PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Massie votes "Present" on approving Iran nuclear deal




tsai3904
09-11-2015, 10:33 AM
Update: Massie explains his votes:


Congress took four votes related to the #Iran nuclear agreement. Here is how I voted:

1. The “Corker-Cardin” bill that enabled the President’s deal with Iran, provided Congress had 60 days to review:

I was one of 25 congressmen who, on May 14, 2015, voted “no” on this bill. The Iran deal is a treaty, and pursuant to Article II, section 2 of our Constitution, treaties require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. Corker-Cardin turns the constitutional approval process for treaties on its head. Whereas the Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate to actively approve the President’s treaty, Corker-Cardin effectively requires 2/3 of the Senate to disapprove the Iran deal. In addition, the Constitution gives no power to the House of Representatives to either approve or disapprove of a treaty.

The Corker-Cardin bill passed the House 400-25.

Roll Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll226.xml

2. H. Res. 411, which expresses the sense of the House that, by withholding the “side deals” to the overall Iran agreement, the President was not complying with the “Corker-Cardin” bill’s framework:

I voted “yes” because, given the limited information I learned in classified briefings, the side deals are relevant to the overall agreement, yet the President has refused to disclose the side deals to Congress

H. Res. 411 passed 245-186.

Roll Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll492.xml

3. H.R. 3461, the bill to “approve” the Iran deal:

I voted “present.” Pursuant to the Constitution, treaties must be approved by a “2/3 concurrence” of the Senate. As a member of the House of Representatives, I have no authority to approve a treaty. Even assuming the legitimacy of the Corker-Cardin bill’s framework, H.R. 3461 is a “show-boat” vote at best, since if a majority of the House votes “no” on approving the Iran deal, H.R. 3461 fails, nothing goes to the Senate, nothing is sent to the President for his signature, and the Iran deal proceeds on schedule.

H.R. 3461 failed 162-269-1. Roll call will be posted in the comments once available.

4. H.R. 3460, a bill which prevents the President from lifting sanctions on Iran during the remainder of his presidential term:

I voted “yes.” The President should not be given authority to single-handedly lift sanctions that were implemented via legislation passed by Congress. The executive branch already has far too much authority and power.

H.R. 3460 passed 247-186. Roll call will be posted in the comments once available.

https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/photos/a.536112449746257.122574.452480994776070/1069868503037313/

------------------------------

642375273191723008

Here's the roll call vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml

luctor-et-emergo
09-11-2015, 10:52 AM
I can appreciate that.

I do think it's not a very bad deal, as it is publicly known so far however the way it has come to be is wrong..
Simply voting nay also puts you in a different camp. I think this is the best choice really.

Matt Collins
09-11-2015, 11:04 AM
Here is his press release:






U.S. Representative Massie Issues Statement on Iran Nuclear Deal


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Massie explained his votes on four bills related to the Iran nuclear deal:

1. The “Corker-Cardin” bill that enabled the President’s deal with Iran, provided Congress had 60 days to review:I was one of 25 congressmen who, on May 14, 2015, voted “no” on this bill. The Iran deal is a treaty, and pursuant to Article II, section 2 of our Constitution, treaties require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. Corker-Cardin turns the constitutional approval process for treaties on its head. Whereas the Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate to actively approve the President’s treaty, Corker-Cardin effectively requires 2/3 of the Senate to disapprove the Iran deal. In addition, the Constitution gives no power to the House of Representatives to either approve or disapprove of a treaty.

2. H. Res. 411, which expresses the sense of the House that, by withholding the “side deals” to the overall Iran agreement, the President was not complying with the “Corker-Cardin” bill’s framework:I voted “yes” because, given the limited information I learned in classified briefings, the side deals are relevant to the overall agreement, yet the President has refused to disclose the side deals to Congress.

3. H.R. 3461, the bill to “approve” the Iran deal:I voted “present.” Pursuant to the Constitution, treaties must be approved by a “2/3 concurrence” of the Senate. As a member of the House of Representatives, I have no authority to approve a treaty. Even assuming the legitimacy of the Corker-Cardin bill’s framework, H.R. 3461 is a “show-boat” vote at best, since if a majority of the House votes “no” on approving the Iran deal, H.R. 3461 fails, nothing goes to the Senate, nothing is sent to the President for his signature, and the Iran deal proceeds on schedule.

4. H.R. 3460, a bill which prevents the President from lifting sanctions on Iran during the remainder of his presidential term:I voted “yes.” The President should not be given authority to single-handedly lift sanctions that were implemented via legislation passed by Congress. The executive branch already has far too much authority and power. The Corker-Cardin bill passed the House 400-25 on May 14, 2015, and was signed into law. H. Res. 411 passed 245-186, H.R. 3461 failed 162-269-1, and H.R. 3460 passed 247-186. H. Res 411 and H. R. 3460 now go to the Senate.


