PDA

View Full Version : Senate votes 98-1 for Iran Review - WHY?




TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 06:37 AM
The Constitution of the US gives the Senate powers to vote on a treaty. So why is there a need for this bill? Additionally, this bill weakens the Senate's voice in this process. To change the Constitution, an amendment is required, yet we see this one group of senators make a change without taking the needed steps. What exactly is taking place here?? Why would the senate give away their power in this process? Our founders didnt want 1 person to have total power when forming documented relations with other nations, and I don't either. Do you???? How can the 98 sitting senators justify their vote to support this bill?

Slave Mentality
05-08-2015, 08:20 AM
Because tyranny, that's why. I don't support much of anything regarding American politics anymore. It is far too gone.

http://www.dadsdayoff.net/images/bipartisan-tyranny.jpg

presence
05-08-2015, 08:50 AM
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to direct the President, within five days after reaching an agreement with Iran regarding Iran's nuclear program, to transmit to Congress:


the text of the agreement and all related materials and annexes;
a related verification assessment report of the Secretary of State;
a certification that the agreement includes the appropriate terms, conditions, and duration of the agreement's requirements concerning Iran's nuclear activities, and provisions describing any sanctions to be waived, suspended, or otherwise reduced by the United States and any other nation or entity, including the United Nations; and
a certification that the agreement meets U.S. non-proliferation objectives, does not jeopardize the common defense and security, provides a framework to ensure that Iran's nuclear activities will not constitute an unreasonable defense and security risk, and ensures that Iran's permitted nuclear activities will not be used to further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose, including any related research.

The Secretary is directed to prepare a report assessing:


the Secretary's capacity to verify Iran's compliance with the agreement,
the adequacy of the agreement's safeguards to ensure that Iran's permitted activities will not be used to further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose, including research; and
the International Atomic Energy Agency's capacity to implement the required verification regime.

In preparing a report the Secretary shall assume that Iran could:


use all measures not expressly prohibited by the agreement to conceal activities that violate its obligations under the agreement; and
alter or deviate from standard practices in order to impede verification efforts.

The foreign relations committees shall hold hearings and briefings to review an agreement during the 30-day period following the President's transmittal of such agreement.
The congressional review period shall be 60 days for an agreement, including all materials required to be transmitted to Congress, that is transmitted between July 10, 2015, and September 7, 2015.
The President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran or refrain from applying sanctions pursuant to an agreement prior to and during the transmission period and during the congressional review period.
The President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran or refrain from applying sanctions pursuant to an agreement for:


12 days after the date of passage of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval, and
10 days after the date of a presidential veto of a congressional joint resolution of disapproval.

Specified deferrals, waivers, or other suspensions of statutory sanctions are excepted from such prohibitions.
It is the sense of Congress that:


the sanctions regime imposed on Iran by Congress is primarily responsible for bringing Iran to the table to negotiate on its nuclear program;
these negotiations are a critically important matter of national security and foreign policy for the United States and its closest allies;
this Act does not require a vote by Congress for the agreement to commence;
this Act provides for congressional review, including for approval, disapproval, or no action on statutory sanctions relief under an agreement; and
even though the agreement may commence, because the sanctions regime was imposed by Congress and only Congress can permanently modify or eliminate that regime, it is critically important that Congress have the opportunity to consider and take action affecting the statutory sanctions regime.

An action involving statutory sanctions relief by the United States pursuant to an agreement or the Joint Plan of Action:


may be taken if, during the review period, Congress enacts a joint resolution stating that Congress favors the agreement;
may not be taken if, during the review period, Congress enacts a joint resolution stating that Congress does not favor the agreement; or
may be taken if, following the review period, there is not enacted any such joint resolution.

The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of all aspects of Iranian compliance with respect to an agreement.
The President shall:


within 10 days of receiving information relating to a potentially significant breach or compliance incident by Iran submit it to Congress;
within 30 days after submitting such information determine whether it constitutes a material breach or compliance incident and report that determination to Congress as well as Iran's action or failure to act that led to the material breach, actions necessary for Iran to cure the breach, and the status of Iran's efforts to cure the breach; and
at least every 180 days thereafter report to Congress on Iran's nuclear program and compliance with the agreement.

