Replies

At some point when the TPP (the trade deal not the Iran deal) came into the news I was exercised because I thought that the process was unconstitutional (I still do) in that the Constitution explicitly calls for a treaty to be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate present and the legislation substitutes majority rule by both houses for two thirds confirmation by the Senate. So I researched the matter and I was astonished to learn that I was ignorant, it is well-established constitutional law and practice throughout our American history that instead of submitting a treaty to the Senate it is effective to secure legislation from both houses.

I don't like it, I think the explicit wording of the Constitution is clear but I concede that my initial impression was wrong at least as to how the system actually works as opposed to how it ought to work.

If I recall correctly, Mitch McConnell has stated that the president gets to choose whether or not a "deal" is a treaty and therefore, if Obama declined to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, the Senate would have no say at all. In the event that has already occurred after a fashion when Obama submitted the treaty to the Security Council before it was delivered to Congress. I am fully aware that Mark Levin has argued that the Senate, in a case in which the president simply does not submit an agreement, could pick the deal up as though it were a treaty and submit it to a vote up or down. I do not think there is any precedent whatsoever for that but it remains an intriguing option. In the event, there was only one vote against the legislative approach so it is not reasonable to expect Cruz to die on that hill fighting that fight which was hopeless.

I further note that forty-five senators joined with Ted Cruz in writing a letter to the leaders of Iran telling them that there could be no deal without Congress of approving. Cruz was accused at the time of interfering with the negotiations, yet another example of Cruz standing up for principle and taking flak.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the legislation which adopted the old alternative method of ratifying a treaty by simply passing authorizing legislation in both houses. Every senator except one, Tom Cotton to his credit, voted with Ted Cruz on this issue. We have no evidence that I am aware of that Donald Trump made any statement opposing this procedure. If he did not, I cannot credit him with conservatism while one faults Cruz on the same issue.

The argument for the legislative approach was that there would be no congressional oversight of the "deal" unless the alternative approach was adopted. Neither one of us knows for sure what would have happened had the legislation not been adopted, that is, whether Congress would have had any oversight whatsoever. We can speculate and pontificate but we do not know. If Congress had no oversight whatsoever because Obama declined to submit the deal but pursued it as an executive agreement and let it have effect as a practical matter because of its passage through the Security Council, certainly conservative principles would not have been served but further damaged.

With all these facts before us, I conclude that Cruz was wrong in his position as wrong but no more wrong than all the rest of the ninety-eight senators, but I cannot conclude that his position was not a conservative position. If he calculated, and there is no reason to believe that he did not especially since he participated in the letter trying to force the parties into submitting the treaty for congressional approval, that the only way to get congressional oversight was the way he and all his colleagues but one voted to get it.

Since the deal began to be leaked, no voice has been more strident in opposition to the deal than Sen. Cruz. I know he will be participating with Donald Trump and Mark Levin in the upcoming rally to protest the deal. Apparently he has not offended these two men to the degree that they think he should be ostracized.

With all of this, there is no warrant to believe that Ted Cruz is not conservative, we may join in believing he made the wrong choice but it was not an unreasonable choice given the circumstances described above and it certainly was not an anti-conservative choice.

Therefore, I reject the conclusion of your well reasoned but miscarried reply that the candidacy of Ted Cruz should be rejected for want of conservative bona fides.

Yours is a passionate and lengthy reply but a reasoned one. I think it is fair to say the case you make against Ted Cruz is that he is not really a conservative and the evidence for that is his position with respect to Corker's misbegotten legislation on the procedure for legislative approval of the Iran "deal." If that reasoning fails, then your argument falls.

I myself wouldn't make the case I'm trying to charge that he isn't a Conservative so much as that he used very poor judgement on this issue. A guy can be a diehard Conservative at his core, and yet make such a stupid mistake that it causes you to have little faith that his Conservatism will lead him to the right decisions over time. In some instances we can say it did. In this instance we can safely say it didn't. Can I point to him and say, there's a guy that I know will always get it? No. And this isn't a simple toss away inconsequential issue. It's a strategic global game changer issue.

At some point when the TPP (the trade deal not the Iran deal) came into the news I was exercised because I thought that the process was unconstitutional (I still do) in that the Constitution explicitly calls for a treaty to be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate present and the legislation substitutes majority rule by both houses for two thirds confirmation by the Senate. So I researched the matter and I was astonished to learn that I was ignorant, it is well-established constitutional law and practice throughout our American history that instead of submitting a treaty to the Senate it is effective to secure legislation from both houses.

I would have agreed with you, but I am admittedly not a Constitutuional schollar per se. There are finer workings on some of these matters that I am not aware of. I think most people fall into that category.

I don't like it, I think the explicit wording of the Constitution is clear but I concede that my initial impression was wrong at least as to how the system actually works as opposed to how it ought to work.

Okay, but I don't think your perception evidenced some flaw in your knowledge. We don't deal with these matters all that often, and so we don't necessarily know the rules. What you touched on above though, is of import. Two thirds must confirm. Had that been the standard the Iranian agreement had to hurdle, this mess wouldn't be upon us. That was a massive mistake. Why did our guys diddle with that?

If I recall correctly, Mitch McConnell has stated that the president gets to choose whether or not a "deal" is a treaty and therefore, if Obama declined to submit the treaty to the Senate for approval, the Senate would have no say at all. In the event that has already occurred after a fashion when Obama submitted the treaty to the Security Council before it was delivered to Congress. I am fully aware that Mark Levin has argued that the Senate, in a case in which the president simply does not submit an agreement, could pick the deal up as though it were a treaty and submit it to a vote up or down. I do not think there is any precedent whatsoever for that but it remains an intriguing option. In the event, there was only one vote against the legislative approach so it is not reasonable to expect Cruz to die on that hill fighting that fight which was hopeless.

