Posted on 07/14/2015 9:55:47 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday called the Iranian nuclear deal announced by the Obama administration an "important step" in curtailing the country's nuclear program but stressed that the agreement will have to be "enforced vigorously, relentlessly."
"This is a very important moment. The president called me late last night to tell me that agreement has been reached. I applaud him and both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz for their extraordinary efforts in bringing about this conclusion," she told reporters after a meeting with the House Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill. "Based on what I know now, and I will be being briefed as soon as I finish addressing you, this is an important step in putting the lid on Iran’s nuclear program."
Clinton was on Capitol Hill Tuesday for a series of meetings with Democratic lawmakers, a gesture designed to strengthen Clinton's support among Hill Democrats, many of whom already support her candidacy....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I flashed on that association, too, Red Badger — to how 0bamacare got passed. It succeeded by means of manipulation of Senate rules and procedures, aided and abetted by Harry Reid, without one single Republican vote in either house of Congress. This strategy succeeded when Reid delayed the customary seating of newly-elected Senator Scott Brown (R–MA), who had pledged a NO vote, until after the vote was taken.
On the objective merits, this deal with Iran is an exercise in national suicide — ours, not theirs. So I ask myself, how does this megalomaniacal, psychopathic president think he's going to sell it to the American people?
Then I realized, 0bama could care less about selling it to the American people. He doesn't need them for his "transformative vision" to be realized. What he does need is 34 Democrat senators who he can threaten, cajole, browbeat, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise intimidate into conformity with his wishes, so to sustain his VETO — which he assuredly knows is coming. My sense is he feels pretty confident he can get them.
For starters, he pronounced the "V word" even before the signatory ink was dry on this non-treaty. Why would he do that, otherwise than to put the Dems on notice of what he requires of them? Or else?
[Once a community organizer, always a community organizer I gather....]
Such senators are immune from citizen recall under current federal law. So they might "go along to get along." But in the end, their names will stink in the annals of American history, for their personal corruption, and for their complicity in the future sufferings of our nation, which are surely to come as a result of this "deal."
JMHO FWIW
“I assume that Saudi Arabia already has nuclear weapons obtained from Pakistan some time ago”
All that money they have been sending to the Paki’s certainly wasn’t to buy more sand...
She is under investigation for Benghazi, setup a secret private email server while secretary of state and was part of a former administration that struck a deal that gave North Korea nukes, why are we still hearing about her candidacy ? It should be over.
Everything is flipped on its head. Instead of requiring 2/3 vote in the senate to approve the agreement, they are requiring 2/3 vote to override it. Its unconstitutional, but who cares?
And far from controlling or limiting or impeding Iran’s nuclear program, what this does is protect it. It makes sure no one will move against it. If any future US president decides to disregard this agreement, that by itself will constitute and act of war.
One sad thing among many is that GOP has gone along with this, while pretending to be outraged.
Indeed, we are now invited to tumble into Alice's rabbit hole, so we can be "reordered" to live our lives "through the looking-glass." And sooner or later, meet up with the Red Queen — which 0bama seems perfectly to reify, incarnate in our own time. Methinks Lewis Carroll had a penchant for prophecy.
What is proposed here is citizen acceptance of the total inversion of reality — reality informed by actual human experience personal, social, cultural, historical. By casting off all constitutional constraints or limits, We the People suffer ourselves to become slaves — or victims — of a tyrannical regime that will not permit dissent against itself.
What is most interesting to me in the current presidential election cycle is how much the GOP increasingly seems to be divided within and against itself. This probably has something to do with your observation, "One sad thing among many is that GOP has gone along with this, while pretending to be outraged."
Conservative voters of whatever stripe — be they GOP, Blue-dog Democrat, or Independent —tend to care about "character" issues; and they tend to detest hypocrisy when they see it.
Perhaps this suggestion might account for the deep divisions between the Tea Party wing of the party, and the GOP establishment. Evidently the latter views the former as a red-headed bastard child and therefore a disgrace to its own good name. Not to mention to its established "interests"; e.g., those interests approved by the Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, "big business" in general, and so forth.
