Tuesday, August 04, 2015

The Iran Agreement: A Done Deal?

Follow-up to this recent post by Pastorius.

From the Washington Post (July 14, 2015):
"When is a treaty not a treaty?" Stevenson said. "When it's not called a treaty." Otherwise: "There's no other difference."
Not comforting!
So Congress reached an agreement with Obama under which it can vote to void any deal that is reached with Iran. With the deal now wrapped up, Congress could vote very soon. Obama's pretty safe, though, because as was clear even when he agreed to allow Congress to vote, he can veto any "no" vote if it passes both chambers in the Republican-controlled Congress. At that point, Republicans would need to get many Democrats to join them to overturn the veto.

[...]

The basic thing we want you to take away from this is the difference between a treaty (which has to be approved by the Senate) and an executive agreement (a treaty-except-not-officially-called-that which doesn't have to be approved by the Senate but that sometimes Congress gets to vote on.)
Read the entire article HERE.

Any braying and boasting about stopping the Iran deal in the upcoming GOP debate on August 6 will mean nothing. 

UNLESS the next POTUS can and will cancel the executive agreement.

5 comments:

Pastorius said...

The next President won't stop shit, unless the next President is Ted Cruz.

Pastorius said...

All of them are the same. That's why nothing is ever done to stop any of this.

No votes are just no votes because some of them have to vote "no" sometimes to make it look like they're actually on our side. They trade the "no' votes between each other.

They all agree. For the most part, they'd all be happy to vote "Yes" almost all the time.

Because they agree.

We have no evidence otherwise.

If there was actually disagreement with Obama, they could stop him. The Republicans have quite a majority, and they can't stop him?

Failure theater, as Ace of Spades says.

Always On Watch said...

Pasto,
No votes are just no votes because some of them have to vote "no" sometimes to make it look like they're actually on our side. They trade the "no' votes between each other.

Ted Cruz is the real deal, IMO. But does he have a chance of getting on the ballot? I doubt it!

Anonymous said...

Pasto comment #2 is spot on. This is why Boehner and McConnell are a greater threat to out national future than Obama. Because Obama could be managed, even thwarted, if Congress would assert its Constitutional prerogatives.

It is unbelievable that a sitting President can simply order every power plant in the US to conform to his personal edicts. Or that a President can decide what is or is not a treaty at whim. But that is where we are today. The national sclerosis is dangerously advanced.

Pastorius said...

AOW,
No I don't think Ted Cruz has a chance.