Obama calls GOP criticism of Iran deal 'ridiculous' 'sad'

[Chicog]

No different to the chumps that say "This is the worst deal EVER!" when they haven't read a word of it though.

How do you know they have not read it? John Bolton has read it. Charles Krauthammer has read it. This particular chump admits that he hasn't.

So they bloody well should have, it's been out long enough!

Didn't stop Graham and Boehner going off on one though. It is of chumps like those that I speak.

[chuckd]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/

The link you provide is great. It takes the intuitive gut sense of the novice and makes plain to see the absurdity of this agreement legally. There is little precedent to suggest this president would follow rules of law, only count on not being called on their trampling. Indeed, this assumption (correct) has informed all of his aggressive constitutional confrontations.

This agreement has the disadvantage (for the president) of having the only fig leaf of legitimacy the wholly manipulated UN as background authority. History will judge (and I mean contemporary history) that this "deal" was a capitulation disguised as "progress." (Indeed, core issues were excised and abrogated to a UN process for which their is no viability; another gross sleight of hand).

In addition to the question as to whether or not the President can issue an Executive Agreement that abrogates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the question comes up in my mind as to how he can do the same with standing US laws.

Annex II ( B.4 (pages 43-49 inclusive) of the JCPOA details many acts the US must perform to be in compliance.

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The example best given is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). President Obama signed it into law on 1 July 2010.

The Executive branch does not have legislative powers, therefore he cannot change, amend or alter in any way the provisions of enacted laws by Executive Agreements or Executive Orders. It's too late for him to try and veto the law.

Obama, as President, can change previously issued Executive Orders from previous administrations but he does not have the power to change existing legislation.

How does the Obama administration plan on getting around this little snag?

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

Edited July 30, 2015 by chuckd

[Publicus]

I can't imagine being more concerned about an Iranian bomb than the "Samson Option". If Iran were to even think about testing a bomb, they would be vaporized.

You have admitted to being anti-Israel on pretty much every issue as well as having anti-Semetic issues. Of course you re going to side with the radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran.

That is such a ridiculous piece of perverted logic.

Do you not think it's possible for people to dislike elements of Israeli policy and yet want the mad mullahs removed from Iran?

Get a grip man.

You don't have to scream "antisemite" or "mullah lover" every time someone disagrees with you.

"I can't imagine being more concerned about an Iranian bomb than the "Samson Option". If Iran were to even think about testing a bomb, they would be vaporized."

Is this a fallacy of false analogy? Is this a call to hypocrisy? Either way, responding "You have admitted to being anti-Israel on pretty much every issue as well as having anti-Semetic issues. Of course [therefore] you re going to side with the radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran" in an effort to note the false logic does not make the noting itself false logic= "perverted logic."

Such and various responses to valid appraisal of this historic folly are mostly met with such inversions, or protests, or innuendo. However, as noted throughout this thread there is overwhelming evidence to suggest this "deal" is at best theatrics, fantasy, smoke and mirrors, and horribly, distraction.

Regret to say the different size font and the boldface interspersed with the normal appearance font make the post difficult to read, so I may have missed a few points of it.

For one, Arabs are semites as well as Jews while Iranians are neither. But you know this firsthand yet continue to stress only the one side of the whole reality.

After that I have to say there were also problems following the "fallacy of false analogy" and the "call to hypocracy." Also some difficulty here following "the false logic" which "= perverted logic."

Sorry again that I had such difficulty following the references to "historic folly" and "such inversions, or protests, or innuendo." Then you completely lost me on the "theatrics, fantasy, smoke and mirrors, and horribly, distraction."

I must say however it's an improvement simply because there's nothing in it about treason so keep plugging away up that steep hill of rhetoric.

[Publicus]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/

The link you provide is great. It takes the intuitive gut sense of the novice and makes plain to see the absurdity of this agreement legally. There is little precedent to suggest this president would follow rules of law, only count on not being called on their trampling. Indeed, this assumption (correct) has informed all of his aggressive constitutional confrontations.

This agreement has the disadvantage (for the president) of having the only fig leaf of legitimacy the wholly manipulated UN as background authority. History will judge (and I mean contemporary history) that this "deal" was a capitulation disguised as "progress." (Indeed, core issues were excised and abrogated to a UN process for which their is no viability; another gross sleight of hand).

In addition to the question as to whether or not the President can issue an Executive Agreement that abrogates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the question comes up in my mind as to how he can do the same with standing US laws.

Annex II ( B.4 (pages 43-49 inclusive) of the JCPOA details many acts the US must perform to be in compliance.

