Skip to comments.Cruz's Strategy to Stop the Iran Deal
Posted on 09/10/2015 1:41:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Ted Cruz -- a lot just broke here. I mean, during the break a lot of stuff just broke, so I'm just now getting it organized. Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing the plan that we mentioned two days ago on this program to stop the Iran deal based on Obama's failure to comply with a Corker Bill condition that he disclose the entirety of the agreement.
Again, two ways to go about this Iran deal. There's intellectual heft on all sides and there's valid reasons to do both ways. One side says go after it on the basis of a treaty because it is one. The Constitution's very clear. Don't let Obama get away with doing something that's not a treaty when it is. And then there's the other way which basically requires the Republicans and the Congress to illustrate, to point out that the deal is invalid because Obama's not followed the law. And the law is the precious Corker-Cardin Bill, which, on one hand, made opposing it practically impossible because of the convoluted way it reversed the voting procedure and the objective of the voting procedure.
In a treaty you need 67 votes of support in the Senate to ratify it. The Corker Bill, "No, no, no, no, we're gonna make it so that we only need 33 votes to stop it," essentially. So it never had a chance of failing if they wanted to deal with it the treaty way because the Corker Bill convoluted everything. But there was another element to the Corker Bill that required the president to fully disclose everything in the Iran deal, including the two side deals on a certain date, which was July 19th. That was not complied with.
As such, the Corker Bill is law. It was passed, then signed, and Obama is in violation of it. And the Republicans in the Senate and the House are perfectly within their rights under the separation of powers and the whole concept that the law's the law and we have a rule of law, they're perfectly within their rights to assert that the Iran deal is invalid because Obama has violated the statute that he signed regarding its passage and approval, the Corker-Cardin Bill. It's no more complicated than that. I spent a lot of time on this two days ago.
Now Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing a plan that is right along the lines of that which we've been discussing. There are four points. This is not the whole letter. These are just the four point highlights. Number one, Republicans should find that Obama did not provide the agreement, so the 60-day congressional review period never started. In other words, Obama did not give them the details. He was required by law to provide Congress with the details, which is something he hasn't done. Look at the pan-Pacific trade deal. You had to go to a super-secret room to read it. You couldn't take any notes outside the super-secret room, and you couldn't tell anybody what you had read.
Obamacare. It's become pretty clear that the vast majority of people that voted for it had not read it, and you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, "Well, we gotta pass it, we have to sign it before we find out what's in it." So this is par for the course. Obama's been thumbing his nose at Congress as much as they'll let him get away with it, which is quite a bit. But in this case they could find, they should find that Obama did not provide the terms of the agreement. So the 60-day congressional review, which is part -- that's another thing. Treaties, months and months and months are allowed. The Law of the Sea treaty, how long was that debated, for years. So should this have been.
But Corker, they thought they were being cute, they put a 60-day limit in it. This 60-day congressional review limit supersedes treaty clause in this case, but it never started because Obama didn't comply. That's the period that Corker and McConnell are trying to rush us through by September 17th, which lets Obama win with 34 votes in the Senate. That's what the Corker Bill basically does. It lets Obama win with 34 votes instead of 67.
Now, it's clear that just with that first point in Cruz's letter, this whole thing could be defeated, but McConnell and Boehner and Corker are trying to rush this thing through by September 17th so that they will get past the 60-day congressional review and make it look like it's all legal. The second point that Cruz makes in this letter is that McConnell should find that if Obama had submitted the deal as a treaty, it would have been soundly rejected, which it would have. They never have 67 votes for anything in the Senate, not even this. And a treaty requires two-thirds at 67. Remember the Corker Bill did everything upside down and ended up saying that all Obama needed was 34 votes to get this dangerously stupid deal authorized.
Talk vs action.
Cruz voted for Corker....which is how we got here. If McConnell lied to him he should have came to FR before he put his trust in him and we would have all told him that it was going to happen. Of course Cruz already knew that but he voted yes anyway.
Keep on making excuses for Judas...you are looking like an idiot.
I also voted for Sara Palin in 2008.
From what I can see, a lot of it tends to be attempts to build up other candidates by slamming Cruz.
If Cruz had voted against it we would still be here, and he would look pretty darn silly trying to use the requirements of a bill he voted against to stop the treaty.
This way Cruz did not undercut and eliminate or discredit his ability to push for stopping the bill on the basis of non-complience of the bill by the administration.
Sometimes what you are left with is your best strategy.
The bigger problem has become the lawlessness of the administration and the GOP cowardness on opposing it.
Cruz is on record as a signatory to THE legislation that got us here. When you cut through all the propaganda and theater that is the absolute nut of it.
I've long thought that the state park in Weehauken (NJ) where Burr shot Hamilton should be turned into the National Dueling Grounds for situations such as these. We would erect grandstands, and ESPN would cover them.
The first use would have been a decade ago when Chris Matthews insulted Michelle Malkin on his show. The next night, Zell Miller came on the show and told Matthews that his treatment of Malkin was ungentlemanly, unacceptable and that he would have challenged Matthews to a duel were such a thing legal.
A duel between Zell Miller and Chris Matthews would have been a ratings bonanza for ESPN.
Compromise does not mean you vote for legislation that results in America losing.
If they followed the law you are complaining about, they deal would not be approved. Cruz is trying to hold to that law and shut down the approval.
If the Corker bill had not been approved (he voted for it) it would have required 2/3 vote to pass. Period.
I should have used the word stategize instead of compromise in post #46
That is what he did.
I like that...a national dualing grounds.
That would keep the chicken hearts from getting into politics and it would help with term limit some of thd older and slower.
And Cruz could not have stopped that bill. If he makes them hold to the bill, the approval of the deal is stopped.
Sorry you cannot understand that. Have a great night.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement. No worries.
Cruz voted for Corker and Obama wins again because of the Corker bill. Cruz then jumps up and down screeching that McConnell lied to him and that Obama is breaking the law. Obama and McConnell give Cruz the middle finger and you come on here trying to convince everyone that Cruz has a strategy. You call it smart, I call it either stupidity or complicity. Either way it ISN’T leadership.
Have a great night.
It's not like I expect you to ever agree with me. Gotta go find bigger fish to fry.
The GOP is so dead. Useless and dead.
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.