Obama Warns Congress Not to Stand in Way of Iran Deal

NY TIMES ^ | 7/14/15

[null and void]

EVERYTHING obama does either:

a) Weakens America/Americans
b) Distances America's allies
c) Strengthens America's enemies
d) Serves Islam
e) Harms Israel
Or some combination of the above.

There are NO counter examples.

[P-Marlowe]

Somebody explain to me why this deal, like Nafta and TPP, is not a treaty and subject to the 2/3 ratification rule of the Constitution.

[null and void]

Millions are going to die as a result of caving into Iran’s demands.

Obama’s place in history is secure, however it will not be for what he thinks.

I first posted this in '09:

Ummm. No.

History is written by the victors.

If this covert muslim single handedly brings down “The Great Satan”, his praises will be sung in mosques for millennia.

What better write-up, how much more glory could any human hope for?

[null and void]

Kerry Lied
Millions Died

He's going for a billion dead this time

[Colonel_Flagg]

FUBO.

[BlueNgold]

So, does anyone get to read it now that it’s done or is it still classified?

[P-Marlowe]

The Congress is not calling this a treaty...just an agreement.

What is the difference?

[null and void]

It's not a treaty, it's an agreement!

[null and void]

A treaty would require a 2/3 approval in congress.

[P-Marlowe]

A treaty would require a 2/3 approval in congress.

And this "agreement" does not meet the definition of a treaty because.....?

[Truth29]

Congress will conduct a little security theater. The GOP will speachify, denounce the agreement, then vote it down: Obama will veto the legislation and his veto will be upheld - all according to the original plans.

[oust the louse]

“When (not if) Iran sets off its first nuke Obama will own it.”

AND....If it’s the destruction of Israel, Obama will be pleased.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> Obama Warns Congress Not to Stand in Way of Iran Deal

Obama Warns Congress "Tame Monkeys" Not to Stand in Way of Iran Deal

FIFY

[null and void]

Because if they called it a treaty they’d need a 2/3 vote.

[P-Marlowe]

Because if they called it a treaty they’d need a 2/3 vote.

The Constitution requires that all treaties must receive a 2/3 approval by the Senate.

Are you suggesting that if they call a treaty an "agreement" that the congress and the president can just bypass the treaty clause?

Are you ok with that?

This is a treaty. Look it up.

[P-Marlowe]

The GOP will speachify, denounce the agreement, then vote it down: Obama will veto the legislation and his veto will be upheld - all according to the original plans.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

How do you veto a rejection?

[TomGuy]

McConnell and Boehner last seen cowering under their desks and sucking their thumbs.

==

[Truth29]

Congress vill vote the agreement down, Obama will veto the Congressional vote and his veto will be upheld, just as was planned in the April Iran bill that Obama signed.

[oblomov]

Because it is about the lifting of sanctions, the authority for which has been (unconstitutionally, in my view) delegated by Congress to the President.

According to this interpretation of the law, Obama does not need to get Congressional approval for anything.

[TomGuy]

I suspect Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) will be making the rounds to the media and the Senate well to condemn this deal.

He seems to be the most vocal opponent to it in the Senate.