###

specsaregood
09-11-2015, 11:13 AM
I can appreciate that.

I do think it's not a very bad deal, as it is publicly known so far however the way it has come to be is wrong..
Simply voting nay also puts you in a different camp. I think this is the best choice really.

If there are "side deals" as part of the agreement that are not disclosed; then you have no real way of knowing if it is a very bad deal or not.

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 11:18 AM
Good vote, for the right reason. Massie continues to impress.

William Tell
09-11-2015, 11:20 AM
Update: Massie explains his votes:

3. H.R. 3461, the bill to “approve” the Iran deal:

I voted “present.” Pursuant to the Constitution, treaties must be approved by a “2/3 concurrence” of the Senate. As a member of the House of Representatives, I have no authority to approve a treaty. Even assuming the legitimacy of the Corker-Cardin bill’s framework, H.R. 3461 is a “show-boat” vote at best, since if a majority of the House votes “no” on approving the Iran deal, H.R. 3461 fails, nothing goes to the Senate, nothing is sent to the President for his signature, and the Iran deal proceeds on schedule.


https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/photos/a.536112449746257.122574.452480994776070/1069868503037313/

------------------------------

642375273191723008

Here's the roll call vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml

Cool, I follow the logic, and I approve.

specsaregood
09-11-2015, 11:23 AM
since if a majority of the House votes “no” on approving the Iran deal, H.R. 3461 fails, nothing goes to the Senate, nothing is sent to the President for his signature, and the Iran deal proceeds on schedule.


so basically the deal gets approved and signed without any oversight now?

Sola_Fide
09-11-2015, 12:18 PM
Best one we have.

givemeliberty2010
09-11-2015, 01:56 PM
I do not understand why Rep. Thomas Massie voted "present" about Iran. I probably would have voted "yes," but I appreciate that Rep. Mark Sanford and Rep. Justin Amash, for examples, at least took a position and voted "nay."

http://news.yahoo.com/house-roll-call-iran-nuclear-deal-180955308.html

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 02:11 PM
I do not understand why Rep. Thomas Massie voted "present" about Iran. I probably would have voted "yes," but I appreciate that Rep. Mark Sanford and Rep. Justin Amash, for examples, at least took a position and voted "nay."

http://news.yahoo.com/house-roll-call-iran-nuclear-deal-180955308.html

It's called "obeying the Constitution." If I were in the House, there would have been at least 2 "present" votes.

William Tell
09-11-2015, 02:24 PM
I do not understand why Rep. Thomas Massie voted "present" about Iran

He lays it out here:


Update: Massie explains his votes:


Congress took four votes related to the #Iran nuclear agreement. Here is how I voted:

1. The “Corker-Cardin” bill that enabled the President’s deal with Iran, provided Congress had 60 days to review:

I was one of 25 congressmen who, on May 14, 2015, voted “no” on this bill. The Iran deal is a treaty, and pursuant to Article II, section 2 of our Constitution, treaties require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. Corker-Cardin turns the constitutional approval process for treaties on its head. Whereas the Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate to actively approve the President’s treaty, Corker-Cardin effectively requires 2/3 of the Senate to disapprove the Iran deal. In addition, the Constitution gives no power to the House of Representatives to either approve or disapprove of a treaty.

The Corker-Cardin bill passed the House 400-25.

Roll Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll226.xml

2. H. Res. 411, which expresses the sense of the House that, by withholding the “side deals” to the overall Iran agreement, the President was not complying with the “Corker-Cardin” bill’s framework:

I voted “yes” because, given the limited information I learned in classified briefings, the side deals are relevant to the overall agreement, yet the President has refused to disclose the side deals to Congress

H. Res. 411 passed 245-186.

Roll Call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll492.xml

3. H.R. 3461, the bill to “approve” the Iran deal:

I voted “present.” Pursuant to the Constitution, treaties must be approved by a “2/3 concurrence” of the Senate. As a member of the House of Representatives, I have no authority to approve a treaty. Even assuming the legitimacy of the Corker-Cardin bill’s framework, H.R. 3461 is a “show-boat” vote at best, since if a majority of the House votes “no” on approving the Iran deal, H.R. 3461 fails, nothing goes to the Senate, nothing is sent to the President for his signature, and the Iran deal proceeds on schedule.

H.R. 3461 failed 162-269-1. Roll call will be posted in the comments once available.

4. H.R. 3460, a bill which prevents the President from lifting sanctions on Iran during the remainder of his presidential term:

I voted “yes.” The President should not be given authority to single-handedly lift sanctions that were implemented via legislation passed by Congress. The executive branch already has far too much authority and power.

