Posted on 05/08/2015 8:26:49 AM PDT by Jack Black
As many of you know, I'm a big fan of Ted Cruz, but when he does something wrong, it's important to call him on it. In this case he, along with Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, voted for a bill that will effectively allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran.
Normally, here's how treaties work: the President negotiates a treaty with another country, like the deal he is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons development. Once the treaty is negotiated, it's submitted to the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate has to vote to approve, or ratify, the treaty. If two thirds do not support it, it is not binding.
But the bill the Congress sent to the President turns things on its head. It will allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran, and unless Congress objects with a 2/3 vote within 30 days, the President's actions are allowed to stand. See the reversal? Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting. And be assured the Democrats will never let the Republicans get that many votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Is it your impression that most libertarians are non-religious? That's an interesting concept, I've never really thought about it.
Made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
Hard to over-ride that which has been dead for over a century.
National Parks - offed the 9th/10th
16th Amendment - killed the 5th and 13th
‘Gun control’....buh bye 2nd
EPA/Property taxes - ownership out the door
‘Bout the only thing still adhered is quartering (and I thought that’d be knocked-off during the Boston marathon hunt)
Home of the Free, my @ss
WEll I read Ted’s reasoning on his vote and I guess its valid given that we are all living in crazytown now. One guy cannot save the country. He’s doing the best he can. I just want a few of these guys in the House and Senate when we have to pull the 1776 trigger.
Resources of grace are available today that weren’t then. It’s our fault if we fail to lay hold of them in the proper season.
Very relevant verse.
... because the people will be trusting in said king. They wanted God to be in second place and God says nothing doing to asking him to support such idols.
Pretty sure the Constitutional requirements are still in place.. This bill would let the Senate “ratify” the treaty, but it’s still not actually ratified, unless they get the 2/3 approval.The bad deal with Iran that Obama proposes is not a treaty requiring 2/3 majority of the Senate for approval. This recent legislation turns the 2/3 approval requirement upside down and in effect it will require 2/3 majority of Congress to prevent Obama from proceeding with the bad deal.
During debate on the bill in the U.S. Senate, Senator Cruz offered an Amendment to prevent the Senate from neutering itself, turning the Constitution upside down and abandoning the Senate's authority to approve a deal requiring 2/3 majority, but it was not accepted. Cruz voted against ending debate on the Senate bill (Nay on cloture) but that side did not prevail.
Cruz correctly pointed out in his speech on the Senate floor during debate that Obama's deal with Iran does not have the weight of a treaty under authority of the Constitution. The next President can rescind it completely without the approval of Congress.
In the final vote for the bill, Sen. Cruz and others who strongly oppose the Iran deal recognize that some oversight in Obama's treachery and a means to slow down the process is preferable to allowing Obama to proceed unabated. The title of this article completely misrepresents Sen. Cruz's future intentions and position on the Iran deal. This fight is NOT over.
Marcella, thank you for the very clear, succinct, concise explanation! ;-)
That changes the whole ball game and what I was thinking about Ted Cruz after admiring him so much. You have restored my admiration of him.
SUPPOSEDLY the Constitution gives the Senate the right to nix it just by not giving it the nod.
But our slavery is such that we are unlikely to rise up and complain about such a Constitutional breach. So the next best thing is to engineer a way to keep it in the public eye between its winks of sleep.
” Cruz made his case on cloture and voted the correct way.”
11 words 4 dozen FReepers can’t be bothered with.
Sheesh.
If you think Cruz doesn’t know that ...
Good work, gang!! How are you going to like running a country composed of dead bodies and nuclear waste? Sounds just freaking dandy, doesn’t it?
I’m sure he does...
Thank you.
I stole this from the other thread, as the “cerebrally-challenged” need to read this....
1. Ted voted NO on cloture. As long as cloture had not passed, the bill would have never been brought to the floor for a vote. Therefore, Ted did not want this bill to brought to the floor without an important amendment to it that he wanted to introduce but was not allowed to introduce because McConnell cut him off. That amendment would have changed the character of the Bill by requiring ‘affirmative approval’ of the Bill. But most Senators will not APPROVE but will gladly DISAPPROVE so that they can be safe from the wrath of their constituents.
So in the mind of a US Senator, the simple view is:
Ted’s Bill Version: APPROVE BILL <— BAD
McConnell’s Bill Version: DISAPPROVE BILL <— GOOD
2. McConnell allowed the bill to offer Senators a chance to disapprove OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL. Why is this bad? Because Obama can veto a bill that sends a disapproval OF HIS PLALN, The veto would require 2/3’s of Congress to vote to override his veto. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Then, because Congress cannot pass a bill to disapprove HIS DEAL, Obama gives himself license to go forward with his deal. This is why Obama supported McConnell’s version of the bill. It was actually Corker’s bill but Corker is McConnell’s toadie.
3. Ted’s version of the Bill would require the Senate to affirmatively approve the deal. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Why is this NOT GOING TO HAPPEN version good? Because it means that the Senate would never approve the deal and the Constitution requires 2/3’s of the Senate to approve a Treaty. So Ted’s version was designed to kill Obama’s deal.
14 posted on 5/8/2015, 9:50:00 AM by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
THIS, plus Ted Cruz is a strategist, while others play tactical fire and maneuver and get their pretty pink panties in a wad.
Or Reid.
Or Obama.
“I oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, which he supports.”
How could any senator support the TPP when they have NOT even read it? Only 2 senators read it, Senator Mike Lee and Senator Sessions, and they oppose it.
I know he has a good reason for what he does, like speaking against cloture.
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.