PDA

View Full Version : Justin Amash to oppose nuclear agreement with Iran




tsai3904
09-09-2015, 02:24 PM
This week, the House will hold votes related to the nuclear agreement with Iran. I have read the publicly available portions of the agreement in full. Consistent with my oath to support and defend the Constitution, I must oppose this nuclear deal.

There are at least two major constitutional defects with the nuclear deal.

First, President Barack Obama refuses to recognize the agreement as a treaty, subject to approval under the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). Under the Treaty Clause, the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” To avoid this higher threshold for approval, the Obama administration asserts that the nuclear deal is merely an “executive agreement” that binds only this president.

Even if we accept this dubious claim, there is a second constitutional defect that compels me to reject the nuclear deal. Under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, Sec. 3, Cl. 5), the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” As I discuss below, the president clearly fails to fulfill this obligation.

In May, both houses of Congress passed, and the president signed into law, H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Review Act). The Review Act provides a process for congressional oversight of any nuclear deal, so that Congress can determine whether the nuclear-related sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran should be lifted. I have supported sanctions on Iran directed at preventing the country from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon (in contrast to sanctions targeting non-nuclear-related civilian activities), and it’s likely that negotiations would not have taken place had those sanctions not been enacted.

The Review Act requires the president to submit to Congress the text of any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Submission of the nuclear deal triggers a period of review for Congress to analyze the agreement—a period during which the president is prohibited from taking any actions to lift statutory sanctions.

The precise language of the Review Act recognizes that a comprehensive nuclear deal includes many separate components, and that for members of Congress to accurately assess the merits of the agreement, Congress must have access to all portions of the agreement. Thus, the Review Act carefully defines "agreement" to include "annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements."

We now know that there are at least two side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that are integral to the nuclear deal but nevertheless will not be shared with Congress. These side agreements cover how a primary Iranian military site will be inspected for nuclear activity and how Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. Remarkably, it was only through a chance meeting between two members of Congress and the IAEA that the existence of these secret agreements came to light. The Obama administration apparently preferred to keep Congress in the dark, and even now the administration refuses to provide the side agreements to Congress. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry claims that even the president’s negotiating team doesn't have access to these side agreements.

The Obama administration's secrecy surrounding these side agreements casts serious doubts on its other claims about the nuclear deal, and it makes clear that the president has not been working with Congress in good faith. The president signed the Review Act into law knowing full well that it requires him to provide all side agreements to Congress. The administration should not have negotiated a final nuclear deal that allows portions of the agreement to be withheld from Congress, because the president knows that his agreeing to such a nuclear deal violates U.S. law and his duty under the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

This violation of law with respect to the submission of the agreement has further implications under the Review Act. The 30- to 60-day congressional review period for the nuclear deal isn’t triggered until the president submits the *entire* agreement to Congress. If the nuclear deal hasn't been submitted in full—because side agreements remain hidden—then the review period hasn't even begun.

But the existence of secret agreements with the IAEA has deeper implications still. The available text of the nuclear deal states that nuclear, missile, and arms restrictions on Iran are to be lifted after certain periods of time (between five and ten years depending on the source and type) "or when the IAEA has reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier." In other words, at the discretion of the IAEA, these restrictions may be lifted significantly earlier than the milestone dates specified in the agreement, and the exact method by which the IAEA will reach this conclusion can't be known to Congress or even the Obama administration, because the side agreements remain secret.

Finally, even if we set aside the constitutional defects and related consequences discussed above, it is unconscionable that the Obama administration would negotiate a final agreement that does not secure the release of the three American hostages held in Iran—Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian—or information on the whereabouts of a former FBI agent abducted in Iran, Robert Levinson. The nuclear deal provides Iran access to billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and the almost immediate removal of major U.S. and international economic sanctions on Iran's financial and energy sectors, followed by the termination of most nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in just a few years. If Iran is unwilling to return American hostages to their families as part of this agreement, then we cannot trust that Iran will act in good faith as sanctions are lifted.

