Obama wishes to bypass congress on Iran deal

[Texashiker]

This makes me sick to my stomach, that a president would strike a deal with a foreign nation, then try to stop the senate from ratifying the deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0

But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

This is not how a republic is supposed to work.

 

[brandonb]

Actually, I agree with Obama on this one. AIPAC is too strong, and putting it to a vote would be a waste of time. Everybody who's in the congress has pledged allegiance to Israel in some fashion. It's in America's best interest to remove the sanctions. Iran is not our enemy. Israel and Iran on the other hand... Maybe less than friendly. Not sure, but it's their problem to figure out.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Is it a treaty?

 

[Brainonska511]

Actually, I agree with Obama on this one. AIPAC is too strong, and putting it to a vote would be a waste of time. Everybody who's in the congress has pledged allegiance to Israel in some fashion. It's in America's best interest to remove the sanctions. Iran is not our enemy. Israel and Iran on the other hand... Maybe less than friendly. Not sure, but it's their problem to figure out.

I'm thinking along similar lines and it's rather unfortunate. We can't let our loyalty to another country impede our own goals. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't strike a deal with Iran and settle our differences amicably and in a way that's somewhat fair for all parties involved. But if the current Congress gets involved, they're sure to try and f*ck it up, given that they were thinking about derailing the earlier negotiations with extra sanctions a few months ago.

I think it's somewhat important to protect Israel, but at the same time, they do things that we should be more vocal in denouncing and we simply can't provide them with a blank check to do whatever they want. And in the end, our interests >> their interests.

 

[Brainonska511]

This is not how a republic is supposed to work.

Has Congress done anything truly meaningful in the last 2 years? The government seems broken, but I don't think it's the executive that's the biggest problem. In fact, the reaching of executive power is in direct response to the craven, do-nothing, no meaningful oversight Congress.

 

[michal1980]

the monarch president strikes again.

 

[bshole]

I think it's somewhat important to protect Israel, .

Why? I would argue the complete opposite, it is important to for Israel protect it itself without getting America involved.

 

[Brainonska511]

Why? I would argue the complete opposite, it is important to for Israel protect it itself without getting America involved.

I said somewhat. I don't have a serious problem with being allies, but I agree - they should handle more of their security and we should be more overtly pressuring them to handle more of their security through more peaceful means instead of simply sending them weapons and money to buy more weapons. After all, the foreign aide we provide countries gives us a little leverage when we want them to do something - we should use that to our advantage.

 

[fskimospy]

Seems like a smart move to me.

 

[Jaskalas]

Has Congress done anything truly meaningful...

An excuse to burn the Republic.

In this topic our fellow members are openly declaring that the rule of law is over, and that they will get their way by force. That the people's representatives are an inconvenience to be ignored.

It has come to this.

 

[Texashiker]

Why? I would argue the complete opposite, it is important to for Israel protect it itself without getting America involved.

We finally agree on something.

We have no interest in protecting Israel.

Has Congress done anything truly meaningful in the last 2 years?

Congress has not done anything meaningful in at least 20+ years. GATT, NAFTA, free trade, bailing out banks and wall street,,,, the people are getting screwed.

 

[Brainonska511]

An excuse to burn the Republic.

In this topic our fellow members are openly declaring that the rule of law is over, and that they will get their way by force. That the people's representatives are an inconvenience to be ignored.

It has come to this.

I'm not excusing it. It's simply the balance of power that is supposed to exist. Congress has created a power vacuum with its do-nothing approach, so the Executive is filling it in where it can. It's hardly burning the Republic. If you want push-back on the Executive, get Congress to do it's damn job. I mean, they can't even come back from their campaigning recess to vote on whether we should be bombing Iraq and Syria. What the f*ck is up with that? It should have gone through them instead of unilateral action. And even if it started with unilateral action by the President, why didn't Congress come back to offer a yes or no vote?

