 4th or 5th place at 6%. But, I’ve gotta believe that my man Ted is “flying under the radar” and will surprise a lot of folks at the right time.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Fox news is part of The Ministry of Propaganda and they will push only amnesty candidates.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Corker is a lying weasel progressive Democrat in an R jersey. TN has two of them. AZ has two of them.
There are only a handful of conservatives in the Senate, most of the Republicans are really Democrats in R jerseys.

Rubio is one as well. He proved that when he schemed with Schumer against the citizens with his Gang.

[Lurkinanloomin]

It’s all Kabuki theatre to fool the gullible. Corker has paved the way for Emperor Sans-culotte to sell us out.
Just like Rubio did with his Gang.

Democrats in R jerseys.

[entropy12]

I report, you decide!

[entropy12]

All good, except I am just glad to see Holder gone. I can’t stand the sight of him.

[dp0622]

yeah I hate his face lol. just don’t hope I grow to hate her face too! I’m sure holder will cause trouble somewhere else.

[entropy12]

Holder is waiting in the wings to be nominated for SCOTUS. That old lady justice with history of cancer could depart before Obama leaves office (which is not guaranteed!).