I support peaceful negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining or using a nuclear weapon, and I kept an open mind about this agreement as it was being negotiated. It’s regrettable that the president has acted disingenuously in his interactions with Congress and continues to treat the Constitution with contempt. Despite the Obama administration's false rhetoric, the choice here is not between this nuclear deal and war. A better agreement that complies with the Constitution and secures long-lasting peace is possible.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/948120658560674
641705298764386305
641712672967380993
641714637608722432
641717618378977280

specsaregood
09-09-2015, 03:02 PM
Let's see if he gets near the amount of frothing at the mouth hate that Randal got over it.

erowe1
09-09-2015, 03:17 PM
Let's see if he gets near the amount of frothing at the mouth hate that Randal got over it.

I'm still digesting what Amash said. But it's harder to argue with this than it was with Rand's statement, which came across as pro-intervention. This doesn't.

twomp
09-09-2015, 03:17 PM
Let's see if he gets near the amount of frothing at the mouth hate that Randal got over it.

Amash used the Constitution as his reason. Rand Paul lied and cherry picked comments from Ayatollah Khomeini as his reason. Rand Paul doesn't like it when other people distort his comments, why does he do it to other people?

Brett85
09-09-2015, 08:14 PM
Justin used far better arguments for opposing the deal than Rand did. I would probably vote against the deal as well for the reasons Justin cited, which are reasons that are entirely different from the reasons the neocons use to vote against it.

specsaregood
09-09-2015, 08:25 PM
Amash used the Constitution as his reason. Rand Paul lied and cherry picked comments from Ayatollah Khomeini as his reason. Rand Paul doesn't like it when other people distort his comments, why does he do it to other people?

Anybody can come up with any number of reasons to vote against nearly any piece of legislation if voting NO is what they want to do. Excuses and arguments aside, the net effect is the same, both are voting NO to the Iran Deal. If its ok for Amash to Vote NO without all the bitching and slander, then its ok for Randal to do the same.

Brett85
09-09-2015, 08:40 PM
Anybody can come up with any number of reasons to vote against nearly any piece of legislation if voting NO is what they want to do. Excuses and arguments aside, the net effect is the same, both are voting NO to the Iran Deal. If its ok for Amash to Vote NO without all the bitching and slander, then its ok for Randal to do the same.

I think the reason why someone votes a certain way is important. For example, if a libertarian votes against a budget because it isn't balanced, and a liberal votes against a budget because it cuts too much spending, that doesn't mean that they suddenly agree on budgetary issues. The context and reasoning for a particular vote is very important. That said, I wasn't one of those who was overly critical of Rand for opposing the Iran deal. I understood that opposing the Iran deal was a non starter for him since he was running in the GOP primary for President.

twomp
09-09-2015, 09:53 PM
Anybody can come up with any number of reasons to vote against nearly any piece of legislation if voting NO is what they want to do. Excuses and arguments aside, the net effect is the same, both are voting NO to the Iran Deal. If its ok for Amash to Vote NO without all the bitching and slander, then its ok for Randal to do the same.

Rand Paul took an extra step of lying and distorting the truth when he spoke out against the deal. If he stated the things Amash said, there wouldn't be as much backlash from the Libertarians.

He took a man's words, INTENTIONALLY twisted it around and made that the reason for his vote. He didn't just vote NO, he is spreading propaganda for war. He is doing what the neo-cons do. Justin Raimondo wrote an entire article on that alone. Plain and simple. I don't even see why its that difficult for you to understand.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/07/28/rand-paul-fraud-failure-liar/

Brett85
09-09-2015, 10:25 PM
He didn't just vote NO, he is spreading propaganda for war. He is doing what the neo-cons do. Justin Raimondo wrote an entire article on that alone.

Raimondo is being just as harsh with Amash as he was with Rand.

twomp
09-09-2015, 10:44 PM
Raimondo is being just as harsh with Amash as he was with Rand.

