Wait, I thought it showed that Obama was a dictator who tramples the constitution... FTFY. FTFY2. Congress isn't something one really wants to have standing with nowadays, is it? When we are talking about which branches of government are jokes, Congress is certainly in the top three. barfo
Et voila! Tough break, barfo. Congress does get a say. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...s_way_for_congressional_say_in_iran_deal.html Congress Will Have Say in Iran Deal, Panel Votes Not a single senator on the 19-member committee of 10 Republicans and nine Democrats voted against the measure that would allow Congress to review for 30 days any agreement reached on Iran’s nuclear program before choosing whether to accept or reject it. In another win for Congress, the White House indicated President Obama would sign the legislation that made it through committee, though he had previously issued veto threats on the original bill.
No... I refer you to post #165, where I said: I said they were welcome to try it. Now they have tried it. Maybe they read my post. Like I said, I have no problem with congress passing laws. That's kind of their job. barfo
You said: "Actually, it is supposed to work this way, and it has always worked this way. The President has the authority to negotiate agreements with other countries without keeping Congress in the loop." Congress is in the loop.
Actually, you aren't reading very closely. There is a difference between negotiating an agreement and signing an agreement. Congress gets a say in whether it gets signed. They didn't get a say in what was negotiated (and won't the next time, either). barfo
Congress is getting a say NOW. The deal isn't negotiated. Obama is briefing congress as he goes. Congress is in the loop.
Sure... I'm thinking that you are just arguing now to be arguing. Not that there is anything wrong with that. barfo
I'm thinking you were outright wrong when you said, "Actually, it is supposed to work this way, and it has always worked this way. The President has the authority to negotiate agreements with other countries without keeping Congress in the loop." It hasn't "always worked this way" either.
here's a little humor covering the conservative's revisionist history of iran and there present position in their nuclear ambitions and how they were able to take advantage of a far worse foreign policy bungle to become the power and influence peddler of today. no reading necessary denny, watch the video and laugh. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/17/jon-stewart-dick-cheney-iran_n_7084762.html
Cheney knows a hell of a lot more than Stewart. But I don't agree with him about burdening the next president. Congress gets to vote on whatever Obama schemes up. If it passes muster, then I see no reason why it's a burden for the next president. I do think there's merit in questioning why we'd lift the sanctions so Iran would have more money to fund terrorist organizations and regimes. Maybe those should be on the table in the negotiations, too (i.e. we'll lift sanctions if you stop funding Hezbollah, etc.).
OK, I just read through the last four pages of this thread. Anyone who's read my posts in the OT board knows I'm a religious conservative. That said, I've never understood the hand-wringing over this Iran deal, and Barfo has clearly been the most reasonable one in this thread (crazy, I know). It's silly to complain about Congress not knowing the content of the negotiations, because there is no need for them to know anything until some agreement has been reached. It's silly to compare this to the Iran-Contra affair, because no consideration has yet been exchanged. It would only be comparable if Obama had actually given something to Iran, which he hasn't (yet). It's silly to suggest that anyone here is claiming that the President isn't constrained by previously-established legislation, because we all know he is. However, a negotiation/agreement that is in conflict with existing laws is not in and of itself illegal, only subsequent actions that violate a law. Now, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of a treaty with Iran that permits them nuclear weapons capability. But if one is settled upon, and Congress passes it, then I think my greatest issue would be with Congress. What I would have difficulty accepting would be Obama negotiating a treaty, enacting it via executive agreement, and bypassing Congress altogether. Until/unless that happens, however, it seems that most of the complaining in here is premature.