The President shall keep Congress fully informed of any initiative or negotiations with Iran concerning Iran's nuclear program, including any new or amended agreement.
The President shall, not less than every 90 days, determine whether the President is able to certify to Congress that:


Iran is fully implementing the agreement,
Iran has not committed a material breach of the agreement,
Iran has not taken any action that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program,
Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or a U.S. person, and
suspension of sanctions against Iran is appropriate and proportionate to measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program and vital to U.S. national security interests.

It is the sense of Congress that:


U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under an agreement;
issues not addressed by an agreement on Iran's nuclear program, including compensation for Americans held in captivity after the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, in 1979, the freedom of Americans held in Iran, the human rights abuses of the government of Iran against its own people, and the continued support of terrorism by the government of Iran, are matters critical to ensure justice and U.S. national security, and should be addressed;
the President should determine the agreement in no way compromises the U.S. commitment to Israel's security, nor its support for Israel's right to exist; and
in order to implement any long-term agreement reached between the P5+1 countries and Iran, it is critically important that Congress have the opportunity to review any agreement and take action to modify the statutory sanctions regime imposed by Congress.

If the President does not submit such certification or has determined that Iran has materially breached an agreement, Congress may initiate within 60 days expedited consideration of legislation reinstating statutory sanctions against Iran. Sets forth House and Senate provisions regarding such expedited consideration.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as:


modifying the President's authority to negotiate, enter into, or implement executive agreements, other than the restrictions on implementation of the agreements specifically covered by this Act;
allowing any new waiver, suspension, reduction, or other relief from statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law, or allowing the President to refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement during the period for congressional review;
revoking or terminating any statutory sanctions imposed on Iran; or
authorizing the use of military force against Iran.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 09:05 AM
The Constitution of the US gives the Senate powers to vote on a treaty. So why is there a need for this bill? Additionally, this bill weakens the Senate's voice in this process. To change the Constitution, an amendment is required, yet we see this one group of senators make a change without taking the needed steps. What exactly is taking place here?? Why would the senate give away their power in this process? Our founders didnt want 1 person to have total power when forming documented relations with other nations, and I don't either. Do you???? How can the 98 sitting senators justify their vote to support this bill?

Well, I suppose because Benjamin Netanyahu came before Congress and told them to do it.

That's the short answer.

Ronin Truth
05-08-2015, 09:34 AM
Did the Rothschilds just miss one of the Senate voters?

ZENemy
05-08-2015, 09:57 AM
Sorry folks, its just a piece of paper. Without the threat of force no gov will follow any piece of paper.

Sam I am
05-08-2015, 10:05 AM
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/615

It looks to me like the bill sets up a framework that allows the president to negotiate with Iran, and a framework for congress to review any agreements that he made.

It even has language re-affirming that in order to permanently lift sanctions, congress must be involved


even though the agreement may commence, because the sanctions regime was imposed by Congress and only Congress can permanently modify or eliminate that regime, it is critically important that Congress have the opportunity to consider and take action affecting the statutory sanctions regime.

It doesn't seem to grant the President any new authority that he didn't already have.

It's also clearly scoped to the specific negotiations with Iran that are going on right now.

A actually agree with his bill. It will allow the president to actually negotiate with Iran, but It places certain requirements on whatever agreement he comes out with.

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 10:27 AM
Who voted "no" by the way? Couldn't find.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 10:41 AM
Who voted "no" by the way? Couldn't find.
Tom Cotton voted no.

Why would Dr Paul vote yes to something like this?!?

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 10:52 AM
It doesn't seem to grant the President any new authority that he didn't already have.


