Rubio, Paul, Cruz vote to allow Obama to lift Iran sanctions

American Thinker ^ | May 8, 2015 | Newsmachete

[Memphis Moe]

Fire them all.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yeah : )

[Marcella]

When someone writes an article, the way to get attention to it is to use a headline that will stun the possible reader so the reader will definitely read it.

Bad news gets read when good news doesn't. If something is good, there is usually no news cover of it. Think about your local channel and their news hour. The first item they report is bad news so you will keep watching - it will be a killing or some official accused of wrongdoing, or Christians being beheaded, anything that is bad news.

The writer of this article used “supposed” bad news to get readers:
“Rubio, Paul, Cruz vote to allow Obama to lift Iran sanctions”. He didn't give us the background/explanation as to what actually happened, WHY they voted that way, as that wouldn't have grabbed the reader to keep reading.

Example: “The sun is shining and it's a beautiful day.” The reader goes to something else to read. “The sun is shining but severe weather may happen next week.” The reader keeps reading.

Writers against Cruz are going to use every method known to mankind to get voters to change their mind about him so always distrust bad news about him - in that case, go to his website to read his actual stance on that subject and what he did and why he did it.

[TBP]

Disappointed in all three that they would support something so blatantly unconstitutional.

Someone needs to restore the Constitutional provision on treaties.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

I do not watch TV news at all. The only news I get is from FR. ;-)

I am aware of everything you said but I was starting to be swayed by others on this thread.

Thank you for clearing my head of all of the nonsense. ;-)

[TexasGator]

“Disappointed in all three that they would support something so blatantly unconstitutional.”

Please show where it is blatantly unconstitutional. The Senate by a vote of 98-1 provides Obama with the authorization to negotiate a ‘treaty’. I believe that 98-1 is more than two thirds.

---

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

[CatherineofAragon]

Thank you. I wish we could take just a little time to research and find out the facts before overreacting.

[Hugin]

Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting.

Wrong. Since it isn't a treaty Obama didn't need to send it to Congress at all. He already had the authority to lift sanctions, which was authorized in the original sanctions bill.

[Hostage]

Although the logic is solid, the wording is still unpolished and imprecise in certain word usage; result of hurried typing. But precision is needed because this bill is convoluted and confusing. It requires focus and juggling a few notions in the mind all at the same time.

Important to distinguish between the words BILL and DEAL and the different bill approaches as MCCONNELL’S VERSION versus CRUZ’ VERSION. Also OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL = OBAMA’S DEAL = OBAMA’S PLAN = OBAMA’S IRAN PLAN.

Also McConnell’s version is actually Corker’s Version but herein is called “McConnell’s version” or “McConnell’s Bill” because Corker is merely carrying water for McConnell and the real battle is McConnell v. Cruz.

Here’s a more polished version:

1. Ted voted NO on cloture. As long as cloture had not passed, McConnell’s bill would have never been brought to the floor for a vote. Therefore, Ted did not want McConnell’s Bill brought to the floor without an important amendment he wanted to introduce but was not allowed to introduce because McConnell cut him off. That amendment would have changed the character of McConnell’s bill by requiring ‘affirmative approval’ of the DEAL. But most Senators will not APPROVE the deal but will gladly DISAPPROVE the deal so 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 DEAL <— BAD
McConnell’s Bill Version: DISAPPROVE DEAL <— 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 DEAL, 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.

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 because the Constitution requires 2/3’s of the Senate to approve a Treaty, Obama’s deal is without support from the US Congress and that means Obama’s deal could be rescinded in the near future. So Ted’s version was designed to kill Obama’s deal.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS OF THE SENATE PROCESS FOR THE IRAN DEAL

Ted Cruz wants the Senate to ‘sit still’ on this? Why? Because Obama could never get constitutional legitimacy for his deal without TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE voting for his deal (viewed as a treaty). Ted Cruz knew that if he could get his amendment into the bill, that would turn McConnell’e version into the Cruz version and the Senate would ‘sit still’, why? Because Senators do not want to be seen approving of Obama’s Iran Deal. MORE IMPORTANTLY if the Senate were to ‘sit still’, then nothing would be sent to Obama. Why is this good? Because it means Obama could not use his VETO power.

So Ted Cruz’s version was designed to have the Senate ‘sit still’ so there would be no constitutional legitimacy to Obama’s Deal and to deny Obama the power to use his veto.

McConnell on the other hand wants to be seen as “bringing democrats and republicans together” to pass legislation that says “WE DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL”. Now let’s ask ourselves why Obama supported McConnell’s version and also ask ourselves why did every last democrat vote for it. I mean what’s the harm in voting to say we DISAPPROVE of Obama’s Iran Deal?

