When you say “as the Constitution recommends”, did you mean this part:
Emphasis added.
I agree with you that a veto by Obama may show him in a favorable position with moderates in Iran, however when this Senate action came up last summer there were enough Senators on board with Republicans to over-ride a veto. That (Dems support) has tapered off since then but taking a chance on that seems senseless in the consequences are bigger than any small benefit. Obama is already in a strong position on this and Dems should let the Republicans founder and sink on it all on there own.
Rats; I don’t know how to multi-quote. You added and emphasized “With the advice and consent of the Senate.”
I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. The Senate is acting separately, unilaterally. There’s no “advice” here; they’re passing a law.
I don’t claim it’s unconstitutional. I just think it undermines what is constitutional, namely that the Administration negotiates treaties, and only then does the Senate chime in, usually in an up-or-down vote.
(Awkward when the Senate amends a treaty, because this forces the President and the other country to go back to new negotiations. Again, entirely constitutional, but damned awkward.)
By the way, was your question an example of a “push poll?” You didn’t appear actually to be asking a question, but to be making a statement, with a question mark stuck on at the end. JAQ and all.
The formal answer to your question is, “No.”
A couple points: the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations.” There’s simply no question that Congress has the power to create or modify sanctions with respect to another country, totally outside of the treaty making power.
(I was going to make a minor point about how the Senate cannot amend a treaty, but it’s really splitting hairs.)
I totally agree that the Congress is seriously threatening to blow up promising negotiations with Iran to resolve the nuclear weapons issue. I think it is positively foolish to attempt to legislate at this point when there is a substantial risk of destroying the progress that has been made so far, and there is absolutely no reason that Congress couldn’t create additional sanctions in the future if negotiations fail on their own right… But it’s also clear that Congress has the power to do this stupid thing if it is intent on doing so.
Sure there is. But Obama isn’t taking the advice, and so they are acting to prod him more. BTW, if I were in the Senate, I would be comfortable letting Obama handle this for the next 6 months. But that’s my opinion. Others think differently.
But now you’re ignoring the “advice” part. And I don’t agree that it “undermines” what is constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can’t do what it seems to want to be doing here.
You made a statement about the Constitution that was factually incorrect. I was pointing that out, with a tiny nit of snark on the side. Not unusual in this forum.
If anyone was “undermining” the Constitution here, it was Obama. He negotiated this whole deal in secret, without any advice from Congress. Perhaps if he had been more forthcoming with key members of Congress, this whole mess could have been avoided.
The trouble is, your response was factually incorrect! You conflated the legislative function with the advice and consent function.
The former requires the cooperation of the House of Representatives; the latter does not.
The former is subject to veto; the latter is not.
I don’t believe I actually did make an error…but I think you most very definitely did. I said that they were interfering with his constitutional role, but not that they were doing anything unconstitutional. You appeared to be arguing that passing laws was a part of the advice and consent role, which it very clearly is not.
I also don’t see much point in continuing this. My primary opinion is that the Senate is not being helpful in trying to limit Obama’s negotiating freedom. I’m particularly wroth with the members of his own party who are sandbagging him that way.
Is undermining the Constitution an impeachable offence? Apparently you missed the news. Dem Senators had no counter argument Obama when they met face to face. Why should Obama take advice from empty minds?
OK, then why don’t you quote the part of the constitution you were referring to when you posted:
I’d also be interested in understanding what, if anything, the constitution “recommends”.
Do you know what the word “if” means"?
I already told you, and I posted it in large font. You are wrong.
Article II, without the clause you emphasized. The traditional way things have been done since George Washington swore he would never go back to the Senate again. The President negotiates treaties, and then the Senate sticks its dick in.
You are making that argument for them, but apparently they were so
Ashamed of any argument they had in the past when they met with Obama on Wednesday. That argument is so stupid the were ashamed to argue it
It is stupid because it is the neocon argument that once some nation can’t be trusted they never can be trusted. And Obama is not proposing anything that is weaker than ‘trust but verify’ of Ronny Reagan fame.
There is no reasonableness about these Dem Senator’s actions because of the very fact that Iranian moderates have taken a lead in the negotiations. Your argument having the intent to make unreasonable Senators (on this issue) sound reasonable is very silly and absolutely unnecessary.
If you truly dissagreement with what they are doing - take a stand - this may come down to war instead of peace. It’s ok to call a Dem Senator unreasonable when they can’t present their argument to the one you claim to agree with who is being even in your mind - reasonable.
Yes and because you used it I asked you this question, “Is undermining the Constitution an impeachable offence?”.
Now I will ask whether IF you are you are dodging the question. Are you?
Are you suggesting that Obama is incapable of reading The Washington Post?
Nope! ‘A diplomatic insurance policy against Iran’ By Robert Menendez, Published: JANUARY 09, 7:51 PM ET ’ is not an explanation of why legislation must be passed right now. It is obvious that Obama does not trust Iran. Menendez thinks he came up with that idea of mistrust.
Menendez states “The need for additional prospective sanctions is already clear” and provides a list of why he thinks its clear’ … But apparently he had no explanation of why sanctions need to be passed if the truth is Menendez really wants diplomatic efforts to succeed.
Arguing that Congress can’t act fast enough if Iranians get caught cheating on the deal is so stupid that any normal person would be able to recognize that utter stupidity at first glance. If Congress can’t pass a bill faster than Iran could kick inspectors out and gear up to developing higher enrichment to develop a nuclear bomb and have it ready to blow Israel off the face of the earth that the entire world would be incapable of preventing with a first strike bombing of Iran - then Congress ought to be closed.
I used the word “IF …” To make a point about the stupidity of Menendez’s argument and it is so stupid it is no wonder he made none when sitting face to face with President Obama.
Senator Murray is a key member of Congress and apparently she has been persuaded by the White House to quit rattling sabers with Republicans. Good for her.
Read more good stuff: Patty Murray Comes Out Against Iran Sanctions Bill | HuffPost Latest News
It took you 3 days to come up with that sad retort? You’re now moving the goalposts from “they have no response/are too embarrassed to present it” to “I disagree with their response”. I guess they were so “embarrassed” by it that they had it printed in The Washington Post. I bet Obama could get that paper delivered to his house if he wanted!
Well, I for one am not fooled by your goalpost shifting. Make an argument and stand by it for once, or simply admit you’re wrong.
What are you talking about? I’m still at ‘they have no response’… Senator Murray has done the right thing after figuring she had no response. She is agreeing with the President. Menendez is a loser lising Dem Party allies on Iran.
The goal post are exactly where they have been all along. Nice try though but you trick is not working.
I see there is no response to this:
Then you are simply wrong. Their response has been published in the Washington Post, and I linked to it above. Once again you exhibit your ability to ignore any FACTS that don’t fit your pre-conceived ideas.