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The example best given is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). President Obama signed it into law on 1 July 2010.

The Executive branch does not have legislative powers, therefore he cannot change, amend or alter in any way the provisions of enacted laws by Executive Agreements or Executive Orders. It's too late for him to try and veto the law.

Obama, as President, can change previously issued Executive Orders from previous administrations but he does not have the power to change existing legislation.

How does the Obama administration plan on getting around this little snag?

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The United States enacts laws to benefit the United States of America. The laws are written by the Congress and signed into effect only by agreement of POTUS.

The post misses a lot of important points along these lines as it also tries an end run while hiding Tom Bradey's deflated balls.

Indeed, one can plainly see the ball you're hiding which is to let the psi out of the international agreement hailed by the EU, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly which have supported the P5+1 negotiations with Iran since 2006.

And a whole lot of Americans besides.

[arjunadawn]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/

The link you provide is great. It takes the intuitive gut sense of the novice and makes plain to see the absurdity of this agreement legally. There is little precedent to suggest this president would follow rules of law, only count on not being called on their trampling. Indeed, this assumption (correct) has informed all of his aggressive constitutional confrontations.

This agreement has the disadvantage (for the president) of having the only fig leaf of legitimacy the wholly manipulated UN as background authority. History will judge (and I mean contemporary history) that this "deal" was a capitulation disguised as "progress." (Indeed, core issues were excised and abrogated to a UN process for which their is no viability; another gross sleight of hand).

In addition to the question as to whether or not the President can issue an Executive Agreement that abrogates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the question comes up in my mind as to how he can do the same with standing US laws.

Annex II ( B.4 (pages 43-49 inclusive) of the JCPOA details many acts the US must perform to be in compliance.

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The example best given is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). President Obama signed it into law on 1 July 2010.

The Executive branch does not have legislative powers, therefore he cannot change, amend or alter in any way the provisions of enacted laws by Executive Agreements or Executive Orders. It's too late for him to try and veto the law.

Obama, as President, can change previously issued Executive Orders from previous administrations but he does not have the power to change existing legislation.

How does the Obama administration plan on getting around this little snag?

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

Similar to this, and regarding other issues as well, I have noted the congress does not even have the power to abrogate its authority in certain areas, such as treaty making provision. However, and this is likely the stalking horse, congress does have the wide berth to make its own rules on how it conducts its business. While not a lawyer I think it is true the courts have long upheld this.

I wonder if it is fair to say the two opposing sides to this argument on TV dont really boil down to whether something should be done rather whether or not this is a meaningful deal. If so, there are clear means to measure success regarding this deal, even before time elapses. A good place to start is at the beginning: what were the sanctions enacted to accomplish? What were the talks designed to accomplish? What was the language of previously arguing the merits of sanctions, and have these aims been achieved by this deal? Lastly, does the final results of this deal, its twilight- final year of enforcement, render the previous goals moot?

[chuckd]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/

The link you provide is great. It takes the intuitive gut sense of the novice and makes plain to see the absurdity of this agreement legally. There is little precedent to suggest this president would follow rules of law, only count on not being called on their trampling. Indeed, this assumption (correct) has informed all of his aggressive constitutional confrontations.

This agreement has the disadvantage (for the president) of having the only fig leaf of legitimacy the wholly manipulated UN as background authority. History will judge (and I mean contemporary history) that this "deal" was a capitulation disguised as "progress." (Indeed, core issues were excised and abrogated to a UN process for which their is no viability; another gross sleight of hand).

In addition to the question as to whether or not the President can issue an Executive Agreement that abrogates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the question comes up in my mind as to how he can do the same with standing US laws.

Annex II ( B.4 (pages 43-49 inclusive) of the JCPOA details many acts the US must perform to be in compliance.

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The example best given is the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA). President Obama signed it into law on 1 July 2010.

The Executive branch does not have legislative powers, therefore he cannot change, amend or alter in any way the provisions of enacted laws by Executive Agreements or Executive Orders. It's too late for him to try and veto the law.

Obama, as President, can change previously issued Executive Orders from previous administrations but he does not have the power to change existing legislation.

How does the Obama administration plan on getting around this little snag?

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

Several of these acts call for enacting legislation to accomplish the changing of existing laws for the benefit of Iran.

The United States enacts laws to benefit the United States of America. The laws are written by the Congress and signed into effect only by agreement of POTUS.

The post misses a lot of important points along these lines as it also tries an end run while hiding Tom Bradey's deflated balls.

Indeed, one can plainly see the ball you're hiding which is to let the psi out of the international agreement hailed by the EU, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly which have supported the P5+1 negotiations with Iran since 2006.

