Posted on 05/07/2015 12:26:59 PM PDT by servo1969
The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill to give Congress a chance to review -- and possibly reject -- any final nuclear deal with Iran.
Thursday's vote was 98-1.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
With the senate vote at 98 yes that is obummerproof if it stands. Of course that doesn’t consider whether the dims were for it before they were against it.
Do we know who the one idiot is?
A bald lie:
It gives the Senate nothing.
Only an amendment to the constitution could give the Senate power over the ‘plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations’.
Cotton voted against it: it’s a sham.
All conservatives voted against cloture. (I haven’t checked the vote, but anyone who didn’t vote against cloture is no conservative.)
2/3 of the Senate must already approve of treaties. This bill lowers the standard and gives RINOs cover.
That same Constitution already gives them approval power: this is a treaty. The gymnastics used to tie this country to treaties without a Senate vote, or by sneaking them through while the Senate only has a few members in session over the last couple decades is shameful.
‘Executive agreements’ are as old as George Washington.
They are not laws, are not subject to the legislature, and have no force.
I don’t think the one was the idiot. I could be wrong as I haven’t yet reviewed the detail.
But as I understand this bill from an analysis I posted yesterday from a Ted Cruz Text, Obama supports it, because if Congress reviews and files a resolution to disapprove, Obama can veto the resolution. To override the veto will require 2/3’s of both chambers of Congress. So a disapproval will never go through. And if doesn’t go through, then Obama can do what he wants.
The fact that all the dems voted Aye should give everyone pause.
“Thus, Corker-Cardin motion of disapproval reverses the ordinary presumptions. Instead of the President needing 67 Senate votes to ratify the Iran deal, it would now require 67 votes to stop an Iran deal.”
Here’s the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3286924/posts?page=2#2
This is more of McConnell thinking how clever he is to make people think up is down, left is right, evil is good, etc.
2/3 of the Senate must already approve of treaties
***************
That is all that really matters. Just have the senate do its job under the constitution.
This bill is nothing but a sham that provides political cover to the Dems. They are going to let Obama have his deal in the end.
That’s just it, they have given them force over the last two decades, more or less.
I don’t think it changes the constitution as it pertains to treaties. I think it means if Obammy calls it an agreement, or a resoulution, or a deal, or anything else besides a treaty.... it says congress still has to approve it. I view it as trying to close loopholes?
(I meant to say ‘force of law’).
True, but any president can end any or all of them anytime he wants.
The Constitution already empowers the senate to review — and possibly reject — any “deal” with any foreign nation.
I agree....
The bill is window dressing for eventual lack of action by the Senate...Cotton tried to put some teeth in it, but lost...
The fact that the demorats voted in favor of this crap should give you pause....
This is just more so called bi-partisan crap.
You’re right - it does not change the Constitution.
It is not possible for congress to change the Constitution via a simple vote.
Cotton (R-AR), Nay
This bill is BS...mainly, it undermines the Constitution. Criminals doing Kabuki theater.
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.