Cruz theme article for the list.
It’s a good thing that I knew that Cruz, as a fallible mortal and even more, as a politician, was bound to disappoint before it was over. I never put that much faith in any politician, so I’m never disappointed. Even so, out of all the viable choices currently declared, I’ll still vote for him. Unless he does something really egregious on one of my priority issues, one being illegal immigration, and another being sodomite “marriage”.
On the surface it makes no sense. I’d want to know why, because frankly it is NOT in character for Ted Cruz.
Maybe the rationale is: we want to at least put Obama in SOME kind of explicit legal reins that even short attention span America will notice. And if the Democrats of Congress fail to let them work like they should, they will catch the heat of the voters.
But it would seem easier to say nix, the legal status quo is enough. Let us all pray for wisdom to apply, as it commonly does with Ted Cruz. The best move in an era of intense Calvinball is not always apparent till it has played out.
There is something else going on here. Did they vote this way to have more control over what Obama is doing? They did not make this decision willy-nilly. More research is required, not knee-jerk reactions.
Oh everyone grow up
Cruz knows procedure and he expects to use it
He wants to debate this when it comes up
When everyone figures out that we need a candidate who doesn’t depend on headlines then the press will lose it’s power over the masses with these headlines
Cruz has been working very hard on going against this
Follow him. Not what the news headlines him with
You want Hilary in there? Heck she’s got Iranian sympathizer a on her staff
If they had voted against the bill, the author of this article would have lambasted them for not voting to give the Senate the power to reject the treaty - that they had given Obama the power to do what he wanted without their approval. This is not a perfect world.
More surprised by Rubio. Foreign policy was supposed to be a strong point and this takes some wind out of that sail.
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.
Not really sure what this bill is even trying to do? Confuse people?
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?
Or Reid.
Or Obama.
Disappointed in all three that they would support something so blatantly unconstitutional.
Someone needs to restore the Constitutional provision on treaties.
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.