Posted on 07/16/2015 3:36:58 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
Voters aren’t enthusiastic about the final deal negotiated by the United States and several other countries to limit Iran’s nuclear program. They also believe even more strongly that President Obama needs Congress' okay before moving forward with the deal.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the agreement the United States has reached with Iran that ends some economic sanctions on that country in exchange for verifiable cutbacks in the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Forty-two percent (42%) are opposed, while 18% are undecided.
Many in Congress oppose the deal, but President Obama declared earlier this week that he would veto any attempt to block it. However, 65% of voters believe any agreement the Obama administration makes with Iran regarding the Iranian nuclear program requires the approval of Congress. That’s up from 60% in March just after 47 GOP Senators went around the president and sent a letter to Tehran expressing their concerns over the negotiations. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
IMPEACH the POS if he vetos it............
I say no deal no matter what congress says.
Senator Bob Corker took care of this for the GOP bastards. They can all vote against the Iran deal now because they voted for anything Obama came back with in the Corker Bill. No problema.
Why did we change the constitutional requirement for a 2/3 vote to ratify this treaty? Don’t say it’s not a treaty until you tell me what “is” is.
If they don't approve it, there should be nothing for him to veto....end of deal.
>> The Senate's Role in Treaties
The Constitution provides that 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" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.
Kudo’s to you sir...my thoughts exactly.
You can't change the Constitution without an amendment. Do you know how hard that is?
Thanks to the traitor Corker instead of Obama having to get 67 votes to approve the deal, if it were treated as a treaty, as it should be, Conrgress would need 67 votes to stop it.
The Uniparty already won this for Obama.
-PJ
Brad Sherman(D) was on fox this morning and he said the US would have no Foreign Policy if Congress did not support Obama , Oh My
It’s not a Treaty.
Anyone that can explain why please do. It looks like a Treaty to me.
So the Republicans can vote to not accept the treaty and Obama can veto it. Just your basic One Man Rule.
How does King Obama have the Authority to unfreeze Iran’s billions or remove the embargo against Cuba all on his own , because Congress let him
The Corker Capitulation®
[The Senate should walk away from their prior Corker bill and inform Obama that they deem this to be a treaty and just follow the treaty process in the Constitution.]
My thoughts exactly, only under this scenario Obola just makes it an executive agreement, takes it to the U.N. unilaterally, the funds are released, game, set, match.
No mater how you war game this it comes up snake-eyes for the American people.
I’d love to know who is doing the war gaming for their side because they are diabolically good, they’ve put this country in a box. These people are playing 3D chess while Boehner and McConnell haven’t even gotten the checkers out yet.
-PJ
An executive agreement is what was going to happen until Tom Cotton outed Obama with the Iranians which started this whole deal with the house and senate bill requiring a 2/3rds vote to vote the deal down.
Regardless, if Obama can get the deal to the U.N. and the sanctions are lifted, the legislative vote is meaningless, the money gets released and it’s “game on”.
It’s a bill that OBJECTS to making a deal. So, if NOTHING is done on the bill, then the deal is purely a presidential action.
If something is voted on, then they vote “yes” to say “no”. Who would craft such a monstrosity?
The republicans led by Bob Corker.
So, if they vote to ‘not have a deal’, then it can be vetoed. Then they need 2/3 to override and ensure there is no deal.
Rather than disapproving of something, Obama is disapproving nothing. Normally, Congress wants to spend money, wants to build a bridge....whatever. The president disapproves of that initiative.
A deal by any other name is called a treaty in the normal world.
No worries. Congress will approve it. Even if the majority votes no. We can thank the gopuke faction for that.
One people, one realm, one uniparty.
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.