I haven't seen what he's said about Amash yet. Do you have a link? Not saying you are lying. Just curious. He did however rip into Senator Paul for lying in the article I linked above:


So Rand Paul is now repeating AIPAC’s dishonest talking points. This is reminiscent of the same sort of propaganda that led the US to invade Iraq: “factoids” ripped out of context and promulgated by the Bush administration and its pet neoconservative pundits to create an entirely false picture of an Iraq that was seeking nuclear weapons.

Brian4Liberty
09-09-2015, 11:57 PM
Justin used far better arguments for opposing the deal than Rand did. I would probably vote against the deal as well for the reasons Justin cited, which are reasons that are entirely different from the reasons the neocons use to vote against it.

Rand's reasoning, no matter how it was presented, is undoubtedly more in line with Amash's reasoning than the neocons.

cindy25
09-10-2015, 02:18 AM
Let's see if he gets near the amount of frothing at the mouth hate that Randal got over it.

from what I saw on twitter he is. Iran is just so hard to defend, its almost as if they don't want a deal either. if the hostages had bee released it would have been very hard to against it. I think Amash was waiting for a positive development, which is what Rand should have done. he would have made more sense, and gained votes if he held his vote until the rally.

Brett85
09-10-2015, 07:20 AM
I haven't seen what he's said about Amash yet. Do you have a link? Not saying you are lying. Just curious. He did however rip into Senator Paul for lying in the article I linked above:

Just all kinds of stuff he said on his twitter page if you go back far enough.

https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/641714731795877889
https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Es erp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

erowe1
09-10-2015, 07:49 AM
Anybody can come up with any number of reasons to vote against nearly any piece of legislation if voting NO is what they want to do. Excuses and arguments aside, the net effect is the same, both are voting NO to the Iran Deal. If its ok for Amash to Vote NO without all the bitching and slander, then its ok for Randal to do the same.

The effect is the same on this specific matter. But the reasons they give, if they're honest, indicate where they stand on larger issues and how they will vote on all votes that pertain to those issues. Rand's reasoning came across to me as very pro-sanctions. Amash's didn't.

Brian4Liberty
09-10-2015, 10:10 AM
Raimondo is being just as harsh with Amash as he was with Rand.


Just all kinds of stuff he said on his twitter page if you go back far enough.

https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/641714731795877889
https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Es erp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

There's a world of difference between a Tweet that says "So @justinamash caves on Iran deal vote:" to long winded articles completely trashing someone.

Brian4Liberty
09-10-2015, 10:14 AM
A quick edit, and this applies here:


The neoconservatives will vote against the agreement because they would rather bomb Iran today.

Who here believes that is what Rand Amash wants to do?

tsai3904
09-10-2015, 10:45 AM
641995762625302528
642004149266161664
642005644460060673
642006980945682432
642007970923065344

Brett85
09-10-2015, 12:02 PM
There's a world of difference between a Tweet that says "So @justinamash caves on Iran deal vote:" to long winded articles completely trashing someone.

Read through all of his tweets about Justin. It seemed to me like he was being just as hard on Justin as he was on Rand.

Feeding the Abscess
09-10-2015, 04:55 PM
There's a world of difference between a Tweet that says "So @justinamash caves on Iran deal vote:" to long winded articles completely trashing someone.

Rand is seen as the face of a movement that Raimondo has been a part of for 40 years. Justin Amash is not.

messana
09-10-2015, 10:17 PM
A quick edit, and this applies here:

I doubt it but if Trump/Bush/Clinton wins the 2016 contest, would you wish we had the deal to prevent them launching the (undoubtedly unconstitutional) war on their own?

Personally I'd rather not play politics when potentially millions of lives are in stake.

tsai3904
09-15-2015, 03:18 PM
643855692676337664
643861377946357760
643867035064233985
643870242834399232
643880532674113536
643883872791359488