• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrat says Let Congress decide on Obama's Iran deal

eskimospy said:
Yes. Obama can unilaterally sign the deal and lift sanctions, in accordance with laws passed by congress.
Click to expand...

when were these laws passed?

and when the iran deal was reached, why did Obama act as if he needed Congress's approval?
 
JEDI said:
when were these laws passed?

and when the iran deal was reached, why did Obama act as if he needed Congress's approval?
Click to expand...

Sanctions on Iran were passed a long time ago and they explicitly gave the president authority to remove them.

That's the law.
 
eskimospy said:
Yes. Obama can unilaterally sign the deal and lift sanctions, in accordance with laws passed by congress.
Click to expand...

Dunno that Obama can legally lift sanctions, but that's kinda like the Taliban prisoner exchange & legalized marijuana. Congress can impeach him if they want.

If Obama gives the green light, American business will go straight for it & Repubs can whine like little princesses. They'll need to fabricate cause for war someplace else. Uhh-Waaahhh.

Look at the bright side. If Bibi dies of an apoplectic fit, he'll be doing the world a favor.
 
Jhhnn said:
Dunno that Obama can legally lift sanctions, but that's kinda like the Taliban prisoner exchange & legalized marijuana. Congress can impeach him if they want.

If Obama gives the green light, American business will go straight for it & Repubs can whine like little princesses. They'll need to fabricate cause for war someplace else. Uhh-Waaahhh.

Look at the bright side. If Bibi dies of an apoplectic fit, he'll be doing the world a favor.
Click to expand...

Nope, he definitely can. It's explicitly written into the statutes.
 
I notice all the Republicans who are taking marching orders from Bibi.

Have any of them talked to the reps of the other P5+1 nations actually negotiating this deal???
 
Congressional overreach vs Presidential overreach. Sounds like the USSC needs to pile in and add a little overreach of their own.
 
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
 
unokitty said:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

Bolded the key part. Looks like eskimospy is right and it is up to the President to determine if Iran sanctions should be waived.
Title IV: General Provisions - (Sec. 401) Terminates the provisions of this Act 30 days after the date on which the President certifies to Congress that: (1) the government of Iran has ceased supporting acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies certain requirements for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; and (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic weapons.

Authorizes the President to waive, if in the U.S. national interest: (1) the application of sanctions; (2) sanctions on Iranian officials complicit in human rights abuses; (3) the prohibition on procurement contracts with persons that export sensitive technology to Iran; or (4) the imposition of the licensing requirement for a country designated as a Destination of Diversion Concern.
Click to expand...
 
whenyoureking.jpg



,... BBBLLLAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
 
People don't realize that this is just a political ploy for negotiating advantage. Schumer is just playing bad cop to Obama's good cop in order to get a better deal from the Iranians. The negotiators can say, "if the deal's not good enough, congress may act and everyone knows that congress looks upon Iran more poorly than Obama."
 
unokitty said:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
Click to expand...

This may help you understand the issue better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#One_of_three_types_of_international_accord
 
thraashman said:
Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

Bolded the key part. Looks like eskimospy is right and it is up to the President to determine if Iran sanctions should be waived.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the Dem congressman wants a vote for political reasons, not necessarily because it's legally required. As that group of GOP Senators pointed out in a tone-deaf fashion, having the legislative branch's consent will make it a far more durable arrangement.
 
glenn1 said:
I'm thinking the Dem congressman wants a vote for political reasons, not necessarily because it's legally required. As that group of GOP Senators pointed out in a tone-deaf fashion, having the legislative branch's consent will make it a far more durable arrangement.
Click to expand...

Schumer's a poster boy for AIPAC, of course he's in on it to derail this deal. He must answer to his masters.
 
glenn1 said:
I'm thinking the Dem congressman wants a vote for political reasons, not necessarily because it's legally required. As that group of GOP Senators pointed out in a tone-deaf fashion, having the legislative branch's consent will make it a far more durable arrangement.
Click to expand...

Well then, if Congress wants it to be that way they can take up the matter on their own.

Which isn't the point of the current raving at all, obviously.
 
glenn1 said:
I'm thinking the Dem congressman wants a vote for political reasons, not necessarily because it's legally required. As that group of GOP Senators pointed out in a tone-deaf fashion, having the legislative branch's consent will make it a far more durable arrangement.
Click to expand...
Only Congress can make it the law of the land, but Obama can make it law as long as it violates no other existing law. And another President can remove it unilaterally if she so desires. Presidents have a LOT of power here.
 
BTW, is the rest of the world going to keep up the sanctions just because US Congress, whom pretty much everyone considers dysfunctional, doesn't want a deal? Do you think Russia and China care about what Tom Cotton of Arkansas thinks?
No, they'll move on, strike their own deals, and then we'll have no effective sanctions, and no deal. Iran will resume exporting oil and gas, while continuing to develop their nuke.
 
JEDI said:
Democrat says Let Congress decide on Obama's Iran deal
Click to expand...

This situation is odd in that it seems 99% of the time Congress is reluctant to act because they don't want the blame/responsibility. And people complain about it that lack of taking a stance.

Now, they want to act on a matter that has very high political stakes. If, as a Congressperson, you approve of this proposed deal you're quite likely going to come under great criticism. Same if you vote it down. And now many people are complaining because Congress does want to take a stance for a change.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
He can only temporarily suspend them is my understanding. It will take an act of Congress to remove them.

Fern
Click to expand...

There is no limit as to how long the president can suspend them, but a subsequent president could reinstate them if they wanted.

If The P5+1 actually reach a deal with Iran it is unlikely that sanctions would be reinstated by a future president if for no other reason than it would alienate our allies and likely be ineffective. Reinstatement of sanctions without a material breach by Iran wouldn't be followed by Europe, therefore the sanctions wouldn't have that much of an effect.

This is why Obama was so much more successful than Bush at forcing Iran into concessions. Bush was never able to get Europe to go along due to his belligerent attitude. Obama has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top