In a 400 to 25 vote, the House of Representatives passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that gives Congress a chance to review the nuclear "agreement" Obama is making with Iran. Six Democrats and nineteen Republicans voted against the bill. According to this bill, "two thirds of each chamber must vote against any deal put forth by the president to strike it down," which is indicated in the "joint resolution" needed to approve or disapprove the "deal."
Now, this frivolous piece of legislation is headed to the White House. It is anticipated that Obama will sign the new bill requiring him to submit any negotiated agreement with Iran to Congress before any sanctions will be lifted. If he does not, it would appear Congress has a veto-proof majority. The basics of this piece of legislation was covered here.
According to The Hill, "House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) argued the measure gives Congress more leverage over the Obama administration in the talks."
Royce stated, "Once this legislation is signed, when Secretary Kerry sits across from the Iranians, he'll now have on his mind, 'I've got to take this to Congress.' That prospect can only improve these negotiations. And I just hope it's not too late and we aren't too deep in a bad deal."
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated, after the vote, "Only a strong agreement that is verifiable and enforceable can truly hold Iran accountable and halt their nuclear ambitions."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) commented after the vote that he and his colleagues had but one goal – stop a bad deal.
"This is why Congress must have a role in reviewing any potential deal the president cuts with Iran. The American people are worried – and America's allies are worried – that the White House will do anything to get one. So my colleagues and I have one goal: stop a bad deal. The bipartisan legislation the House passed today is the only way Congress will have that opportunity."
Congress and the American public should, again, be reminded that the Senate chamber of Congress already has that authority.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the united States of America states, "He [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; …."
It is the "advice and consent" portion of this clause that gives the Senate authority to review all negotiations on treaties/agreements/deals to which this nation is to be a party. The president can only make treaties with approval of the Senate chamber upon a two thirds vote of Senators present, not total number of Senators in the chamber. This prevents a unilateral negotiation into a treaty that could be disastrous for this nation.
The Senate Chamber already had that power, which is much stronger, than this piece of legislation that was recently passed. The House has no authority when it comes to negotiating treaties under the Constitution. The Senate was established to "represent the interest of each individual State." As the nation is a "joint cooperative between sovereign States, each with a republican form of government," it makes sense that the Senate chamber would have this authority since the federal government conducts limited business on behalf of the States.
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) said, "It is unconscionable for Congress to grant such sweeping power to President Obama, allowing him to lift sanctions on Iran, no matter the cost to our national security, the security of Israel, and the entire world. But even worse, the House is willing to do this today, without having one hearing, one amendment, a grand total of 40 minutes of debate."
Well, that sums it up nicely. However, "unconscionable" is not the word some would use. Many Americans would call it "treason." Handing over a power established by the Constitution without so much as an amendment to alter the law of the land taken to the States is more than unconscionable. It is another strike in a long chain to undermine this nation and her laws.
The most interesting comment on this "legislation" came from Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). Ellison warned that this "legislation" would send the message to other countries that the US is "operating in less than good faith." He stated, "I believe Congress must have oversight. But I don't believe we should make this deal stillborn in the crib before it's even allowed to emerge. We don't want to abort the deal before it's born."
Granted, interesting is the wrong word. Honestly, what word would describe that comment? He is using terms to equate this "deal making" to the murder of babies in the womb. "Stillborn in the crib" is a contradiction in terms. For goodness sake, let's not "abort" a deal "before its born," somehow equating that a deal has "life." But, it's okay to murder babies in the womb before they are born or allowed to emerge on the premise that a baby does not have life while in the womb. Sorry, I digress.
Ellison has not forgotten that he is not there to support what "he believes." He is there to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution; however, as a Muslim, he'll do everything else but honor his oath – taken on a Koran, which teaches taqiyyah. His "belief" comes first above all else.
By other countries, Ellison more than likely is referring to Iran. To be honest, other countries, read Iran, need to understand how our government works. After over 200 years, you would think they would have a clue. They do know; just like Obama and Congress knows. However, it has also been shown that the federal government will violate the law for its own agenda and purpose or for the agenda and purpose of one man. Iran is banking on this as Valerie Jarrett probably promised the Ayatollahs that Obama will over ride Congress.
There's nothing left to say except that Congress, Obama and the federal agencies under them have discarded the Constitution. It is now just a piece of paper to them since they have picked it apart, choosing what they like and ignoring what they don't like, as a customer going through a buffet line. There are no more rules; rules are made as they go along, changing with the wind and situation. And those pesky Bill of Rights? Well, those are just a suggestion and will be dealt with soon.
We have "transformed." This one piece of legislation actually makes it clear that the Office of the President usurped power to unilaterally "negotiate" treaties against Article II, Section 2. Why? If they were obeying and following the Constitution, this piece of legislation would be unnecessary. If they were obeying and following the Constitution, impeachment against Obama would be completed as there are 1063 documented criminal and treasonous activities committed by Obama.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.