Posted on 03/12/2015 7:40:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The latest move in the nuclear negotiations with Iran could be to take them to the United Nations. And that will trigger a Republican hatefest for the ages.
The Obama administration hinted Thursday that it may take elements of an Iranian nuclear deal to the United Nations -- while bypassing Congress for now. And that possibility has turned an already ugly political fight over the negotiations even nastier.
In one scenario floated this week, the White House would not immediately put aspects of an Iran deal up for a vote in Congress. Instead, the Obama administration would take aspects of the agreement to the United Nations Security Council -- making the U.N. the target of a Congressional hatefest.
"The United Nations has no authority whatsoever to bind the United States of America," Republican Sen. Ted Cruz told The Daily Beast, who argued that only treaties and Congressionally-passed laws could do that. "If President Obama attempts to end-run the Constitution by enlisting the United Nations to enforce an Iran deal that sets the stage for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it would be both profoundly dangerous to the national security of the United States and our allies, and also patently unconstitutional."
No deal has yet been reached with Iran. But there were hints that a United Nations process was underway Thursday. Reuters reported that the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were already negotiating a resolution that would ease U.N. sanctions if a nuclear agreement was reached with Iran.
"If there's a nuclear deal, and that's still a big 'if', we'll want to move quickly on the U.N. sanctions issue," an official told the wire service.
The existing framework of sanctions against Iran is multifaceted: there are sanctions imposed by the United Nations, by Congress, and through executive actions. While the U.N. could not repeal American domestic sanctions, it could lift existing U.N. sanctions and the White House could use its executive authorities to ease American sanctions.
The State Department insisted that Congress would have a role. But it stopped short of saying when Congress would be asked to weigh in -- and because a long-term deal is being negotiated, it could be "a considerable amount of time," perhaps long after the Obama presidency has ended, when Congress would be asked to vote on easing sanctions.
"It is wrong that Congress will not have a vote. Indeed, Congress will have to vote to lift sanctions at some point during the duration of the deal… once Iran has established confidence with its commitments for a considerable period of time, Congress would be asked to lift sanctions with the benefit of having assessed Iranian compliance with the deal," National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said Thursday.
But if an agreement between the United States and Iran became the basis for a U.N. Security Council resolution featuring sanctions relief, as suggested by former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith, it could immediately impose legally binding obligations under international law -- without the need for Congressional approval in the near-term.
"We have no intention of converting U.S. political commitments under a deal with Iran into legally binding obligations through a U.N. Security Council resolution," the National Security Council's Meehan said. "[A]ny such resolution would not change the nature of our commitments under [a nuclear deal with Iran], which would be wholly contained in the text of that deal."
Congressional Republicans -- even those that didn’t sign the instantly-infamous letter to Iran about the nuclear deal -- were quick to sound the alarm on a pact they say would in effect bypass Congress.
"I just sent a letter to the president requesting that he respond to whether they are in fact attempting to do that," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Republican, told The Daily Beast Thursday. "It's contrary to what we're attempting to do in Congress, having [our] appropriate role. To me, that's a direct affront to the American people and to Congress, and I would hope that's not the route they're planning to take."
If the White House were to pursue this course, questions about sovereignty could bubble up to dominate the American political conversation.
"The domestic backlash would be so epic you'd need to dig up Homer just to get someone capable of writing about it," said Omri Ceren, the media director of the pro-Israel group The Israel Project.
Added GOP Sen. Mark Kirk, "For the United States, the ultimate legitimacy of any international agreement depends on the Constitution, U.S. laws, and our nation’s elected lawmakers, not on unelected foreign bureaucrats.”
But John Bellinger, a former State Department legal advisor during the Bush administration, said he could imagine the Obama administration supporting a U.N. Security Council action "that would lift existing United Nations sanctions (previously imposed by the UNSC) while having no effect on U.S. sanctions."
If this scenario pans out, Republicans can be expected to raise hell, framing the issue as the White House requesting a U.N. vote before Congress has had a chance to weigh in. But not everyone believes that Congress has the necessity to immediately weigh in.
"Congress may be required to act in some specific cases, and it is certainly nice to have its support, but this is an entirely fictitious role for Congress that any president of either party would rightly laugh at," said Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.
"Congress is inventing a role for itself that it does not have,” he added. “This isn't an end-run, so much as a bunch of people with extremist views on sovereignty being confronted with the fact that their views are extreme."
How utterly impeachable. This seems to be the real big one— the real shot across the bow.
There’s nobody that can force USA to follow any UN resolution anyway.
Its all BS.
But, we remain in DDD until such time as Speaker Boehner stops blocking articles of impeachment.
Come on Mr. Boehner, do your d*** job already!
The entire country is suffering greatly.. why you block the obvious remedy ... impeach already!
Yup, all the campaign promises BS last year, then after they take the oath of office, same as usual.
They , Congress would stop Obama’s abuse of power by repealing Obama care, stop amnesity, cut spending.
All BS.
Their yelling now about Obama going to the UN to get a treaty made with Iran is : Plausible Deniability, now they can come back to us and say “ see ? You can’t blame us, we tried, but our hands are tied, so sorry, better luck next time “ ..
Be rest assured - when God has had enough He will dispose of the pr!ck.
If you like your Iranian nuke deal, you can be blown up by your Iranian nuke deal.!
The Russians have all the luck.
Romney would have done this. Right?
well if it will take time to accomplish or process (no doubt it will), Congress had better get started right away!
there’s no more time to lose anyway.... he’s risking nuclear attacks on American cities
I'd say things are definitely looking bad and if so then maybe Our Lord will want to take him out personally.
I know I'd want to if I were Him.
He has now tied Wilson as the worst President ever.
if Lord wants to rapture him back to the dark side of Uranus, it will be FINE with me
meanwhile, we still need to deal with things down here as best we can, 2 Thessolonians
Boehner needs to stop blocking Articles of Impeachment!!!!!
Deuteronomy 28:37 And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples
If the deal ends up being signed at the UN then, at that moment the U.S. signers should be promptly arrested for treason.
"Congress may be required to act in some specific cases, and it is certainly nice to have its support, but this is an entirely fictitious role for Congress that any president of either party would rightly laugh at," said Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.Yeah, who cares about that centuries-old Constitution?"Congress is inventing a role for itself that it does not have,” he added. “This isn't an end-run, so much as a bunch of people with extremist views on sovereignty being confronted with the fact that their views are extreme."
It was written by entitled slave owners - it has no bearing in today's modern world.
Article 2, Section 2, U.S. Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
agreed! and their bosses who had them sign
(Oba....)
That would be me...
Ok, can we cuff the bastard now?
These are guys, thousands of miles away from Iran, but invested in their economy, wondering whether Netenyahu will crater numerous areas of the country, as he promised at his speech before Congress.
Whistling past the graveyard, to mention a FReeper.
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.