The Constitution of the united States of America, Article II, Section 2 states, "He [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; …." Yet, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has introduced legislation, called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which would provide for Congress to review and approve any finalized deal or agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Interestingly, this piece of legislation is now gaining bipartisan support in the Senate with six Democrats now supporting it.
Does anyone else think that Congress is completely devoid of any knowledge of the Constitution?
No other legislation is needed to review the deal/treaty/agreement Obama makes with Iran as it is already contained in the Constitution. All Congress needs to do is to hold Obama to it.
The legislation is gaining a surge in co-sponsorship despite the threats from the White House of a veto of it. This should tell Congress everything and more. What the Senate bill proposes is already contained in the Constitution. Obama is threatening to veto the bill, should it pass, while the basic language of making treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate already exists. Bluntly, Obama is telling the Senate he will "veto" the Constitution through veto of the legislation.
By what power does Obama have to "veto" any tenet of the Constitution? None, Nada, Zero, Zilch.
The latest Democrat to co-sponsor Corker's bill is Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Speaking to MSNBC, Blumenthal stated, "The president really needs a national consensus. He needs popular support behind this agreement, and that's why I think he would be wise to not only submit but in fact ask the Senate review and approve this deal, when and if it's concluded – it's still a big if."
While Sen. Blumenthal contends this deal concluding is a big "if," many would disagree given Obama's favoritism and support of Islamic terrorist governments and groups. Additionally, Obama thumbs his nose at both chambers of the legislative branch and refuses to heed a Texas federal judge's orders to halt amnesty and ignored the Supreme Court ruling on his recess appointments. The man in the Oval Office throws Israel under the bus every chance he gets, lies again and again to the American public and the world, and usurped the power of the legislative branch through illegal executive action. Blumenthal should know by now that Obama will concede to Iran, allowing the terrorist-harboring, terrorist-backing nation to develop nuclear weapons, while opening the door to the destruction of Israel and the United States. So, the "if" then becomes when.
It seems Blumenthal himself is very out of touch if he thinks Obama needs a "national consensus" and "popular support" for this deal. There has not been widespread support for amnesty, but Obama "decreed" it with his "magic wand" known as his pen and phone. There's another little issue known as "Net Neutrality," a takeover of the internet to "solve" imaginary, fraudulent problems identified by this administration. And, did not Democrats grovel to their "king" to "unilaterally" change portions of the law known as Obamacare? Yes, they did. All of this done without "national consensus" or "popular support."
However, Blumenthal's support of the legislation introduced by Corker at least shows some support for a very important Constitutional law. And yes, what is contained in the Constitution is the law – the Supreme law of the land. There might be hope yet for some Democrats; however, no one should hold their breath as they flip flop more than a fish lying on a pier struggling against a line.
Corker is working to secure a "veto-proof" majority in the Senate for his legislation. What happens if he doesn't get it? Will the Senate let this president "veto" this piece of redundant legislation when the basics of this legislation already exist in the Constitution?
The Senate, once the treaty/agreement/deal is brought before them for advice and consent, can then propose stipulations for approval that could involve monitoring, sanctions, etc. should Iran breach the terms. The entire point of the president needing the advice and consent of the Senate is part of the checks and balances in place in our Constitution. Obama is working at every angle to end this.
Anyone with half a brain already knows that the taqiyya Islamic government of Iran has no intention of honoring any deal. Other countries will or might abide by an agreement with Iran; however, Iran will not. Iran is barreling ahead with its nuclear program which will result in a nuclear weapon, if one doesn't already exist.
Does Congress and the world not see that Iran was working on attaining nuclear devices before any of these negotiations started using the guise of "peaceful nuclear programs" while under sanctions imposed by the US? Iran will not allow any inspectors in the country from the UN, not that the UN is worth dirt when it comes to doing anything in the world, except for trying to force the US to its knees.
With Obama, Kerry and a host of Keystone Cops negotiating with Iran, the Senate should strongly inform the Muslim Traitor-in-Chief any deal must be brought before the Senate per the tenets contained in the Constitution. If the MTIC continues on his present course, in defiance of the law, claiming he has "imperial" authority to enter into a treaty/agreement/deal with Iran without Congress, this should be a clear indication to the people and both chambers that this president should be impeached, removed from office, then face criminal charges, trial and punishment for treason.
If Congress does not act in its constitutional manner, citizens of this nation may as well face the fact that we are no longer a nation of sovereign states joined together in a constitutional republic; but, are now the "Dictatorial Nation of Subjugated States."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.