• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer: Let Congress decide on Iran deal

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
104,071
Reaction score
84,041
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Is he right?

<snip>


Washington (CNN)—A key Senate Democrat is throwing his weight behind a proposal that would allow Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal, complicating President Barack Obama's efforts to dodge Republican opposition and lock in the pact on his own.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is backing legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to give Congress the ability to halt the implementation of the deal once the United States and five other world powers finalize the details in the coming months.

"This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer told Politico on Monday.


Schumer: Congress should OK Iran deal - CNN.com
 
Is he right?

<snip>


Washington (CNN)—A key Senate Democrat is throwing his weight behind a proposal that would allow Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal, complicating President Barack Obama's efforts to dodge Republican opposition and lock in the pact on his own.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is backing legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to give Congress the ability to halt the implementation of the deal once the United States and five other world powers finalize the details in the coming months.

"This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer told Politico on Monday.


Schumer: Congress should OK Iran deal - CNN.com

Chuck can be a pragmatic when he wants to be. Congress has a role to play and Schumer seems to be protecting that role.
 
He is both right and wrong.

If you read very carefully what is happening it all seems to boil down to the original sanctions activity, and the ability to undo it. There is some Constitutional question. How that was phrased then will determine what Obama can and cannot do without Congress now, and may reflect what Congress is needed for depending on the disposition of "the deal." The details of that original effort in conjunction with the details of the "the deal" will tell us. Does Obama make this an Executive Action, does he make this a treaty deal, etc.

It seems to me this Congressional effort now is all about ensuring an outcome by ignoring the question.

It is legitimate for Congress to pass a law requiring Obama to submit "the deal" for Congress’ approval irregardless, either as a treaty or as an executive agreement, as a condition for lifting sanctions on Iran. Call it a one stop gap method to ensuring Congressional role in all of this. It is also legitimate for Congress to ensure they hold up their end of the "to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" bit of the Executive Powers under the Constitution assuming this ends up a treaty type deal. No matter if a law is passed or not by Congress, we have real question on what Obama has to to do here anyway. The question for Congress is going the law route means having the support level to beat a likely veto.

My question is how much of this ends up political theater and how much of this ends up actionable? And because of this, have we accidentally made it better for Iran to not sign a deal until Obama gets his relation with Congress in check on this matter? Assume Obama goes the Executive Action route and the next President is Republican, that potential means this could be a short lived deal anyway.
 
I don't see how it makes any difference at all. The Iranians aren't going to honor any agreement made with the great satan. They just understand that once sanctions are lifted, they are difficult to re-impose. The "deal" is just lip flapping amounting to nothing whatsoever other than the lifting of those sanctions. There is no solution for us in any deal and lots of solution for Iran. Since we started this nonsense, the only common sense thing we can do is walk away from it and bear down harder on the sanctions.
 
He is both right and wrong.

If you read very carefully what is happening it all seems to boil down to the original sanctions activity, and the ability to undo it. There is some Constitutional question. How that was phrased then will determine what Obama can and cannot do without Congress now, and may reflect what Congress is needed for depending on the disposition of "the deal." The details of that original effort in conjunction with the details of the "the deal" will tell us. Does Obama make this an Executive Action, does he make this a treaty deal, etc.

It seems to me this Congressional effort now is all about ensuring an outcome by ignoring the question.

It is legitimate for Congress to pass a law requiring Obama to submit "the deal" for Congress’ approval irregardless, either as a treaty or as an executive agreement, as a condition for lifting sanctions on Iran. Call it a one stop gap method to ensuring Congressional role in all of this. It is also legitimate for Congress to ensure they hold up their end of the "to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" bit of the Executive Powers under the Constitution assuming this ends up a treaty type deal. No matter if a law is passed or not by Congress, we have real question on what Obama has to to do here anyway. The question for Congress is going the law route means having the support level to beat a likely veto.

My question is how much of this ends up political theater and how much of this ends up actionable? And because of this, have we accidentally made it better for Iran to not sign a deal until Obama gets his relation with Congress in check on this matter? Assume Obama goes the Executive Action route and the next President is Republican, that potential means this could be a short lived deal anyway.



It could be a short term deal anyways. Considering their Ayatollah has terminal cancer.
 
Is he right?

<snip>


Washington (CNN)—A key Senate Democrat is throwing his weight behind a proposal that would allow Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal, complicating President Barack Obama's efforts to dodge Republican opposition and lock in the pact on his own.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is backing legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to give Congress the ability to halt the implementation of the deal once the United States and five other world powers finalize the details in the coming months.

"This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer told Politico on Monday.


Schumer: Congress should OK Iran deal - CNN.com



Yes he is Right TB.
hat.gif
Here is what I had on it. ;)




Chuck Schumer bucks White House on Iran.....


The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While there’s no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran, there’s an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at least have the ability to do so.