It will be fun to see how all this plays out in the coming months. Donald Trump has certainly been a lightning rod in drawing attention to the divide existing between the establishment GOP and "populist," or more conservative, opinion. IMHO, the establishment party would better serve its own institutional interests in the long run by paying attention to what Trump is saying and eliciting, rather than by trying to marginalize or demonize him.
I don't know whether Trump is "electable" in the 2016 general election. But neither do I know whether Jeb Bush is "electable," notwithstanding his overflowing campaign coffers. In my book, the "name" problem, the suggestion of "dynasty," is the least of his problems. He will have to answer for his relations — as consultant and member of the Board of Directors — with the infamous Wall Street investment bank, Lehman Brothers. I am sure the Hitlery campaign will have a field day over that....
Anyhoot, I'm starting to ramble, which means I should wind up this post pretty soon.
So in conclusion, I just want to say that this GOP field of potential candidates is an embarrassment of riches — so very many qualified people challenging each other for the party nomination. I already know who I like, and who I do not like so much.
But the fact remains, I can and will vote for whoever emerges as the GOP candidate for POTUS, whether or not they are in my "top choices."
To do otherwise would be to enable the coronation of Queen Hillary. I cannot, and will not, give my consent, direct or implied, to such a thing.
We'd then be back to the "lesser of two weevils" problem of four years ago....
Meanwhile, I'm just hotting up the popcorn....
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your sagacious observations!
America in Crisis
Video- https://www.dropbox.com/s/iu92zs5gg2bwuy3/FIRE.avi?dl=0
At this point, it appears that the constitution is on its head. The Senate should be rejecting this treaty, that Brit Hume calls an ‘executive agreement’. However, this ‘agreement’ involves a number of countries, the world’s major powers, plus Iran and the USA to SIGN a binding agreement. A rose by any other name, my friends.
I can imagine the Founders having tea and one says “about those treaties being under the advice and consent of the Senate, what if they call them a ‘deal’ or an ‘agreement’ or some other words just to play games with words?’
“Oh well, I guess they’ve got us there. Nothing we can do about that.”
There needs to be a leader in the Senate who will simply declare it a treaty and have a number of Senators sign onto a statement that it is a violation of the Constitution, against procedure, and address it to both the president and to Iran, with a statement that the nation is not bound by it.
Then, when Obama is gone, it is not honored because it has NOT gone through the proper procedure.
AFAICT, neither Cruz nor Paul has raised that issue.
IIRC, Cruz signed onto Corker’s stupid bill. I’m not sure about Paul.
BUT...even a signatory can come to his senses and speak the truth.
Yes, myself as well...though I have my preference.
Yes, myself as well...though I have my preference.
lol
Sounds like good advice to me, dear brother in Christ. But is there such a leader in the Senate?
The Senate is "broken," since the passage of Amendment XVII in that fateful year, 1913 (which also gave us the Federal Reserve Act and Amendment XVI, the federal income tax).
Before then, members of the Senate were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote; and were expected to represent, and be accountable to, state interests in congressional deliberations.
This arrangement supported what is probably the most fundamental separation and balance of powers in our constitutional system; that is, the allocation of powers as between the national government and the sovereign states.
Question: Since ratification of Amendment XVII, what entity in the national government represents the interests of the several states, qua states?
Answer: There is no such entity.
Not only that, but not only do senators no longer represent their respective state in Congress, but they don't even represent the people of their state who elected them. They are effectively "freelancers" who end up doing what best advantages them in the pursuit of their main goal, which is to stay in office, ideally for life.
Given this fact situation, what would motivate any senator to be "courageous" in the national interest?
IMHO, it is time, even past time, for a constitutional amendment enabling citizen recall of senators.... There is no other way I can think of to hold them accountable to the people, whose critical interests they are supposedly looking after.
JMHO FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing xzins!
Originally, Tom Cotton made such a statement prior to the Corker bill. He received huge criticism for it.
It didn’t seem to bother him.
If he would repeat his effort once a decision is made in Congress, then it would be public, and it would be a fallback position for a year and a half from now.
Somehow, I missed Senator Cotton's statement. Give me a link so I can catch up?