H.R. 3460 passed 247-186. Roll call will be posted in the comments once available.
https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/photos/a.536112449746257.122574.452480994776070/1069868503037313/

------------------------------

642375273191723008

Here's the roll call vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481864-Thomas-Massie-votes-quot-Present-quot-on-approving-Iran-nuclear-deal

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 02:31 PM
Choosing to comply with the Constitutional requirement for the Senate alone to take a 2/3 concurrence vote on any foreign treaty is not only taking a position, but it's a brave position to take in the current climate.

givemeliberty2010
09-11-2015, 03:19 PM
Since this deal is not binding on congressional action or future presidents, it is not a treaty. I am surprised Massie thinks it is.

specsaregood
09-11-2015, 03:42 PM
Since this deal is not binding on congressional action or future presidents, it is not a treaty. I am surprised Massie thinks it is.

clearly the truth is that massie is a cypto-neocon, just like Randal and Justin.

givemeliberty2010
09-11-2015, 03:48 PM
clearly the truth is that massie is a cypto-neocon, just like Randal and Justin.
That's ridiculous. Why would you say that?

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 03:58 PM
Since this deal is not binding on congressional action or future presidents, it is not a treaty. I am surprised Massie thinks it is.

Any formal written agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty. The PTB are just trying to manipulate the definition in order to cover for Barack Obama and our corrupt incompetent Congress.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/2015_09SEP/treatydef.png

francisco
09-11-2015, 06:11 PM
Good vote, for the right reason. Massie continues to impress.

Agreed!

Massie is the real deal.

givemeliberty2010
09-11-2015, 07:08 PM
Any formal written agreement with a foreign nation is a treaty. The PTB are just trying to manipulate the definition in order to cover for Barack Obama and our corrupt incompetent Congress.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/2015_09SEP/treatydef.pngI'm not sure you could say the Iran deal is formal.

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 07:19 PM
I'm not sure you could say the Iran deal is formal.
http://reho.st/https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/seriously.jpg

givemeliberty2010
09-11-2015, 08:45 PM
The deal is non-binding on any subsequent administration and, while in effect, only involves the executive branch on the part of the United States. A formal agreement would involve the whole government of the country and, thus, be binding in the future.

GunnyFreedom
09-11-2015, 10:35 PM
The deal is non-binding on any subsequent administration and, while in effect, only involves the executive branch on the part of the United States. A formal agreement would involve the whole government of the country and, thus, be binding in the future.
So if the deal is such an ethereal figment of everyone's imagination rather than an actual treaty, then why does it matter what anybody votes, since it's not real?

idiom
09-12-2015, 12:20 AM
http://i.imgur.com/KSLQhXk.gif
http://i.imgur.com/4lyXrC5.gif

Jan2017
09-12-2015, 10:19 AM
^^^ Congressman Massie is present . . . but doesn't know really what to do . . . His constituents should have no representation on the matter at all. What a great guy - what a great thoughtful Congressman he must be!

GunnyFreedom
09-12-2015, 10:21 AM
^^^ Congressman Massie is present . . . but doesn't know really what to do . . . His constituents should have no representation on the matter at all. What a great guy - what a great thoughtful Congressman he must be!

Massie knew exactly what to do: Leave treaties to the US Senate like the Constitution demands.

Jan2017
09-12-2015, 10:44 AM
I recognize the point completely . . . but we recognize that a Senate vote of 98-1 changed the treatment of the sanctions of a Treaty into a new monster that the House needed to vote on,whether Massie agrees or not. I think (Dr. No)(lol) Ron Paul would have voted . . . that may be a bit of the purist coming out in me I suppose.

GunnyFreedom
09-12-2015, 10:52 AM
I recognize the point completely . . . but we recognize that a Senate vote of 98-1 changed the treatment of the sanctions of a Treaty into a new monster that the House needed to vote on,whether Massie agrees or not. I think (Dr. No)(lol) Ron Paul would have voted . . . that may be a bit of the purist coming out in me I suppose.

The US Senate cannot Constitutionally abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities, even if they voted 100 to 0. If Massie wanted to be a strict Constitutionalist, then "present" was his only possible vote. And I can guarantee you that 'present' was not an easy way out. I'll bet my bottom dollar that his present vote was tenfold more angst-ridden than any yea or nay would have been. It's not easy, it's hard to obey the Constitution when you are the sole member doing it. I know that for a fact. I guarantee you that he knew before he ever cast that vote that he was going to take grief from BOTH sides, whereas a yea or a nay would have only given him grief from one side or the other.

Matt Collins
09-12-2015, 11:44 AM
The Hill had a good writeup about it:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/253383-single-gop-member-votes-present-on-iran-deal