It does. I will give an example: the treaty clause in the Constitution says the Senate must confirm any agreements the President proposes and negotiates. Also they only need a simple majority so long as 2/3 of the senate is present. So the president has to ask the Senate to approve.
This new bill says he can ask the senate but if they don't approve The President can veto. The Senate then needs a super majority to override a veto.

are you able to see what a huge difference that makes?

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 10:53 AM
Tom Cotton voted no.

Why would Dr Paul vote yes to something like this?!?

The Wiz pleads the 5th. But Rand says:


I’m proud to support Israel, America’s longtime friend and ally in the Middle East.

Israeli cafés and buses are bombed, towns are victimized by hundreds of rockets, and its citizens are attacked by Palestinian terrorists.

It’s time we took a stand for Israel by standing up to the enemies of Israel, the enemies that murder Israeli citizens.

That’s why I proposed a bill called the “Stand with Israel Act” to cut off the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Palestinian Authority.

As long as the Palestinian Authority is allied with Hamas not one more tax dollar should flow to them.

https://www.randpaul.com/issue/israel

He's proud to support Israel. That's what this bill is about.

Any questions?

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 11:49 AM
The Wiz pleads the 5th. But Rand says:
He's proud to support Israel. That's what this bill is about.

Any questions?

This Quote is talking about an act he proposed, not the bill that just passed the senate. So yes I still am asking the same question. But thanks for trying.

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 12:26 PM
This Quote is talking about an act he proposed, not the bill that just passed the senate. So yes I still am asking the same question. But thanks for trying.

Notice the third sentence begins with "that's why" and not "because". In other words, the act he proposed is based on his support for Israel and his support for Israel is not based on the act he proposes.

The text of the bill you are questioning about that Presence posted in post #3 has text referring to Congress' desire to protect the interests of Israel.

Where exactly is the mystery here?

AngryCanadian
05-08-2015, 12:38 PM
I’m proud to support Israel, America’s longtime friend and ally in the Middle East.

Ally in destroying other none Islamist minorities. One thing is for sure Rand is like McCain. I no longer see Rand speaking about the Christians in the middle east or Syria this what happens when you side with a civilian killer.

specsaregood
05-08-2015, 12:50 PM
I no longer see Rand speaking about the Christians in the middle east or Syria this what happens when you side with a civilian killer.

He was talking about them just last week, giving it as a reason we shouldn't be getting involved in Syria.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:07 PM
Notice the third sentence begins with "that's why" and not "because". In other words, the act he proposed is based on his support for Israel and his support for Israel is not based on the act he proposes.

The text of the bill you are questioning about that Presence posted in post #3 has text referring to Congress' desire to protect the interests of Israel.

Where exactly is the mystery here?


I don't mean this to sound like a debate as I'm questioning 98 members of the senate (though shocked Dr Paul is in that group), but the mystery is why the senate gave away its Constitutional power(duty) to confirm the President's treaty. This bill says the President has the final say unless a super majority of congress disagrees. The Constitition says a simple majority of the Senate has the final say. So to summarize, the mystery to me is 1) why give up the power and 2) why alter the constition without an amendment.

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:09 PM
Funny that Tom Cotton was the only one person in the Senate acting to protect the Constitution here.

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:10 PM
the mystery is why the senate gave away its Constitutional power(duty) to confirm the President's treaty.

I don't think it's a mystery. They wanted the treaty to be accepted, but without voting for it directly for political reasons. So they went about approving it in a convoluted way.

This is what they'll say: Oh, no, that is horrible! Obama leading from behind! We can't stop him! I voted against it but unfortunately we felt short of the 67 votes we needed (after they raised the threshold to 67 votes themselves).

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 01:16 PM
I don't mean this to sound like a debate as I'm questioning 98 members of the senate (though shocked Dr Paul is in that group), but the mystery is why the senate gave away its Constitutional power(duty) to confirm the President's treaty. This bill says the President has the final say unless a super majority of congress disagrees. The Constitition says a simple majority of the Senate has the final say. So to summarize, the mystery to me is 1) why give up the power and 2) why alter the constition without an amendment.

