Support Growing To Give Congress A Vote On Iran Deal

[Red Knight]

Source: Bloomberg

The Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday he’s within a few votes of being able to override a threatened presidential veto of his bill giving Congress a say in any nuclear deal with Iran.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee predicted “strong, bipartisan support” when his committee takes up the bill on April 14. The measure would give Congress 60 days to review a final agreement with Iran before any congressional sanctions could be suspended.

Republican leaders have given no indication of when the measure might be taken up on the Senate floor, assuming it passes committee. President Barack Obama has promised to veto the bill. Overriding a veto would need 67 votes in the 100-member Senate.

“We’ve got 64 or 65 that we’re aware of today, if that were the case,” Corker said on the “Fox News Sunday” program. “I talked to a number of Democrats over the weekend, and I think there are many more that are considering this.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-05/corker-says-support-growing-to-give-congress-vote-on-iran-deal

---

[cosmicone]

1. I doubt 14 democratic senators

no matter how much they want to kiss Bibi's ass ... would vote to override.

This is all posturing.

[leveymg]

2. Chuck Schumer is providing political cover to defectors, and AIPAC has a lot of markers it can call

in. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they pull it off.

[Fred Sanders]

18. Schumer is, or was, a proud member of AIPAC...such memberships should be banned for politicians.

[valerief]

4. Former DINO Lieberman would have. And not because he's Jewish.

He'd do anything McCain wanted.

[still_one]

6. If they override with enough democratic votes to make it happen, 2016 is NOT going to be good for

the Democrats, and this isn't only from the progressive wing of the party

It will indicate that the Democratic party has learned nothing from our invasion of Iraq, and will repeat the same mistakes with Iran.

This is a unique opportunity, and I find it interesting that a lot of the same folks who want it to fail, pushed us into an invasion of Iraq based on a lie.

I am not sure if I agree with your assessment that enough Democratic Senators won't vote to override. I do believe that the President can sign the agreement without Congress, though after he leaves office it can be undone. However, if the agreement holds up for two years, and the international community has its support, it will isolate us from the rest of the world if that was the case

[cosmicone]

10. This is about Israel and Bibi's tantrum

Obama should go on TV and call out these people as acting in the best interests of Israel rather than the United States.

[still_one]

12. First of all the President has come out against those in Congress trying to derail the deal. I

also argue your point that this deal actually is in the best interests of Israel and the entire region. Just like the criticism levied by the republicans regarding the ACA, not only did they not come up with an alternative, they would even participate in the discussion.

The same thing is occurring here. The opposing forces have no alternative plan except harder sanctions and war.

[cosmicone]

23. Nevertheless, it is Bibi's tune that they are dancing to.

I don't think even hard-boiled tea partiers would want the US to dance to Israel -- even less so than many democrats.

Obama just needs to divide and conquer.

[still_one]

26. I don't agree. It is more about the neocons control of oil in the region. Read the articles from

PNAC, (Project for a New American Century), and it is very clear what their objective is

[malthaussen]

3. Don't they have a repeal vote on Obamacare or something to waste their time on?

Well, we knew letting the GOP take over Congress would result in new prominence for stupidity. It's still depressing to watch, though.

-- Mal

[riderinthestorm]

5. How completely depressing nt

[Botany]

7. The President does not have to take this deal before congress and he would be crazy if he did

I might be wrong but I think President Obama has the Constitutional authority to
do this deal w/out Congress. The classic definition of insanity is to keep doing the
same thing thinking that outcome will change.

The Congressional Republicans have:

Invited Bibi to speak against the President in front of Congress (a first)

Wrote a letter to a person seen as an enemy of the United States and told him that
the President doesn't speak for the American people or have any power to negotiate
with a foreign nation. (a first)

Some of them got information from Israel that was obtained by espionage on
talks conducted by the American government and didn't say anything. (a first)

fuck em!

A University of New Hampshire Professor's letter to the Editor of the
NY Times.

To the Editor:

Re “G.O.P. Senators Write to Tehran on Nuclear Pact” (front page,
March 10): The letter this week by 47 Republican senators to Iranian
leaders informing them that any agreement on nuclear activities signed
by President Obama could be reversed “with the stroke of a pen” by a
future president shows a glaring disregard for American and
international law.

Starting with George Washington, presidents have signed thousands of
executive agreements with other nations that have the force of law
under the United States Constitution and international law.

The Constitution has been construed by the Supreme Court as allowing
the president to enter into such binding agreements as part of his
executive powers. While such agreements in theory could be abrogated
by an American president or a subsequent law, under international law
such agreements would continue to be binding on the United States. The
attempted breach would give rise to a charge that the United States
was violating international law.

Senators, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, should be more
careful in making irresponsible statements about the United States’
international obligations.

ANDREW VORKINK

North Hampton, N.H.


The writer teaches international law at the University of New
Hampshire School of Law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/outrage-over-a-gop-letter-to-iran.html?mabReward=A7&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion
®ion=Footer&module=recg&pgtype=article

[2banon]

28. Obama made this point in an interview aired on NPR this morning.

entering peace negotiations and non-proliferation agreements does not require the approval of congress. Going to war does however.

[Botany]

36. I got an email from my GOP senator, Rob Portman, saying how important .....

..... it was for the President to work with the Senate on this deal
and after all the deal is only for 10 short years. Of course they
had the email so you could not reply but I kept thinking are you
kidding me? You people have been rude and nasty to the President since
day one and now you want him to work w/you?

2banon

[2banon]

42. Don'tcha just love those one way emails

looks like you'll have to place a call to the office to let your voice be heard on this issue.

And I would definitely underscore the point you just made here!

[still_one]

8. I called Dianne Feinstein's office, and they said she supports the deal, so I am not sure about the

sky is falling accounts that the MSM is reporting that they will be able to override a veto. They might not

[madville]

9. This isn't so much about Iran

It's about the Administration's dismissal of Congressional authority on a variety of subjects. That makes people in both parties angry even if they don't display it publicly, up until this point many Democrats have usually toed the Administration's line and prevented legislation from even reaching the President's desk.

I think with Reid retiring and Obama and his staff on the way out, we will see more vocal and public opposition from some Democratic Congressional members on a few subjects. Reid usually kept everyone whipped into a united block, he may back off his usual strong arm tactics because he doesn't need party or Administration help for anything now.

[Iliyah]

15. Nope that ain't it. Actually its the usual corporate media BS along with lying GOPers

with their well paid backers. Of course there are a few Dems who will side with GOPers but to my understanding not enough for a "veto" power therefore expect umpteenth lawsuits that will eventually head may I say quickly to the five conservative asshole justices who will do the 1-2% bidding.

War, death and suffering is profit.

[geek tragedy]

24. when Congressional Republicans act like grownups, then the whining about Congress being sidelines by

the adults in the room will have some merit.

Or did the Tommy Cotton letter impress you as the act of an institution whose opinion deserves to be respected?

But, right now, the agenda is to torpedo the deal. Schumer is a member of the War Party, as are the vast, vast majority of those signing on to the Corker bill.

[The Stranger]

11. List the Democratic traitors here and let's make sure this is their last term.

Time to cull the herd.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Or write them, en masse, and let them know we are AGAINST WAR.

Trying to primary them will only result in a Republican winning their seat - and that would defeat the purpose of trying to find a peaceful resolution to the Iran issue.

[red dog 1]

37. I agree, a massive e-mail campaign to the Dinos who might vote with Corker & the GOP

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

would be a good idea.

I wonder which Dem senators (besides Schumer) Corker is referring to?

[BlueCaliDem]

38. Chuck Schumer is making noise that he might support the Corker bill.

I don't know any other Senators, though, although I know that both of my senators, Boxer and Feinstein, support President Obama in this Iran deal.

[Fred Sanders]

43. Anyone know what is actually in the Bill that may or may not be voted on?

There have been Iran sanction bills passed by the Senate in the past, and the House....what is wrong with another sanctions bill lifting some of the sanctions, or not....why is that not enough?

[red dog 1]

44. Schumer is a douchebag

I assumed already that he was one of the Dems Corker was referring to who agreed with him.

I wonder what other Senate Dems would actually go along with Corker?

[merrily]

13. They want to override the Constitution?

[Fred Sanders]

19. Apparently they are going to dance around that by claiming the agreement is a real "treaty"?

[merrily]

21. Constitutionally, only the Senate gets to vote on a treaty.

That is because, at the time, state legislators elected US Senators, the people elected Reps and Madison and other framers feared the mob. So, they gave more power to Senators than to either the House or the two houses combined.

[Fred Sanders]

22. The House getting a vote is one part of the near total mass media deflection that is beyond the pale....

[Iliyah]

27. You would think that the United States Constitution will be required reading with

courses that can help congress members understand what writing mean pertaining to the United of America, but noes, most of congress are dumb as nails with the support of corporate media and hate radio and RW social media.

Talk about "idiocracy". USA looks like a bunch of hateful warmongering jerks to the rest of the world.

[NoMoreRepugs]

14. despite having recently obtained new glasses

I barely recognize what is going on in this country of ours..

our divide grows at an alarming rate every day

[BlueCaliDem]

34. You can thank CorpMedia USA for that.

They're complicit in the dumbing-down of the citizens of these United States (who actually want a Confederate States of America).

[tomsaiditagain]

16. The United States is not a dictatorship

Iran Deal should be debated and voted on.

OMG!!! I actually said that. Cool man

[Fred Sanders]

20. Only if this is a treaty, which it is not, so as wrong as a handful of biased Democrats and all Republicans

[forthemiddle]

39. What is the legal difference between a Treaty and an "Agreement"

I am a little fuzzy on that point. Constitutionally they do have to ratify treaties, so my question is, is this not a treaty because the President said it wasn't, or is there another Constitutional difference?

[merrily]

29. The Constitution, yo. Please see Reply 21.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. This Iran deal is NOT a treaty.

The Iran Deal is therefore not subject to Congressional approval, with or without debate.

OMG!!! I actually had to tell you that! Cool beans.

[karynnj]

17. At a risk of looking like Polyanna - this is likely part spin and it is NOT specific

Obama himself has spoken of Congress having a role. They do have an oversight role. However, they do not have the right to veto this - as they would a treaty.

At this point, they are speaking of wanting to pass a bill that gives them an "up or down" vote in both Houses. Note that is not at all what happens with a treaty. A treaty needs 67 votes in favor of it in the Senate.

Note also, what is the impact of them having that up or down bill "before sanctions can be lifted?" What is the meaning of "lifted" - the President HAS the ability to waive or suspend -- but not permanently remove currently -- however there is a sunset in late 2016 on the sanctions that requires the legislature to actively renew them. Note that if nothing is changed, Obama can waive many of the sanctions including the most important banking ones - and assuming that Iran does its part - do you think there are 67 votes (to override a Presidential veto) that would be needed to renew the sanctions? Here, it seems what they want is the ability to change the existing law giving Obama the rights written into the bills that authorized the sanction.

One thing the Republicans ignore is that the INTERNATIONAL sanctions that they have no control over are far more significant than the American ones. If we sign the deal - and Obama can and especially if it is then taken to the UN, where Obama controls our vote - all Congress can do is make the US look weak and divided.

The devil will be in the details in the Corker bill. I would suspect that the Democrats will have enough votes to prevent any bill that declares this has to be treated as a treaty. I also think there are enough Democratic votes to stop something that would renew - NOW - the sanctions before there is an agreement.

At this point, the critics - starting with the Netanyahu speech have had a month where they were the main voice on this subject. Obama/Kerry/et al could not respond with specifics or strong statements in public because it could negatively impact the negotiations. They really did play the negotiations very close to the vest and ended up with an agreement that surprised many as being stronger than expected.

