Posted on 03/11/2015 7:39:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) argued that unless a nuclear weapons deal with Iran gets the approval of Congress, the next president shouldn't be bound by that deal.
His statement, sent out to reporters on Tuesday evening, comes as Senate Republicans face strong blowback for sending a letter to Iran's leaders to try and undermine the Obama administration's negotiations with the country on a nuclear weapons deal.
TPM reached out to Walker's political organization, Our American Revival, asking for the governor's stance on the letter.
"Republicans need to ensure that any deal President Obama reaches with Iran receives congressional review," Walker said in the statement. "Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound [by] it. I will continue to express that concern publicly to the President and directly to the American people."
But the statement doesn't say, as TPM asked, if Walker supports the move by the Senate Republicans to send the letter or feels that it was out of bounds. Some Republicans, like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) have expressed support for the Republicans who signed the letter.
Others, like Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) said the letter was not "constructive." Corker just happens to be the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who, like Walker, has shown strong interest in running for president in 2016, also released a statement, saying only that the 47 senators "are reacting to reports of a bad deal that will likely enable Iran to become a nuclear state. They would not have been put in this position had the Administration consulted regularly with them rather than ignoring their input."
It's unclear from that statement as well if Bush thought it was a good idea to send the letter.
That gives her an advantage, Republican National Committee Communications Director Sean Spicer told National Journal.
"The scale is titled in her direction," he said. He blames that on journalists, whom he said don't ask the same "reaction" questions of Democrats. Calling the dynamic a "double standard," he rejects the explanation that the notoriously tight-lipped Clinton camp almost never talks to reporters.......
....Walker has attempted a more brusque approach. When asked last month to weigh in on Giuliani's charge that Obama doesn't love America, he tried to steer clear of the flap, telling the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "I don't really know what his opinions are on that one way or another." But that backfired, and his ambiguity became its own story. Along with Christie and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Walker did not respond to requests for comment on this story, and both Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's teams declined to comment.".....
Jeb Bush, Scott Walker weigh in on GOP senators’ letter to Iran".........The letter sent Monday added fuel to an already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran's nuclear program. The White House accused Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, while Vice President Biden, who is a former senator and the constitutional head of the body, blasted the letter as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
A day after its release, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker expressed support for the message.
"The Senators are reacting to reports of a bad deal that will likely enable Iran to become a nuclear state over time," Bush said in a statement. "They would not have been put in this position had the Administration consulted regularly with them rather than ignoring their input."
Walker said in a statement that "Republicans need to ensure that any deal President Obama reaches with Iran receives congressional review. Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound by it. I will continue to express that concern publicly to the President and directly to the American people."..............
Makes sense to me.
Not sure what he means, either they are or are not legally bound by it.
There is international law and their is the US constitution.
If the ‘deal’ isn’t confirmed as a treaty by the US Senate, it IS NOT a ‘deal’....let alone a treaty.
Screw Obama, throw out all his executive orders and actions like yesterday’s trash they are.
It IS a “deal” if Obama acts according to the agreement even if the Senate doesn’t ratify it.
He can only ‘act’ until January 21, 2017
Advice and Consent is what the Consitution says. Then a 2/3 vote of the entire sentate to ratify any treaty.
That is the Law of the Land...It was around 200 years before Obama, I am not sure how much longer it will be honored since we have entered the lawless zone.
Freegards
LEX
The EXEMPT 112th supported the unvetted,
undocumented cryptoMoslem
.... and gave America ObamaCARE, taxes for non-Moslems,
and open borders.
The EXEMPT 113th supported the unvetted,
undocumented cryptoMoslem, proterrorist
.... and gave America EV-D68, incurable diseases
by Quartering, and gouts of criminal illegals.
The EXEMPT 114th supported the proven proterrorist,
proMullah Moslem at the White Mosque
.... and showed America craven cowardice
behind their odious pack of lies.
He’s simply stating fact, any thing done via executive order could be overturned via executive order because its not law
It’s not that he “shouldn’t” be bound ... he is ABSOLUTELY NOT BOUND ... and not bound “by law”!
The fact they are calling it the ‘Nuclear Weapons Deal’ tells you all you need to know.
No Deal, Obama’s an idiot.
I actually like Jeb’s more polished answer much better than Walker’s. Jeb presumes we already know that it is unconstitutional for a prez to make treaties by fiat.
Here Walker sounds like it’s someone’s idea (his)that the next prez “’should not’ be bound by that deal”.
Should not?? More like it “can not” be bound. It is ALREADY explicit loud and clear, in the Constitution.
I know that’s parsing a bit, but Walker needs to support these Republicans because they are not working from political BS, but making their entire theme to emphatically center on the Constitution, for once.
I think that point should STAY front and center.
TPM is basic moonbattery.
Walker make his statement, albeit not a perfect one, and TPM is complaining that he didn’t fall for their trick question of should the Republicans have sent it in the first place.
I like what Walker is doing here. One, he is challenging the
penchant of Obama to use unilateral executive authority. Two, he is saying congress has to be part of the deal, whatever legality that involves or does not involve.
Combine the responses by Bush and Walker, and you end up with a pretty good statement.
"Fundamental Transformation" can work both ways.
He’s a bit late to this fight and his wording needs work.
what does he mean by ‘shouldnt’ ?
It also sounds like Walker is unaware that treaties require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate, not majority vote of Congress. The House has no role at all in foreign affairs other than declarations of war and the power of the purse.
These people are hopeless, CW. Of course Walker argued for that. It's what the US Constitution says. It's such a dumb opening line. It should have read: Walker argues in favor of Constitutional Treaty Process.
And then they try to make it sound like Corker is some stellar, knowledgeable person "Corker...Senate Foreign Relations Committee..."
Well, NIMRODS, if Senators aren't supposed to be involved in foreign relations, then WHY THE HECK do they have a FOREIGN RELATIONS Committee?!!
CW, these people are stupid, and the stupidity drags us all down. I always feel like for some reason I'm explain 1+1 to a college student. (What! You don't know this! How the heck did you get into college!)
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.