Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Thomas Massie votes "Present" on approving Iran nuclear deal

  1. #1

    Thomas Massie votes "Present" on approving Iran nuclear deal

    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/RepThomasMa...9868503037313/

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



    Here's the roll call vote:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml
    Last edited by tsai3904; 09-11-2015 at 11:00 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    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.
    "I am a bird"

  4. #3

    Exclamation

    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.

    ###
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    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.

  6. #5
    Good vote, for the right reason. Massie continues to impress.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    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/RepThomasMa...9868503037313/

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



    Here's the roll call vote:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml
    Cool, I follow the logic, and I approve.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  8. #7
    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?

  9. #8
    Best one we have.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Thomas Massie and the Iran deal

    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-cal...180955308.html

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    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-cal...180955308.html
    It's called "obeying the Constitution." If I were in the House, there would have been at least 2 "present" votes.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    I do not understand why Rep. Thomas Massie voted "present" about Iran
    He lays it out here:

    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    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/RepThomasMa...9868503037313/

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



    Here's the roll call vote:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll493.xml
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n-nuclear-deal
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  14. #12
    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.

  15. #13
    Since this deal is not binding on congressional action or future presidents, it is not a treaty. I am surprised Massie thinks it is.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    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.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    clearly the truth is that massie is a cypto-neocon, just like Randal and Justin.
    That's ridiculous. Why would you say that?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    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.




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Good vote, for the right reason. Massie continues to impress.
    Agreed!

    Massie is the real deal.
    Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.



    H. L. Mencken said it best:


    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”


    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    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.

    I'm not sure you could say the Iran deal is formal.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    I'm not sure you could say the Iran deal is formal.

  23. #20
    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.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by givemeliberty2010 View Post
    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?

  25. #22

    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  26. #23
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ^^^ 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!

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    ^^^ 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.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Supporting Member
    Colorado



    Posts
    5,429
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    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.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jan2017 View Post
    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.

  31. #27
    The Hill had a good writeup about it:

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...t-on-iran-deal
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •