Senate Committee to Challenge Obama With Vote on Iran Bill

[IDemo]

Source: Time

(WASHINGTON) — In a direct challenge to the White House, a Senate committee is to vote on a bill that would give Congress a chance to weigh in on any final nuclear agreement that can be reached with Iran.

Despite a veto threat from President Barack Obama, there is strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for Congress to have a say in any deal that the U.S. and five other nations are able to negotiate to keep Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for easing sanctions crippling the economy of the influential nation in the Middle East.

The White House doesn’t want Congress to take any action that could upset the delicate negotiations that are supposed to wrap up with a final agreement by the end of June.

Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said a vote is likely on Tuesday, possibly on a new version still being crafted Monday night.

Read more: http://time.com/3820865/senate-committee-iran-obama/

[still_one]

1. fuck congress. Because of them they destabilized the entire middle east allowing the bush invasion

of Iraq, and giving him unprecedented power to invade Iraq, which started the whole disarray. Now when a President wants to try to undo the damage done by bush and congress by negotiating a peace deal, these war mongers actually want to sabotage the deal.

If the Iran negotiations fall apart because of this reckless congress, with the help of democrats, those democrats MUST be challenged in a primary. They learned NOTHING from the mistakes and lies with the Iraq invasion, and I have no use for them.

Another reason I will donate to individual candidates, but NOT to the DNC

[Cosmocat]

2. I don't want to hear shit from anyone else saying this president is a sell out or whatever

THIS is what he has dealt with for 6 years.

Not only republicans, more so than any party at any time in our history being absolutely, totally united in opposition on EVERYTHING against this president from day one.

BUT, democrats in congress having absolutely no fucking spine in backing him up.

No way, NONE that his party should let a veto proof bill on this advance.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. When are the racists going to confirm Loretta Lynch?

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. Congress: Well-paid escorts for the billionaires and trillionaires

[Still In Wisconsin]

5. Wow, they really, really, really, really want to bomb somebody.

Bombing isolated ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria just doesn't do it for them apparently. They want to bomb the living shit out of somebody. Shock and awe and all that.

[turbinetree]

6. Messed up

When we need these jerks and jerkiest to lets say ask for a public hearing on the TPP we get nothing except there same old rhetoric that there hands are tied behind there backs---right all they have to do is pass legislation to have this open to the public.

When we need accountability on Wall Street and the Banks sucking us dry we get nothing still to this day.

When we ask for public hearings on what is going on out west with the country getting no water we get a jerk with a snow ball tell us it is a hoax.

When we have human beings not getting there earned unemployment benefits we get the proverbial screw you and the continued attack on the working poor and the middle class.

When we need job creation we get two house of representatives members ( Cole & Delaney) wanting to FAST TRACK with a MEANS TEST for Social Security Cuts and no public hearings

When we need help all around, what we get is both houses of Congress and OUR employees that work for us with our tax dollars taking over one month off so far this year earning $ 29,000 on those days off and doing nothing again.

And then for just pure politics and nothing else, we have 47 senators sending a open letter to Iran in clear violation of the Logan Act and the Constitution under Article 2 Section 2 paragraph 3 then the country gets to witness another senator and all of his band of merry men and women trying to circumvent the president form a country acquiring a device that can kill people --------way to go ----you are not only like the 47 or as bad as the 47 traitors-------but you have no morality just political gamesmanship and nothing else .

[SHRED]

7. For war Congress writes a blank check and cheers

For peace they vote to block it.

Warpigs.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Money for war, bullets for peace...I hope folks from all sides catch on..war and peace should not be

issues decided by corrupt men with personal agendas. Which is most of the Senate and all of the Republicans.

And why has Menendez not resigned yet?

Obama is for peace, a few Mullahs in America for war....I really hope folks get it.

[totodeinhere]

8. Any Democrat who votes with the Republicans to undercut President Obama's agreement

with Iran needs to be primaried and voted out of office. And Shumer should not be allowed to become the next Democratic leader in the Senate.

[kelliekat44]

10. I agree. nt

[Botany]

9. The President does not have to take the deal with Iran in front of Congress

WithPresident does not have to take the deal with Iran in front of Congress

Republicans and their media lap dogs are pushing the lie that the President has to
take the deal in front of Congress. The very same group who invited Bibi Netanyahu
to speak in front of the Congress to undermine the POTUS, sent a letter to the Ayatollah
of Iran saying that President Obama doesn't really have control over US foreign policy,
and then got information from Israel that was obtained by spying by Israel on Kerry
and company along with other nation's negotiators in Switzerland .... fuck em they
would rather see a war then have President Obama have any success.

A University of New Hampshire Professor's letter to the Editor of the
NY Times. March 11 2015

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

[kelliekat44]

11. This blew my mind and it should be used by this administration.

Since 1940, the majority of international agreements made by the U.S. have been through a process called the "sole executive agreement", not "treaties" as many seem to believe. The sole executive agreement is a power of the president to unilaterally make agreements with foreign countries without needing approval from Congress. For decades, conservatives have fought tooth and nail to do away with the sole executive agreement...when liberals were in office. When conservatives are in office, the sole executive agreement is their best friend, just like when they whined when Obama used the signing statement ONCE, while Bush had used it over 700 times.

[Iliyah]

14. Darn those pesky facts!

[Fred Sanders]

12. AIPAC has pulled in all of it's markers on this one. No other foreign nation has such a foreign lobby.

[karynnj]

16. It is hard to communicate how angry I am over this -- and how absolutely frustrated

For years, as a liberal Jew, I often argued against allegations that AIPAC and Israel did things like this. This however has been RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN. I would bet this will most help the BDS movement -- as it is the only way that an individual can respond to the action of their government -- which is backed by all but a small percent of non Arab Israelis - as only Meretz seems to not be pushing against an agreement - and they have just 5 of the 120 seats in the new Knesset.

What is sad is that if this deal were actually done, it would actually lower the risk for more than a decade that Iran would get a nuclear bomb. This is not for the safety of Israel - it is for the ability of Likud to stay dominant and to essentially terrorize the population with the bogeyman of Iran - which does not help matters through provocative statements.

I hope that the world will still be able to reach an agreement, but if not I would not be surprised to see the international sanctions fall apart. If Iran then moves to get a bomb, which we will not know as the monitoring will end, Israel and the Republicans are to blame.

[AlbertCat]

15. give Congress a chance to weigh

Like anyone cares at this point what "congress" thinks.


Why don't they just vote to re-acknowledge "In god we trust" is the country's motto..... or maybe vote to repeal the ACA again?

Y'know, something they can handle.