Obama: Nuke Deal With Ayatollah is ‘Political Agreement’ Not ‘Formal Treaty'

CNS News ^ | 4/18/15

[markomalley]

President Barack Obama said on Friday that the deal he and the leaders of five other major powers are trying to cut with the Iranian regime headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is a “political agreement” and “not a formal treaty.”

As such, he said, Congress should not ordinarily have authority to sign off on this kind of deal.

Obama made the statement when discussing legislation sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that would give Congress 60 days to review an Iran nuclear deal made by the administration. During that 60 days, according to a summary by the Congressional Research Service, Congress could vote for a joint resolution in favor of the agreement,vote for a joint resolution not in favor of the agreement, or vote for no resolution at all.

The Constitution says the president can only make a treaty if two-thirds of the Senate votes to ratify it. Corker’s amendment could allow an Iran nuclear deal to go into effect without any vote of the Senate.

“There were a number of people who were supporting Corker’s legislation suggesting that, as a routine matter, a President needs to get sign-off from Congress to negotiate political agreements. That is not the case,” said Obama in a joint press conference with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. “That has never been the case. This is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval.

“And I still have some concerns about the suggestion that that tradition was in some ways changing,” said Obama. “But there was language in the legislation that spoke to this being directly related to congressional sanctions. And that, I think, at least allows me to interpret the legislation in such a way that it not sending a signal to future Presidents that each and every time they’re negotiating a political agreement that they have to get a congressional authorization.”

[markomalley]

And the flipping RINOs traitors in the Senate just gave him the power to do whatever he wants.

[hal ogen]

Traitor.

[marron]

Yes. He agrees that they can have a nuke. And during the 10 years they need to develop it, we won’t attack them nor will anyone else we control or have influence over.

He has just agreed to give them a ten year window during which they can feel safe to proceed with their project.

In return for giving them this window, they agree to administer the middle east.

[JohnBrowdie]

the democrat president dances on the edge of tyranny, and you get pissed off at republicans.

just creepy.

[plain talk]

Never accept your enemies premise. Our RINOs should not accept that Obama can conclude a treaty with Iran without congressional approval. The matter requires a treaty. I say RINOs because like it or not democrats and RINOs run the country. Yes a few conservatives jawbone some but thats about it — like chihuahuas barking at a moving train. Changing the name from a treaty to some other word does not change anything. Obama is full of crap.

[Eagles6]

Where in the Constitution is that and what the he!! is Corker doing?

[Ray76]

Political agreements between countries are treaties.

[johniegrad]

If its not a treaty then it’s not binding either. What do I care if this idiot made an agreement with someone and can’t deliver on it?

[marron]

What do I care if this idiot made an agreement with someone and can’t deliver on it?

Because he can deliver on it. He agrees to let Iran proceed without trying to stop them. The next president will receive this policy as a done deal; it will be difficult for him to reverse it unless he comes into office prepared for a confrontation. I don't see anyone even on the GOP side willing to undo what the president has done. It would mean taking the blame for a confrontation with Iran.

So, no, it doesn't have the power of a treaty, but no one is trying to stop it or turn it around. And when this policy finally bites us hard, whoever is in office at that moment will take the blame for it, not Obama and our current crop of eunuchs in the senate.

[Dick Bachert]

In connection with the obozo-kerry giveaway of nukes to Iran, the UN has once again risen out of its fetid socialist swamp on Turtle Bay to threaten America’s security and sovereignty.

And I’ll bet you didn’t know that it is located where it is as sort of a cabalistic insider “joke” when the One World Rockefeller interests purchased the site and DONATED it to the UN? Turtle Bay is where the British hanged 21 year old Nathan Hale after he uttered the now famous words “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country”.
A link to Part 1 of my 3 part video series on the UN is below. If you find Part 1 sufficiently interesting, Parts 2 and 3 will be found nearby on You Tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAzl21AfnZU

[Mouton]

How about this, we look at the election that put this POS in office and consider it a non binding political agreement. Ignor anything he says, any law he supports, and pronouncement he makes as it is non binding.

[markomalley]

the democrat president dances on the edge of tyranny, and you get pissed off at republicans.

Yes I do...for empowering him. They have rolled each and every time its gone from push to shove.

just creepy.

If you say so.

[nathanbedford]

Who will prevent this flagrant violation of the Constitution? Not "our current crop of eunuchs in the senate." Well said.

If the Constitution means nothing simply because the president of the United States can change a label and call a treaty a political agreement (I have heard of executive agreements but never a "political" agreement) and dispense with the constitutional requirement of consent by two thirds of the Senate present, and this Republican Senate will not only condone the trick but enable it, there is only one last place to look to save the Constitution when the ballot box avails nothing:

Article V

Those who oppose Article V because they want to preserve the existing Constitution ought to consider what is left to preserve? Those who oppose Article V because they fear that reforms will not be honored any more than the existing Constitution is observed, ought to ask what other option is open? Those who are indifferent to Article V because they will sell out every syllable in the Bill of Rights to protect the Second Amendment ought to consider what will happen when this treaty trick is applied to the right to bear arms? Those who are indifferent to Article V because they are sleepwalking through history might wake up in time to consider the effect on themselves and their children when this treaty trick is exploited to take away their liberties under the guise of climate change.

[marron]

I am finally convinced.

Yes to Article V. Its past time.

[nathanbedford]

One patriot at a time…

[Olog-hai]

They can be both RINOs and traitors. The un-self-declared Uniparty is tearing the country apart from the inside out, just like the commies in the USSR would have done to themselves if we hadn’t jumped in to save them.

[Olog-hai]

No they aren’t. That’s the “all As are B therefore all Bs are A” fallacy.

[Cementjungle]

We agree to let them have the money and latitude they need to make their nukes operational, and they agree to nuke Israel first and when hitting the US they’ll warn Obama so he can be sure to be nowhere near the blast zones. Sounds fair enough.