And a whole lot of Americans besides.

As usual, you have no answers. Only empty rhetoric,

I ask again...what is the administration's plan to get around all these pesky legislative details?

The US is not governed by the EU, UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly...only the US Constitution.

[thaibeachlovers]

I can't imagine being more concerned about an Iranian bomb than the "Samson Option". If Iran were to even think about testing a bomb, they would be vaporized.

You have admitted to being anti-Israel on pretty much every issue as well as having anti-Semetic issues. Of course you re going to side with the radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran.

That is such a ridiculous piece of perverted logic.

Do you not think it's possible for people to dislike elements of Israeli policy and yet want the mad mullahs removed from Iran?

Get a grip man.

You don't have to scream "antisemite" or "mullah lover" every time someone disagrees with you.

I can only do one "like" on your reply so:-

Like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like, like.

[thaibeachlovers]

Krauthammer is best known as a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist. Some intellectually stunted leftists think that anyone who appears on Fox News is the enemy, but there are journalists of every political stripe with numerous different opinions.

An occasional appearance by Alan Combs doesn't make for numerous different opinions.

You are parading your ignorance for everyone to see. Fox News has 19 paid left-wing contributors - in addition to all the non-paid left-leaning guests who appear on Fox News all the time in various segments, such as Austan Goolsbee and Sen. Bernie Sanders. All points of view are represented. You are so full of hate and foolish rhetoric, but so empty when it comes to factual information.

It's such wonderful spin if take at face value. However most of the time they are relegated to Fox News radio, or on a panel where they are outnumbered (and usually talked over) by at least one host and pro-Right guest.

I don't know why you try and paint Fox as being somehow "fair and balanced" when its business model is obviously extremely vertical market, including, as I mentioned a while back, the commercials.

The average age of a Fox News viewer is 68. It's not called the Angry Old White Man channel for nothing.

I know this is off topic, but have to respond to those that obviously never watch Fox. If they did they'd know that is just rubbish. On O'Reilly, Kelly and even the rabid right wing Hannity they have equal numbers of conservative and liberal commentators for many of the segments. Don't know about the Greta show as I don't watch it, but I think it's the same.

[Chicog]

On O'Reilly, Kelly and even the rabid right wing Hannity they have equal numbers of conservative and liberal commentators for many of the segments.

Ha you joker.

Tell me how much airtime O'Reilly gave the left this morning. And Kelly. Unfortunately I don't have time to watch them both in entirety, half of one, half of the other and it bears no relation to what you just said.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Chicog

[Chicog]

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.

Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

Edited July 30, 2015 by Chicog

[thaibeachlovers]

On O'Reilly, Kelly and even the rabid right wing Hannity they have equal numbers of conservative and liberal commentators for many of the segments.

Ha you joker.

Tell me how much airtime O'Reilly gave the left this morning. And Kelly. Unfortunately I don't have time to watch them both in entirety, half of one, half of the other and it bears no relation to what you just said.

As I said, this is off topic and looking to be deleted, so I'm not continuing this discussion.

[Chicog]

Per norm.

[arjunadawn]

The attached link is very interesting because there is only a small amount of presumptions and speculation binding a series of facts. For example: musing on what Iran might do with the estimated $150 billion dollars is clearly opinion. So sure, there is a point the author makes, but then all news is packaged with a point; it is the facts that matter. In this case the facts are glaring, hardly requiring great analysis.

The facts presented are sufficient to itself make an argument- all on their own. The author could have just supplied a bullet list and skipped the personal take on developments. His opinion does not detract from the facts, but they also do not add to what is overwhelmingly frightening, and self-evident. The facts, presented in an order that leads inexorably to one's own conclusion (the same as the author), leaves little to imagination. It takes an incredible willpower to read these facts regarding Iran and this "deal" and not reach the conclusion that the "deal" is fatally flawed at best, and woefully negligent at worst. Just the facts!

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6225/iran-150-billion-dollars

Edited July 30, 2015 by arjunadawn

[up-country_sinclair]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

What's the point of congress considering it a treaty? According to you and your fellow clan members, the president has violated the constitution multiple times already. Yet interestingly enough (and despite controlling both houses of congress), impeachment proceedings have not commenced.

But who are you going to believe about constitutional law? Anonymous hyperpartisans on the Internet or a constitional law professor? ;-)

[Ulysses G.]