BTW, I truly admire Senator Cotton. He appears to be a man of sterling character and personal courage; he's no fool. He appears to epitomize what used to be called civic virtue. Which goes back to the Aristotelian idea of the spoudaios, the mature man, the public-spirited man who serves his country with intelligence, prudence, perspicacity, and valor. It seems there aren't very many of such type running around in the public square these days....
Let's say a "statement" is to be promulgated by the Senate. I think that is an excellent idea. But not just because "it would be a fallback position for a year and a half from now." Jeepers, the horse would have long bolted past the barn door by then. What difference does it make to argue that a subsequent POTUS could state that the "deal" is not binding on him because of the extraordinarily faulty (read: unconstitutional) manner of its ratification. The damage would have already been done.
Case in point: I understand that the extremely suspect inspection/verification regime of this "deal" has been delegated to the IAEA, a U.N. body. Who in their right mind would expect that the U.N. can do anything over a Russian (and/or Chinese) veto? In effect, the inspection/verification regime would be held hostage to the whims of Vladimir Putin.
How does the next president — assuming a Republican is elected, because Queen Hillary almost certainly wouldn't — even try to undo THAT? Or try to reimpose sanctions?
Here is where 0bama's plan seems weak to me. In order for this "plan" to be binding on his successor, it must clearly have been recognized as a treaty at the time of its ratification. But he won't call it a treaty. No, it is, instead, an "international agreement," or "plan." By which tactic I expect he thinks he can obviate the constitutional requirements for the ratification of a treaty; that is, no treaty can be entered into by the United States executive without the advice and consent of the Senate.
Well, this executive isn't taking any advice from that quarter, or any other it seems to me. The normal rules of senatorial consent have been utterly inverted, subverted. Instead of requiring two-thirds approval of senators to ratify, the "new rule" is that the Senate effectively needs 67 votes to override his veto, which he has already indicated he plans to make.
Looks like the Senate's advisory role is thoroughly cancelled. As far as their "consent" is concerned, they cannot express it positively, but only in the negative, by trying to overrule the despotism of a madman.
0bama only needs 34 Democrat senators to prevail in this fight.
So, what I think the Senate should do is: Issue a statement as to what their sense is of what, exactly, they are voting on. Which boils down to the question: Is it a "treaty," or is it a "plan?"
If it is a treaty, then it is binding on future U.S. governments. If it is a "plan," it is not.
BTW, "treaty" has had consistent meaning in international law and diplomacy as a compact, or contract between or among nations serving their mutual, agreed-on interests. Again, a treaty is binding on all participant nations. From that standpoint, it seems to me that 0bama's "plan" is intended to be a treaty.
But still, he will not call it that.
The Cotton Letter. As you can see, it originally had many backers, but as criticism in the media started, the usual republican suspects discovered again the spinectomies they’d undergone to win their place in the establishment.
Here is a PDF of the actual letter:
http://www.cotton.senate.gov/sites/default/files/150309%20Cotton%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Iranian%20Leaders.pdf
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.
For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Sincerely,
Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH
Senator John Boozman, R-AR
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO
Senator James Lankford, R-OK
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK
Clarity has to come from somewhere. Who better than the U.S. Senate, on whom the ultimate ratification of treaties devolves?
I know, both houses of Congress must produce a three-fifths vote within their respective bodies before a treaty can be ratified. But denying this customary result is precisely what 0bama is trying to do by means of an end-run around the Constitution itself. In particular, he envisions that senate rules are pliant to executive will....
Ultimately, given a presidential contest, the decision falls to the Senate. It must muster the "yea" votes of three-fifths of its members to defeat a presidential veto of its constitutional will.
The president's proposal implies nothing more than a denial of customary American due process which the Khamenei regime ought to take notice of. (But then again, maybe they already have; and are figuring out ways to exploit this "weakness" further....)
Notwithstanding, the Khamenei regime should understand that any U.S. treaty not approved by Congress is "nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
Under this understanding, maybe then, the Senate could issue a statement — for the benefit of the American people — as to the "nature of the beast" of which they are called to vote: Is it a duly-ratifiable "treaty," or is it merely a temporary executive "plan?"
Just to make the record clear; and to leave the options open for a future U.S. president.
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.