 

[fskimospy]

An excuse to burn the Republic.

In this topic our fellow members are openly declaring that the rule of law is over, and that they will get their way by force. That the people's representatives are an inconvenience to be ignored.

It has come to this.

This post seems to come from a fundamental ignorance of how foreign relations is structured under the Constitution, not to mention these sanctions themselves. Explicitly written into them was the ability for Obama to suspend parts of them if he thought it was in the interests of US national security.

Apparently the Republic is on fire because the president is acting fully within duly enacted laws. Who knew?

 

[Texashiker]

I'm not excusing it. It's simply the balance of power that is supposed to exist. Congress has created a power vacuum with its do-nothing approach, so the Executive is filling it in where it can. It's hardly burning the Republic. If you want push-back on the Executive, get Congress to do it's damn job. I mean, they can't even come back from their campaigning recess to vote on whether we should be bombing Iraq and Syria. What the f*ck is up with that? It should have gone through them instead of unilateral action. And even if it started with unilateral action by the President, why didn't Congress come back to offer a yes or no vote?

You are funny.

obama is not a team player. Whether it is immigration, iran, russia, ukraine,,,, obama has exhibited a lack of cooperation.

He wants things done his way and screw everyone else.

 

[Brainonska511]

You are funny.

obama is not a team player. Whether it is immigration, iran, russia, ukraine,,,, obama has exhibited a lack of cooperation.

He wants things done his way and screw everyone else.

If you want funny, just look at your posts, you clown. You're like the Republican dmcowen.

 

[squarecut1]

This makes me sick to my stomach,

Try Imodium.

 

[Texashiker]

If you want funny, just look at your posts, you clown. You're like the Republican dmcowen.

Do you have anything to rebut my post?

obama lacks leadership skills. He has been unable to get the two parties to work together.

Now he wishes to exclude congress all together? Chances are he would throw the democrats on their ear to get his way.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have anything to rebut my post?

obama lacks leadership skills. He has been unable to get the two parties to work together.

Now he wishes to exclude congress all together? Chances are he would throw the democrats on their ear to get his way.

I like how angry you are that Obama is using the authority explicitly granted to him by Congress.

Congress passes laws, it's our duty to follow the law. He's following the law.

By your logic used elsewhere you should be perfectly happy.

 

[Texashiker]

Congress passes laws, it's our duty to follow the law. He's following the law.

Bull crap, obama is trying to avoid the law.

The president is supposed to negotiate treaties, then the treaty is ratified by the senate.

 

[fskimospy]

Bull crap, obama is trying to avoid the law.

The president is supposed to negotiate treaties, then the treaty is ratified by the senate.

Can you read, you idiot? Written into the sanctions law is the ability for the president to suspend those sanctions.

By your own logic you now should be congratulating Obama for following the law.

 

[thraashman]

Can you read, you idiot? Written into the sanctions law is the ability for the president to suspend those sanctions.

By your own logic you now should be congratulating Obama for following the law.

Why do you insist on attempting to use logic with something as intellectually dysfunctional as Texashiker?

 

[Texashiker]

Can you read, you idiot? Written into the sanctions law is the ability for the president to suspend those sanctions.

And?

The power to ratify a treaty belongs to the senate.

 

[fskimospy]

And?

The power to ratify a treaty belongs to the senate.

This is not a treaty.

Are you attempting to argue that every agreement the executive makes with any other country must be ratified by the senate?

That would be bafflingly stupid, even for you.

 

[K1052]

And?

The power to ratify a treaty belongs to the senate.

Executive Agreement.

 

[Brainonska511]

Bull crap, obama is trying to avoid the law.

The president is supposed to negotiate treaties, then the treaty is ratified by the senate.

Not all agreements with foreign nations are treaties. And if Congress already gave him the authority to lift sanctions if it is in US interests, then how can you complain about him following the law?

Wasn't it said, "that's the way of doing things, deal with it"?