Obama won't be around much longer. Impeaching him now makes no sense. However, IMO, much of what he had done will be undone in the future. His quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens will probably be first as the court keeps ruling against him.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

Show me one document Obama has produced on constitutional law. She me one analysis, one position relative to this attainment. The absurdity that constitutional law interpretation is solely the prerogative of the anointed or elite is absurd and is challenged simply by the Oath of Office or military service. One takes an oath because inherent in that oath is the wherewithal to for the intellect to pass basic constitutional muster in its application. Indeed, the requirement that humans be charged with upholding superior laws rather than directives or contrary orders was upheld at Nuremberg. Having a law degree does not make someone superior in analysis, only registered as able to practice law.

Rather than believe anyone rely on one's own judgement and then use logic to see if it marries with other sound judgement. Whats the point of congress considering it a treaty is because treaty making is a prerogative of the executive with congressional advice and consent. If it is not a treaty, it is something else. If it is something else, it is not a prerogative of the executive, who's permissions are enumerated and specific. Therefore, there is more than advice and consent involved with this. Ipso facto, congressional oversight should predominate.

The innuendo that because impeachment proceedings have not begun than high crimes and misdemeanors have not taken place is, on its face, fair enough. But in practice everyone knows that impeachment, especially of America's first black president, coupled with the terrible polarity in the US currently, would result in grave harm to the American polity overall; likely far more than his consistent low grade fever destruction of the constitution. It is a dangerous fashion to argue executive over reach is acceptable because it may be convenient to our current point of view on a position. However, when another executive is in power the same prerogatives will be self assigned, thus terribly and increasingly expanding the scope of the executive. It is wrong for any president to act outside the confines of a tightly shackled constitutional prison. That Obama abuses the executive does not require a scholar to see, certainly not himself.

[Chicog]

The attached link is very interesting because there is only a small amount of presumptions and speculation binding a series of facts. For example: musing on what Iran might do with the estimated $150 billion dollars is clearly opinion. So sure, there is a point the author makes, but then all news is packaged with a point; it is the facts that matter. In this case the facts are glaring, hardly requiring great analysis.

The facts presented are sufficient to itself make an argument- all on their own. The author could have just supplied a bullet list and skipped the personal take on developments. His opinion does not detract from the facts, but they also do not add to what is overwhelmingly frightening, and self-evident. The facts, presented in an order that leads inexorably to one's own conclusion (the same as the author), leaves little to imagination. It takes an incredible willpower to read these facts regarding Iran and this "deal" and not reach the conclusion that the "deal" is fatally flawed at best, and woefully negligent at worst. Just the facts!

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6225/iran-150-billion-dollars

Not as sweet as it seems....

Iran needs $100 billion to rebuild its gas industry and has met with European energy giants as an end to decades of international sanctions looms, according to the state-run company in charge of discussions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/iran-seeks-100-billion-for-gas-as-world-fixates-on-nation-s-oil

Edited July 30, 2015 by Chicog

[arjunadawn]

The attached link is very interesting because there is only a small amount of presumptions and speculation binding a series of facts. For example: musing on what Iran might do with the estimated $150 billion dollars is clearly opinion. So sure, there is a point the author makes, but then all news is packaged with a point; it is the facts that matter. In this case the facts are glaring, hardly requiring great analysis.

The facts presented are sufficient to itself make an argument- all on their own. The author could have just supplied a bullet list and skipped the personal take on developments. His opinion does not detract from the facts, but they also do not add to what is overwhelmingly frightening, and self-evident. The facts, presented in an order that leads inexorably to one's own conclusion (the same as the author), leaves little to imagination. It takes an incredible willpower to read these facts regarding Iran and this "deal" and not reach the conclusion that the "deal" is fatally flawed at best, and woefully negligent at worst. Just the facts!

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6225/iran-150-billion-dollars

Not as sweet as it seems....

Iran needs $100 billion to rebuild its gas industry and has met with European energy giants as an end to decades of international sanctions looms, according to the state-run company in charge of discussions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/iran-seeks-100-billion-for-gas-as-world-fixates-on-nation-s-oil

Fair point. When things thrown together the picture is more complicated. What then to guide tea leave reading? Past behavior. Under this diabolical regime some have suffered more than others. There is no doubt the coffers of the quds forces will grow.

[Chicog]

I think they're up to their necks with IS at the moment so I'm not averse to Iran helping them out. I doubt Israel is worried about that aspect either.

[Publicus]

The attached link is very interesting because there is only a small amount of presumptions and speculation binding a series of facts. For example: musing on what Iran might do with the estimated $150 billion dollars is clearly opinion. So sure, there is a point the author makes, but then all news is packaged with a point; it is the facts that matter. In this case the facts are glaring, hardly requiring great analysis.