Have you not read the Constitution?


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This bill insures our domestic tranquility by preventing Iran from nuking us. I don't see how it violates the Constitution. Clearly it supports its "intent".

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:19 PM
Funny that Tom Cotton was the only one person in the Senate acting to protect the Constitution here.

That had me scratching my head too

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:25 PM
That had me scratching my head too

Because he is the one person who actually wants to use the Senate's power to reject the treaty.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:27 PM
I don't think it's a mystery. They wanted the treaty to be accepted, but without voting for it directly for political reasons. So they went about approving it in a convoluted way.

This is what they'll say: Oh, no, that is horrible! Obama leading from behind! We can't stop him! I voted against it but unfortunately we felt short of the 67 votes we needed (after they raised the threshold to 67 votes themselves).

Sorry, I missed your sarcasm earlier. That's exactly what they will say. It's sad. And this last the groundwork for future presidents to use this same path to make treaties without the confirmation from the Senate.

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:30 PM
Remember when McConnell gave Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling, and they could only reject it with a supermajority?

It's the same maneuver. McConnell wanted to increase the debt ceiling, but without voting for it. So he passed a bill granting the power to raise it to the President unless a supermajority in the Senate opposed it.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:33 PM
Have you not read the Constitution?
The fact that you asked tells me you haven't.



This bill insures our domestic tranquility by preventing Iran from nuking us. I don't see how it violates the Constitution. Clearly it supports its "intent".
Intelligence agencies already speculate they nearly have the nukes, this bill may be too late.
But that's not the point, the point is that we have a constitutional way to insure our domestic tranquility. The Senate is to approve the Presidential action of a treaty (different branches) this new bill unevenly weights that treaty power into one person's hands.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:34 PM
Remember when McConnell gave Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling, and they could only reject it with a supermajority?

It's the same maneuver. McConnell wanted to increase the debt ceiling, but without voting for it. So he passed a bill granting the power to raise it to the President unless a supermajority in the Senate opposed it.

A great point. Remember when McConnell and Obama were in different political parties? Maybe not.

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:35 PM
Intelligence agencies already speculate they nearly have the nukes, this bill may be too late.

The Obama administration actually wants them to get a nuke, and they have said it openly, though through anonymous sources. One anonymous white house aide mocked Netanyahu because he reacted too late to Obama's actions, and said that by that point it was too late to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I don't have a link, but this stuff was posted uncontroversially in the mainstream news.

It's all a wacky dance to distract.

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:37 PM
we have a constitutional way to insure our domestic tranquility. The Senate is to approve the Presidential action of a treaty (different branches) this new bill unevenly weights that treaty power into one person's hands.

But then Ted Cruz won't be able to fear monger against Iran if he openly votes for the treaty. So he agreed to do it this way as well.

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 01:38 PM
Have you not read the Constitution?

The fact that you asked tells me you haven't.

The fact that you replied with that tells me this:


Sorry, I missed your sarcasm earlier.

...is a common problem with you.

Ender
05-08-2015, 01:43 PM
The Obama administration actually wants them to get a nuke, and they have said it openly, though through anonymous sources. One anonymous white house aide mocked Netanyahu because he reacted too late to Obama's actions, and said that by that point it was too late to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. I don't have a link, but this stuff was posted uncontroversially in the mainstream news.

It's all a wacky dance to distract.

Oh yeah, those anonymous sources from the MSM- we all know how trustworthy that is. :rolleyes:

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:45 PM
Oh yeah, those anonymous sources from the MSM- we all know how trustworthy that is. :rolleyes:

I think in this case they're right. Obama wants them to get a nuke, and it's actually too late to stop them. I guess we'll see in time if I was correct in believing those anonymous sources.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 01:48 PM
The fact that you replied with that tells me this:



...is a common problem with you.
My apologies. I will be first in line when they invent the 'sarcastic font'. What's taking it so long? Is this a government 'font' project?

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2015, 01:53 PM
I don't think it's a mystery. They wanted the treaty to be accepted, but without voting for it directly for political reasons. So they went about approving it in a convoluted way.