Only since Thursday has the administration been able to make their case. There has been talk of Kerry going before a joint session to argue for the agreement. I assume that if that happens, a very key player will be Secretary Moniz. If you watched any of the START floor debate, Kerry was incredible (Yes, I know I always think he is incredible, but on this he got enormous praise even from many who opposed him) responding to one complex question after another with humor and excellent coordination of the staff who ably supported him. That however is where Moniz might be the star - very few members of Congress studied technical fields - he was an MIT professor of nuclear physics.

With Moniz dominating them on any technical questions - and Kerry dealing with the geopolitical issues that are Netanyahu's and the neocons REAL problem, it is hard to believe that the shift will not be towards giving the deal a chance. Not to mention, a real battle will include the American public. There we have OBAMA who was fantastic in boiling this down to the limited choices -- and making a strong case that this was better than either going to war or to raising sanctions to get a magical better deal. (First of all, the US alone has very little more it could do with sanctions without the world working with us. The greater likelihood is if the deal is derailed by Netanyahu/Congress is that overall sanctions will be lower as other countries abandon them.

Consider that before Obama et al made their case, polls showed 59% or 67% (2 different polls) supporting a diplomatic deal. Not a bad place to start! What this also means that EVERYBODY should be lobbying their Congressperson and Senators. We KNOW AIPAC is, but if everywhere they go in their state, they hear people wanting peace to have a chance and the foreign policy to change starting here - we might beat AIPAC. (In fact, on Iran, AIPAC has for the past years been unusually less effective than in the past.)

What I think is happening is that this is a real fight between the neocons who controlled US foreign policy for a decade and a new approach that does not yet have a name. It would have been naive to assume there would not be an all out battle over this. What should be seen is that this is a fight for the very soul of American foreign policy.

If we win this it could lead to a more moderate (and they are so not moderate, that they have lots of room to move in this direction) Middle East. Then look at what we are trying to do in Cuba - noting Obama did not need Congress on this either. Later this week, President Obama and Secretary Kerry will go to the Latin American summit. Some articles when the Cuba deal was announced spoke of how this could have waves of impact on our relations with Latin America -- that have been awful for decades. There can be change here too. You might want to google the success that Feingold and Kerry have had in Africa.

It could be that when Obama leaves office and some time has pasted -- people looking back will see that the hard work that he (and his administration) have done in the midst of turmoil all over the world has sowed the seeds for a more peaceful world.

[cosmicone]

25. Obama should just go on nationwide TV

and say that the republican and traitor democrats are putting Israel's interests (actually Netanyahu's interests) ahead of what is good for America. Explain it in a Clintonesque fashion and this will be dead in no time.

[Vinca]

31. In a normal Congress, this might be a fine idea.

In this Congress it is not. Their votes have nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with opposing the POTUS. Their agenda is "we hate Obama." It's not a state secret.

[itcfish]

33. This is not Good!!

Just have congress declare war on Iran and get it over with. That's what they want anyway.

[Scurrilous]

35. Israel to push Congress to pass bill to hamper Iran deal

Israel will try to persuade congressmen and senators to introduce a clause stipulating that the deal with Iran should be seen as an international treaty requiring Senate ratification and not an agreement.

<snip>

"Israel will adopt two lines of attack as it tries to thwart – or at least modify – the international nuclear agreement with Iran in the coming weeks, a senior official said.

Firstly, it will lobby the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would make it difficult, or even impossible, to approve a comprehensive deal with Iran if one is reached by the June 30 deadline.

At the same time, it will continue pressing the White House for the “improvements” Israel says must be made in the terms of the agreement, the official said.

Israel will try to persuade as many congressmen and senators as possible to support the bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (Rep.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The bill sets a 60-day period from the moment an overall agreement is reached with Iran, during which Congress and the Senate will check and review its every detail."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650813

Haaretz link goes to paywall. Sorry. But if you go to Google news and search under 'Israel' the article should be at the top of the page. Luck!

[quadrature]

40. can Pres.Obama lift sanctions by himself?

keep in mind that the sanctions
were approved by Congress

other than that, an Executive Agreement
only applies to one person in the US,
(the President), and does not give the.Pres
any authority he does not already have.

[olddots]

41. the pukes want a 2nd civil war

simple as that .