Posted on 09/08/2015 10:53:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We already knew that Barack Obama won the fight over the Congressional disapproval of his deal with Iran. Last week, when Barbara Mikulski became the 34th vote in favor of the deal, that took the veto override off the table — even if that had been a long shot at best in the House already. In quick succession, seven more Democrats quickly followed suit, and now Obama has enough to filibuster a disapproval bill, according to the AP’s tally:
Three undecided senators announced their support for the deal in quick succession — bringing supporters to 41 votes. That’s enough to bottle up the disapproval resolution with a filibuster later this week.
The announcements came from Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Gary Peters of Michigan.
Supporters were cautiously optimistic the votes would allow them to block the disapproval resolution from passing in the Senate. They weren’t declaring victory because opponents of the deal are pushing for senators to allow a final vote on the disapproval resolution, leading to uncertainty about the outcome under the Senate’s complicated procedures.
That puts the filibuster in play, a dangerous weapon to use in this instance. Don’t forget that the American public opposes this deal on a 2:1 margin, making a diktat a risky strategy. Will Harry Reid resurrect his old role in blocking legislation from hitting Obama’s desk? Put it another way: are Reid and 40 other Democrats so shameless in boosting Obama and John Kerry that they won’t allow a floor vote even on a toothless bill of disapproval?
Prediction: Yes. A few of those Democrats may have qualms about cutting out any input from Congress on a momentous foreign agreement such as this one, but that probably won’t keep them from prioritizing their partisan calculations ahead of constitutional concerns. It didn’t keep them awake at night with Corker-Menendez, nor when Obama refused to submit the deal as a treaty and threatened to implement it through temporary executive waivers allowed in statutory sanctions.
I wrote last week that Mikulski’s vote would put ownership of Iran’s terror support squarely on the shoulders of Democrats. A filibuster on a floor vote would cement this to Obama, Reid, and Senate Democrats, and the party as a whole. Denying a vote to opponents will only anger constituents even more and remind voters which party shoves unpopular policies down their throats — and in this case sends more than one hundred billion dollars into the coffers of the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world without allowing so much as a debate in the Senate.
On that point, if Mitch McConnell were ever to strip the Senate of the last vestiges of its filibuster, this would be the moment for that “nuclear option.” At least that would allow the Senate to register disapproval of the nuclear gift Obama and John Kerry wrapped up for the Iranian mullahs and the IRGC.
This is all being set up for a future GOP president to have to deal with. The Democrats have already got a strategy for pinning the whole thing on him.
Democrats are the party of treason.
Pass it on.
They now own whatever happens with Iran.
Everything.
Can you just imagine the uproar from Big Media if the Republicans tried anything like this?? If they cannot vote on the ‘agreement’ why ever would it go through? Without the Senate even voting?? Republican ‘leadership’ in DC is WORTHLESS!!
If all Republican senators vote AGAINST the Iran deal, that would be 54.
Add Chuck Schumer (NY) and Robert Menendex (NJ) among the Dems and you have 56. Who are the 3 other Democrats against the deal?
If all Republican senators vote AGAINST the Iran deal, that would be 54.
Add Chuck Schumer (NY) and Robert Menendex (NJ) among the Dems and you have 56. Who are the 3 other Democrats against the deal?
I no longer expect great feats of bravery from the likes of Mitch McConnell, if I ever did. He’s already thrown in the whole box of towels, just as what happened in the effort to defund Planned Parenthood.
WOW! Sure didn’t see that coming. LOL! Was there ever any doubt once john f’n kohn-heinz-kerry was on the move convincing “law makers”? Hey, even colon powell said it was a good deal and if that isn’t enough to make you change your mind, well, I don’t know what is. Maybe if we got an okay from the hildebeast.
Treaties require 2/3 approval by the Senate.
The GOPe capitulates again. It’s not just the Dems we are fighting.
And the GROPe is the Party of Surrender.
They literally changed the rules for this one specific treaty. It stunk then, and now we know why. I honestly don't think this would be found to be Constitutional if challenged. I don't think the Congress can vote away their job responsibilities.
No need to even veto it now. The measure of disapproval will never get to his desk.
So of course Joe Manchin now comes out and announces he is a “no”.
A Profile in Courage, NOT!
41 traitors that must be dealt with for their treason. 41 who took IAPAC money and who knows how much on the side through Soro’s mini-me
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
There is really a simple solution for this that fits well within the rules of the senate. One senator can raise a point of order stating that the treaty is, in fact, a “treaty”. Have whomever is in charge of the “rules” (can’t remember who that is right now), rule in favor of this motion. Then proceed with the bill as a treaty, which requires 2/3rd approval. Of course, none of this will happen because the GOPe has no spine or testicles. It’s a wonder they can dress themselves in the morning without consulting with Obama first.
That is 41 votes for the Iranian Proliferation Treaty, that is not a treaty because Obama says it is an “agreement”
Of course our “conservative” majority Senate agrees.
Now they,as usual can say, “it is not our fault, Send us money so we can stop Obama.”
After 0dungo's traitorous act of the Bergdahl trade, WHY SHOULD ANYONE TRUST HIM ON IRAN??? 0dungo is an agent of the Caliphate and he WANTS A NUCLEAR IRAN to conquer the middle east.
They literally changed the rules for this one specific treaty. It stunk then, and now we know why. I honestly don’t think this would be found to be Constitutional if challenged. I don’t think the Congress can vote away their job responsibilities.
Yes they can and have before. Where do you think all those ‘rules’ that have the force of law from the EPA, IRS, HHS, etc come from. Congress makes very few laws anymore. Most edicts come from bureaucrats and bureaucracies. Unelected and unaccountable by the citizens. That is the main reason we are screwed.
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.