This is what they'll say: Oh, no, that is horrible! Obama leading from behind! We can't stop him! I voted against it but unfortunately we felt short of the 67 votes we needed (after they raised the threshold to 67 votes themselves).

The threshold for Senate approval of international treaties is already 2/3 of the Senate.

Article 1 Section 2


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

If this bill does anything, (from an admittedly brief not-in-depth scan of the text and analysis) it unconstitutionally eliminates the 2/3 margin required to approve a treaty, and changes it into a 2/3 margin for rejecting the treaty.

I haven't pored over it, so that's just a first blush take.

Best case scenario, assuming that I've got the analysis wrong, the bill is wholly unnecessary given that the 2/3 margin already exists for the US Senate to approve treaties. Worst case scenario, it will allow the approval of the treaty so long as 2/3 of the Senate does not object...which is a whole 'nuther animal altogether.

wizardwatson
05-08-2015, 01:54 PM
My apologies. I will be first in line when they invent the 'sarcastic font'. What's taking it so long? Is this a government 'font' project?

Nobody cares about the Constitution dude. Our POTUS was a constitutional law professor. What does that tell you?

jj-
05-08-2015, 01:56 PM
The threshold for Senate approval of international treaties is already 2/3 of the Senate.

That's the threshold to approve, that post talked about the threshold to reject.


I haven't pored over it, so that's just a first blush take.

We will all be patiently waiting for your deep and insightful analysis.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2015, 02:01 PM
Funny that Tom Cotton was the only one person in the Senate acting to protect the Constitution here.

Cotton spits on the Constitution routinely, so logic says there are other reasons for his objection here. It's not about defending the constitution with him, as much as it is about blocking any potential treaty with Iran.

The bigger point here is you can't pass a bill to override the Constitution. A bill to eliminate the 2/3 Senate Approval requirement for treaties is not pursuant to the US Constitution (see Article 6, the Pursuance subclause to the Supremacy Clause), and is therefore not law in the United States. They could pass 1000 bills to eliminate the Treaty Approval process, all 100-0 votes, and they will still have the exact same amount of authority to bypass the process as they had before they passed those bills: zero.

If that's what's going to happen, then all Tom Cotton will have to do is bring a suit against the Senate before SCOTUS, and SCOTUS (might, lol) rule in favor of the Constitution.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2015, 02:03 PM
That's the threshold to approve, that post talked about the threshold to reject.

Which is what I already said, so I'm guessing that you saw one sentence leap out and responded without reading the rest?


We will all be patiently waiting for your deep and insightful analysis.

Considering how you just overlooked 90% my last post to lecture me about stuff I already said, I kind of doubt the sincerity of this statement.

Ender
05-08-2015, 02:33 PM
I think in this case they're right. Obama wants them to get a nuke, and it's actually too late to stop them. I guess we'll see in time if I was correct in believing those anonymous sources.

And you do know the countries around Iran that have nukes- right? "Anonymous sources" say that Israel has somewhere between 200-400 nuclear warheads.

TommyJeff
05-08-2015, 02:50 PM
The threshold for Senate approval of international treaties is already 2/3 of the Senate.

i was incorrect in an early comment when I said simple majority.
I will say there is a slight (but distinct) difference between a super majorey and 2/3 of those present.

Your other point is spot on: rather than the senate voting to approve (the final step) they now give the President that final step and only hope they can veto if they disagree. That's an important difference, as you point out.

TommyJeff
05-11-2015, 06:42 AM
Has Dr Paul explained the reason he supported this bill?

Brett85
05-11-2015, 07:07 AM
Why in the world is everyone making such a big deal about this? Freakin Tom Cotton was the one Senator who voted against this. That tells you everything you need to know.

enhanced_deficit
05-11-2015, 12:59 PM
http://www.dadsdayoff.net/images/bipartisan-tyranny.jpg




Not all agree though.



http://noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/diddy.jpg