The answer is because it gives Obama a clear field to VETO; it permits him to exercise his veto power. Why is a veto bad here? Because it requires 2/3’s of Congress to override it - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Here’s the crib note summary:

MCCONNELL VERSION —> OBAMA VETOS —> OBAMA GETS HIS DEAL

CRUZ VERSION —> NO CHANCE OF VETO —> OBAMA DEAL NOT LEGITIMATE

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE NOW?

Yes.

Cruz’ people are working with conservatives in the House to pass an amendment that makes the House Bill similar to the Cruz Version of the Senate Bill.

Therefore, in reconciliation between House and Senate, it may become CRUZ v. MCCONNELL.

[TBP]

They gave away their constitutional power to ratify, instead opting to allow the president to implement the treaty unilaterally. it takes 2/3 to block rather than 2/3 to ratify, as the Constitution requires.

[TBP]

“provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”

The key words. The Corker bill only requires 1/3 to concur in order for the agreement to go into effect. That violates the very Constitutional provision you cited.

[Jack Black]

If the bill had not passed, the Senate would not be able to reject that treaty.

That makes zero sense. The Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate. Obama is free to negotiate whatever he likes, then the Senate votes on it.

[TexasGator]

“The key words. The Corker bill only requires 1/3 to concur in order for the agreement to go into effect. That violates the very Constitutional provision you cited.”

How? More than 2/3’s of the senate have given their advice and consent to this treaty.

[Memphis Moe]

If the bill had not passed, the Senate would not be able to reject that treaty.
That makes zero sense.

It makes about as much sense as: “We must run a liberal at the top of the ticket or else a liberal will be elected.”

[Jack Black]

"“We must run a liberal at the top of the ticket or else a liberal will be elected.”

I agree that makes no sense either. Here is a data-based rating of the candidates you might find interesting.

Now of course, like any other summary or model, it's not perfect, but I believe it's a good faith effort by a very smart statistician to provide some real data about how conservative candidates are.

It's interesting that so many people to the right of Ronald Reagan are called "RINOs" so frequently. Also, Mike Pence, maybe for VP?

So, who is a "Liberal"? Was Nixon a Liberal? He's rated as more liberal than Romney. We did with with him. What about G HW Bush? He too was more liberal than Romney. We did lose with Romney, but we won with Nixon and HW. W is a little to the right of Romney, and we won with him too. Reagan and Bush show up very close on this chart. Maybe there is a practical limit to how far right a candidate can be and we can still win.

Goldwater was trounced. Cruz reminds me of Goldwater, whip sharp, honest, right on the issues.

Like most people here on FR the idea of another candidate like Willard is so discouraging I say: why bother. I like the idea of having a real conservative, but I suspect the results will likely be a real electoral-college blow out.

It might be good for the party, if the nation survives Hillary after Obama. Or, maybe not. The GOPe does not seem to have figured out that there strategy of running moderate GOP candidates who don't say anything bad about the opposition is a total failure: they are at it again with Jeb.

So, I guess if the Tea Party is trounced with Ted maybe many will come back and want to try again with another far-right hero.

Still early on, lots to see before anyone casts the first vote.

[Jack Black]

"We did with with him." == We did win with him.

Oops!

[thesearethetimes...]

BookMark

[itsahoot]

Is it your impression that most libertarians are non-religious?

Not non-religious just non Christian. Most libertarians I know seem to like that unknown god that they foolishly worship.

[Jack Black]

OK, I'll play, seeing as you've insulted me as "cerebrally challenged"":

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...

Good, if he opposed this and he voted against cloture he was doing the right thing on that vote. As for all the detail about his amendment, it's moot. The amendment was not attached. Discussion of it is obfuscating what happened.

2. McConnell allowed the bill to offer Senators a chance to disapprove OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL.

What's the point. If it's a treaty the Senate needs to approve it. By 2/3.

Here is the Hill's summary of this bill:

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill Thursday to give Congress the authority to review an emerging nuclear agreement with Iran, despite vocal opposition from some conservative Republicans who said the bill was not strong enough.

Still not clear that this bill accomplishes anything good. The Senate could have waited to let Obama do what he is going to do, passed a bill forbidding it (by SIMPLE MAJORITY) and sent it to Obama for certain veto. That would have been more effective for media use, and would more closely follow the normal Constitutional provisions for legislation.

Now we have a weird 2/3 majority needed to overturn, so basically no matter how bad the bill is Obama is guaranteed that he won't be faced with having to veto anything.

3. Ted’s version of the Bill .... blah, blah, blah. It wasn't the version passed.

[Jack Black]

How? More than 2/3’s of the senate have given their advice and consent to this treaty.

See, that's exactly why this is a bad idea. Libs will be saying that, and they will have a reasonable position to support that, but the plain facts are that no treaty has been presented, and this was a procedural vote.

In a nutshell, your comment is another reason to dislike the route taken by the Senate.