The facts presented are sufficient to itself make an argument- all on their own. The author could have just supplied a bullet list and skipped the personal take on developments. His opinion does not detract from the facts, but they also do not add to what is overwhelmingly frightening, and self-evident. The facts, presented in an order that leads inexorably to one's own conclusion (the same as the author), leaves little to imagination. It takes an incredible willpower to read these facts regarding Iran and this "deal" and not reach the conclusion that the "deal" is fatally flawed at best, and woefully negligent at worst. Just the facts!

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6225/iran-150-billion-dollars

The book review section is in another forum ex post facto and dipso fucto, post haste.

The author btw does like the facts he likes.

[chuckd]

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.

Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

That's the best answer you could come up with on my post? You shouldn't have bothered.

Of course it's a done deal as far as the UN is concerned.

Why else do you think Russia and China were even in the meetings? They were never going to approve anything that might have put a halt to anything Iran wanted to do.

This entire deal was a set-up and the vaudeville team named Obama & Kerry were led to the slaughter.

Hopefully Congress will put a stop to some of it and limit the damage.

[Chicog]

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.

Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

That's the best answer you could come up with on my post? You shouldn't have bothered.

Of course it's a done deal as far as the UN is concerned.

Why else do you think Russia and China were even in the meetings? They were never going to approve anything that might have put a halt to anything Iran wanted to do.

This entire deal was a set-up and the vaudeville team named Obama & Kerry were led to the slaughter.

Hopefully Congress will put a stop to some of it and limit the damage.

Oh dear. You clearly think they can influence things.

[chuckd]

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, you can stop posting.

[Publicus]

Nobody in the world save North Korea wants Iran to get the bomb, which is a driving reason Russia and the CCP Boyz in Beijing seriously participated to comprise the P5+1.

Well, I say nobody but the Republican Guards in Iran and the Republican Party Old Guards in the USA rather think war is a grand idea.

The same people who gave us Iraq are trying to give us Iran. It's the same Words of Mass Deception that just bounce off as well they should and must.

[up-country_sinclair]

Obama won't be around much longer. Impeaching him now makes no sense.

:-D :-D :-D

Sure, that's why there aren't impeachment proceedings.

:-D

Priceless. :-D

[thaibeachlovers]

Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law.

What's the point of congress considering it a treaty? According to you and your fellow clan members, the president has violated the constitution multiple times already. Yet interestingly enough (and despite controlling both houses of congress), impeachment proceedings have not commenced.

But who are you going to believe about constitutional law? Anonymous hyperpartisans on the Internet or a constitional law professor? ;-)

Congress will talk and talk and talk, but do nothing, as per usual. Just a talking shop for professional polies that don't want to rock the boat.

[Jai Dee]

One flame post and quoted reply have been removed from this thread.

[Chicog]

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, you can stop posting.

Well tell us how Congress will "put a stop to it" then.

Do they have legal authority over the P4+1?

Of course not. All they can do is wail and gnash their teeth like they usually do.

[ggold]

While it is true Congress does not have the authority to stop an Executive Agreement, the President does not have the authority to act unilaterally by changing existing law.

Linky, Chicog, anybody?

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.

Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

That's the best answer you could come up with on my post? You shouldn't have bothered.

Of course it's a done deal as far as the UN is concerned.

Why else do you think Russia and China were even in the meetings? They were never going to approve anything that might have put a halt to anything Iran wanted to do.

This entire deal was a set-up and the vaudeville team named Obama & Kerry were led to the slaughter.

Hopefully Congress will put a stop to some of it and limit the damage.

Obama and Kerry were not lead to the slaughter! lol They were the leaders of this fiasco. It was the Iranians who made Obama and Kerry look like idiots, Russia and China, were happy to watch from the sidelines.

Interesting while this was going on Russia decides to move against the Ukraine, and China, in the South Seas! I am sure Obama's negotiating skills were noted and Russia and China could see they too could run rings around Obama too. That he was a "nothing" politician.

It probably is too late to save the sanctions, Because Obama was more concerned about having any deal, he did not want to walk away without one! So he went to the UN to validate it before the ink was dry and his own government could review the treaty.

So it has become more about internal politics than stopping Iran getting nukes. Obama was looking for a way to stop the GOP from vetoing his treaty. So He goes to the UN, so what ever the GOP does won't effect any outcome, it would just leave the US as the piggy in the middle having negotiated the deal but not being able to enjoy any benefits from it.

Obama has strengthened both Russia and China's view of America as not being a threat to their own ambitions. And Obama probably thinks he has saved the world. The guy is a complete and utter "£$%&*******

[Ulysses G.]

Hear, hear - telling it like it is!