Yesterday, the Senate passed the piece of legislation that will "give" Congress a role in "reviewing" the nuclear deal Obama reaches with Iran; however, Congress's "role" regarding treaties/agreements/deals is already outlined in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the united States of America. In a 98-1 vote, some Republicans continued to complain the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act made it easier for Obama to strike a weak deal with Iran. The only "no" vote came from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK).
Obama had previously indicated he did not want the Senate to have any part whatsoever in this deal. The Constitution states otherwise. Allowing one individual to negotiate a treaty to completion and implementation without input from any other body of government would basically be a dictatorial power. It's obvious how the framers of the Constitution felt about despotism and tyranny. Both parties appeared to have problems with Obama's unilateral negotiation of a deal with the Islamic Iran as sanctions against the radical Islamic governed nation would have to be addressed. The Senate chamber, instead of invoking Article II, Section 2, chose to craft legislation in order to provide themselves an opportunity to "review" the deal to make a symbolic vote on Obama's finalized Iran deal.
While the White House appeared to capitulate to the Senate demands, several conservative Republicans outed the White House by pointing out this "bill" allows Congress to review it, but makes it difficult for Congress to reject it. Obama can still veto any Congressional resolution of disapproval if the Senate determines the Iran deal is bad. Once the resolution of disapproval is vetoed, it will require a two-thirds majority to over-ride the presidential veto. Should that occur, it is doubtful the Senate will be able to attain a two-thirds majority to over-ride Obama's veto, which led to some members, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to say "the deal should only be approved if Congress affirmatively approves it."
On Wednesday evening, Cruz attempted to amend the bill to basically require an affirmative vote in Congress in order for the treaty to be approved; but, his efforts were blocked by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), one of the legislation's deal makers.
Cruz stated on Wednesday, "All this amendment does is ensure the burden is on President Obama to persuade Congress and the American people that the deal is a good one, or at a very minimum is not a terrible threat to the national security of the United States of America."
This statement by Cruz captures in a nutshell what many of us have been saying all along. When it comes to lying and deception, Obama has a stellar record of participation in these two activities, along with criminal activity and treason.
Interestingly, it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) "had to fight" the efforts by Cruz and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) to amend the bill; and, McConnell did with the help of almost every Senate Republican. Then, McConnell turned around and stated he wanted a tougher bill.
McConnell stated Thursday morning, "If we didn't face the threats of filibusters, or the blocking of amendments, or the specter of presidential vetoes, this bill would be a heck of a lot stronger."
He added, "But the truth is, we do. That's the frustrating reality. The response to this should not be to give the American people no say at all on a deal with Iran. The response should be to overcome those challenges in a way that will give Congress and the American people the best possible chance to review any possible deal and its outcome."
Well, Mitchy the twitchy boy, filibusters, blocking amendments that aren't great and facing a presidential veto or hissy fit, in Obama's case, on legislation that is actually constitutional is part of governing this nation. Now if you don't like that, get your sorry fanny out of the Senate, retire or whatever. If Congress had followed the Constitution, upholding its tenets and dealing with an out of control executive branch, maybe Congress would not have to grovel at the "boy king's" feet and maybe, this nation would be just a bit better off in all areas.
In this entire fiasco, the only "no" votes to end the debate and move to cast a final vote came from these Senators: Sens. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kansas), and Daniel Sullivan (Alaska). It was Cotton, though, who would not support the final bill and cast the only "no" vote.
So, if six Senators were still wanting a debate and didn't like the bill, why did only one stick to their guns and vote "no"? It's a valid question. It may not have made any difference in the passage, but why would you change your stance? If the bill is bad enough to continue debate, then that bill is bad enough to continue to vote against passage. In the end, only Tom Cotton had enough gumption to stick to his position.
So, Obama goes along on his merry way to negotiate a nuclear agreement with strict Islamic governed Iran, who has already cheated and will do what it wants anyway. It'll be the same with Obama, regardless of any legislation or whether the Supreme Court has opined that Obama's actions are against law. Who's to stop him? Congress has the power, but chooses not to exercise it. Who's to say the agreement presented to Congress will be the "actual" deal with the rogue Islamic nation? After all, Iran has already accused Obama of lying about parts of the agreement to the public.
What is happening here, folks, is a breakdown of our constitutional republic. An untrustworthy individual occupies the office of the presidency who "legislates" through memos, executive orders and edicts to constitutional, as well as unconstitutional, agencies and departments. Congress has moved from the body who makes legislation to the body who supports whatever actions the president takes, including "dictatorial" law, while engaging in "symbolic" legislative practices. The Supreme Court has usurped authority to hear cases it shouldn't and. in essence, create law out of its own opinions as the States and federal government acquiesce to "opinions of nine," while these nine refuse to hear "controversies to which the united States shall be a party" and "those in which a State shall be party," aka the Obama eligibility cases.
But, what does it matter to much of the population who touts, "Obama wins again." Iran will be allowed to continue its nuclear program to the fruition of a nuclear weapon and delivery system. Our constitutional republic will continue down the path of demise. Yes, Obama wins; but, what price will the rest of the world, including the united States, pay for it? One can bet it will be a price too high for everyone.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.