I interprest your comments here to ultimately wind up with the idea Cruz had no culpability in a vote that wound up requiring only one third of the Senate having to agree with Obama rather than two thirds, for this agreement to be approved. Nothing absolves Cruz in this matter. If he was the only Senator that voted against, he would have done his duty. Instead he abdicated his duty. Please explain how you die on a hill by casting a sound vote, even if you are the only one. What would it have cost him to cast the right vote? Die on a hill? I don't view that as an accorate analogy.

I further note that forty-five senators joined with Ted Cruz in writing a letter to the leaders of Iran telling them that there could be no deal without Congress of approving. Cruz was accused at the time of interfering with the negotiations, yet another example of Cruz standing up for principle and taking flak.

He voted to allow the agreement to be affirmed with only one third of the U. S. Senate. This means that instead of one third having to disagree with it, two thirds would have to disagree with it, to reject it. Signing that letter was a very hollow act, considering he voted to make it next to impossible for the Senate to reject it. Further, it causes me to view that signature as misleading and deceitful. Why wright a letter than demands a review, if that review is sabotaged from the get go. I'll tell you why. Because the headlines would read, Senators notify Iran, a review must take place. It would make it look like the signatures were hard nosed against Iran, even though they were anything but. The leaders of Iran aren't stupid. They knew exactly what was going on. This is why Trumps "Art of the Deal" is so important. Cruz should know better than anyone that you don't concede a point that will make it impossible to win the debate. You don't concede a point that will cost you the legal case. This is what Cruz participated in. His experince as a debator and an attorney both failed him. NOT IMPRESSIVE.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended the legislation which adopted the old alternative method of ratifying a treaty by simply passing authorizing legislation in both houses. Every senator except one, Tom Cotton to his credit, voted with Ted Cruz on this issue. We have no evidence that I am aware of that Donald Trump made any statement opposing this procedure. If he did not, I cannot credit him with conservatism while one faults Cruz on the same issue.

This is one argument that I think is beneath you. Donald Trump was not a U. S. Senator. This wasn't his job. I'm not even sure he was following it. The fact that he didn't address it circa the time the bill was voted on proves to you he's no better than Cruz on this? I consider that to be rather laughable.

If Tom Cotton could get it, Ted Cruz should have. On a matter of this importance, you don't lower your ability to defend against evil.

The argument for the legislative approach was that there would be no congressional oversight of the "deal" unless the alternative approach was adopted. Neither one of us knows for sure what would have happened had the legislation not been adopted, that is, whether Congress would have had any oversight whatsoever. We can speculate and pontificate but we do not know. If Congress had no oversight whatsoever because Obama declined to submit the deal but pursued it as an executive agreement and let it have effect as a practical matter because of its passage through the Security Council, certainly conservative principles would not have been served but further damaged.

Tell you what, I'd rather stick with one body of Congress having to meet the two thirds level to approve, rather than two approving at one third. Trying to move this from the responsiblity of the Senate or Congress to review at normal levels, or even Obama to submit this agreement for approval, was unconscionable. Make someone responsible. Lowering the standard made sure nobody would be.

With all these facts before us, I conclude that Cruz was wrong in his position as wrong but no more wrong than all the rest of the ninety-eight senators, but I cannot conclude that his position was not a conservative position. If he calculated, and there is no reason to believe that he did not especially since he participated in the letter trying to force the parties into submitting the treaty for congressional approval, that the only way to get congressional oversight was the way he and all his colleagues but one voted to get it.

Wrong is wrong whether 99 others agree or not. Cruz is the guy I'm being asked to trust. Calculating? I'm sorry, I'm not buying into the calculation here. There was one duty. That duty was to deny Iran any deal that would give them allow them to develop nuclear weapons or access to that money. Both those would be a direct threat to Western Civilization. That is the important factor. Side issues don't cut it for me. They shouldn't for you either. What does his participation in the letter prove, if he just lowered the two thirds needed for approval to one one third? He didn't know there were 44 Democrats in the Senate and it would only take 34 to agree with Obama? This was an example of his being able to think logically? You know better than this. You're too logical a person to believe your own arguments here.

Since the deal began to be leaked, no voice has been more strident in opposition to the deal than Sen. Cruz. I know he will be participating with Donald Trump and Mark Levin in the upcoming rally to protest the deal. Apparently he has not offended these two men to the degree that they think he should be ostracized.

I have no problem with him speaking out, but then I have no problem with Trump preaching Conservatism to our nation's citizens either. You can't trust Trump becasue there are "conflicts", but you are there writing defenses of Cruz participating in a sham letter, and reducing the number of people having to approve to 75% of the Democrats in the U. S. Senate. Now you point to Cruz and act as if he's the fine upstanding guy on this we always knew him to be. No, on this one he should be hanging his head in shame, and so should you for defending him. There's no defense of this.

With all of this, there is no warrant to believe that Ted Cruz is not conservative, we may join in believing he made the wrong choice but it was not an unreasonable choice given the circumstances described above and it certainly was not an anti-conservative choice.

I believe I have addressed this fairly. I have claimed no more or no less culpability than Cruz deserves here. I did not charge that he single handedly did caused something. I didn't not make a universal determination regarding his Conservatism. I did make a determination based on his actions, and what they conveyed to me. I think that is reasoned.

Therefore, I reject the conclusion of your well reasoned but miscarried reply that the candidacy of Ted Cruz should be rejected for want of conservative bona fides.

You are defending your guy on a level that is much higher than I have had to mine. Voting to double the threshhold required to reject nuclear weapons for Iran and the provision of $150 billion in impounded funds to a terrorist nation that supplies terrorist groups, was wrong. There's no defending it. You know that.