Within the Senate Democratic Caucus, a dozen senators have either co-sponsored Corker’s legislation or indicated they could support it. That would put the measure one vote shy of a veto-proof majority. On Monday, three more Democratic senators — Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — left open the possibility of voting for it, according to aides. Their support, however, could hinge on whether Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the new ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is able to negotiate concessions that alleviate concerns the bill could derail any agreement.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to entertain that possibility, telling reporters on Monday that the White House sees no way to reconcile Corker’s bill with the president’s mission of finishing Iran negotiations before Congress votes on anything.

Read more: Chuck Schumer bucks White House on Iran - Burgess Everett - POLITICO


BO was talking out both sides of his mouth when he was telling all, he wanted to work with Congress on this so called framework understanding. His usual!
 
Chuck can be a pragmatic when he wants to be. Congress has a role to play and Schumer seems to be protecting that role.

New York is the one state where the Jewish vote matters. There are only two Jewish population bases left in the world. NYC is one of those.
 
Schumer is an idiot- according to the treaty clause it is the POTUS that negotiates with foreign powers, not Congress. What exactly has Schumer done in all his years in Congress anyway? He's a career politician who sits on the fence on everything and only gets on TV so he can get reelected.
 
New York is the one state where the Jewish vote matters. There are only two Jewish population bases left in the world. NYC is one of those.

Florida has a bit of constituency there.
 
Schumer is an idiot- according to the treaty clause it is the POTUS that negotiates with foreign powers, not Congress. What exactly has Schumer done in all his years in Congress anyway? He's a career politician who sits on the fence on everything and only gets on TV so he can get reelected.


Mornin Pos. :2wave: All treaties have to be approved by Congress. Here is a bit on Schumer with this issue and Iran.



You have to dig down a bit further in the article and then recall some of Schumer’s history on the hill to really get the full flavor of what’s going on here. First of all, this “strong endorsement” is not a call for the rejection of the deal. I suspect Chuck doesn’t much care for it (more on that below) but he’s also not the sort to go running completely off the Democrat ranch either. Let’s keep in mind that the Corker bill does not reject the Iran deal. It reserves the right for Congress to review the deal and to freeze the lifting of any sanctions for a set period of cool-down time. Endorsing the bill doesn’t mean that Schumer is onboard with rejecting the framework, just that he’s willing to assert the authority of Congress as a coequal branch to be involved in the process.

But Schumer might not have even gone this far – particularly when his star is on the rise in the party’s leadership structure – had it been any other subject than Iran. That’s because it has such a profound impact on Israel. You’ll recall that I previously said that Schumer wouldn’t be an upgrade from Harry Reid and that he’s about as far to the Left as one can get. That’s still all true, but there is one subject where Chuck is well known for crossing the aisle. He’s one of the leading Jewish voices in the Senate and has always veered away from his party when it comes to all things Israeli. One of the best examples was the hatred he drew from Palestinian loving progressives when said that the Gaza blockade made sense because Israel needed to strangle Gaza economically until they saw the light. (Schumer is also rather famous for his heavy Wall Street ties which ticks off the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, but everyone is willing to give him a pass on that because, well… they all like money.)

Chuck’s positions regarding Israel are the exception rather than the rule, and the rest of the Democrat herd is willing to forgive him the occasional jaunt away from Liberal doctrine when it comes to that subject. But this current brouhaha only underscores the fact that Schumer has a rather unsteady tightrope to walk between now and when he officially replaces Harry Reid. He needs to act like a strong, independent leader, particularly if he winds up being the Senate Minority Leader under a Republican president. But he can’t afford to be so independent that he angers his own base. Toss in his complicated relationship with his colleagues over Israel and you can see why he would back the Corker bill just to keep his options open, but expecting him to actually go to bat against Obama over it is hardly a slam dunk. This may be little more than window dressing when the entire passion play finishes rolling out.....snip~

Iran deal criticized by noted conservative… Chuck Schumer? « Hot Air
 
Yes he is Right TB.
hat.gif
Here is what I had on it. ;)




Chuck Schumer bucks White House on Iran.....


The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While there’s no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran, there’s an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at least have the ability to do so.

Within the Senate Democratic Caucus, a dozen senators have either co-sponsored Corker’s legislation or indicated they could support it. That would put the measure one vote shy of a veto-proof majority. On Monday, three more Democratic senators — Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — left open the possibility of voting for it, according to aides. Their support, however, could hinge on whether Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the new ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is able to negotiate concessions that alleviate concerns the bill could derail any agreement.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to entertain that possibility, telling reporters on Monday that the White House sees no way to reconcile Corker’s bill with the president’s mission of finishing Iran negotiations before Congress votes on anything.

Read more: Chuck Schumer bucks White House on Iran - Burgess Everett - POLITICO


BO was talking out both sides of his mouth when he was telling all, he wanted to work with Congress on this so called framework understanding. His usual!

Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

Iran already knows that many of the high-ranking members of our legislature, on both sides of the aisle, agree with most of the world that this "deal" is not in anyone's best interest, except Iran's, which is why Iran is already warning us that they'll call the whole thing off if they don't get the deal they want, IMO. All they need to do, really, is to interpret what someone says as "breaking the deal," and they've got their excuse. In the meantime, they are continuing on their own plan to go nuclear, and have partnered with North Korea to achieve it, and that is no longer a secret to anyone. An Iranian defector has supposedly stated that this "deal" has been done for some time, and most of it is "off paper", since BHO has capitulated to Iran in an "understanding" with them. If that is true, and I hope it's not, we have been punked since day one. Unbelievable! Small wonder so many are suspicious about what's really going on here.
 
I don't see how it makes any difference at all. The Iranians aren't going to honor any agreement made with the great satan. They just understand that once sanctions are lifted, they are difficult to re-impose. The "deal" is just lip flapping amounting to nothing whatsoever other than the lifting of those sanctions. There is no solution for us in any deal and lots of solution for Iran. Since we started this nonsense, the only common sense thing we can do is walk away from it and bear down harder on the sanctions.

Except that US only sanctions would not be effective and the rest of the current coalition are not willing to keep them up much longer. So regardless of any agreement, most Iran sanctions will be lifted in a year or so. Now what is your solution? We can either "trust but verify" or just throw our hands up and resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran. Pick one.
 
Except that US only sanctions would not be effective and the rest of the current coalition are not willing to keep them up much longer. So regardless of any agreement, most Iran sanctions will be lifted in a year or so. Now what is your solution? We can either "trust but verify" or just throw our hands up and resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran. Pick one.

I recommend throwing up our hands and accepting that Iran will be nuclear. I have believed that would be inevitable for 10 years. However I would slow it down as much as possible by doing whatever negative we can do to them. They are, after all, the enemy.
 
Is he right?

<snip>


Washington (CNN)—A key Senate Democrat is throwing his weight behind a proposal that would allow Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal, complicating President Barack Obama's efforts to dodge Republican opposition and lock in the pact on his own.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is backing legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to give Congress the ability to halt the implementation of the deal once the United States and five other world powers finalize the details in the coming months.

"This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer told Politico on Monday.


Schumer: Congress should OK Iran deal - CNN.com

Let congress vote on it so they can vote against it? It's not as though he made the goal especially ambiguous.
 
I recommend throwing up our hands and accepting that Iran will be nuclear. I have believed that would be inevitable for 10 years. However I would slow it down as much as possible by doing whatever negative we can do to them. They are, after all, the enemy.

Isn't an agreement that requires rigorous inspections of their nuclear facilities a "negative"? It is not like the inspectors will be helping them build a bomb is it? If Iran reneges on the agreement we will be in a much better position to get new sanctions than if Congress scuttles the deal before it takes place. In fact it would make the US the enemy in the worlds eyes.
 
Last edited:
Is he right?

<snip>


Washington (CNN)—A key Senate Democrat is throwing his weight behind a proposal that would allow Congress to reject the Iran nuclear deal, complicating President Barack Obama's efforts to dodge Republican opposition and lock in the pact on his own.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is backing legislation introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to give Congress the ability to halt the implementation of the deal once the United States and five other world powers finalize the details in the coming months.

"This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer told Politico on Monday.


Schumer: Congress should OK Iran deal - CNN.com

I'm waiting for DOJ charges against him to be filed. :lamo (Just kidding!)
 
I don't trust Obama any more than I trust Iran. They're both liars. Sure, one is a country - but the other one thinks he is.
 
Good morning, MMC. :2wave:

Iran already knows that many of the high-ranking members of our legislature, on both sides of the aisle, agree with most of the world that this "deal" is not in anyone's best interest, except Iran's, which is why Iran is already warning us that they'll call the whole thing off if they don't get the deal they want, IMO. All they need to do, really, is to interpret what someone says as "breaking the deal," and they've got their excuse. In the meantime, they are continuing on their own plan to go nuclear, and have partnered with North Korea to achieve it, and that is no longer a secret to anyone. An Iranian defector has supposedly stated that this "deal" has been done for some time, and most of it is "off paper", since BHO has capitulated to Iran in an "understanding" with them. If that is true, and I hope it's not, we have been punked since day one. Unbelievable! Small wonder so many are suspicious about what's really going on here.



Mornin Lady P.
hat.gif
Well As you can see Corker will have the votes to override BO this time. It is something that BO needs to experience. Another first for him and with more to come.
 
Isn't an agreement that requires rigorous inspections of their nuclear facilities a "negative"? It is not like the inspectors will be helping them build a bomb is it? If Iran reneges on the agreement we will be in a much better position to get new sanctions than if Congress scuttles the deal before it takes place. In fact it would make the US the enemy in the worlds eyes.

To me it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Iran will not honor "deals" made with the great satan.
 
To me it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Iran will not honor "deals" made with the great satan.

Maybe so but the question now is whether the U.S will honor deals with Iran. You sound just like Cheney when the Bush administration broke off nuclear talks with N. Korea. How did that work out? I guess you are looking for a similar result with Iran.
 
Maybe so but the question now is whether the U.S will honor deals with Iran. You sound just like Cheney when the Bush administration broke off nuclear talks with N. Korea. How did that work out? I guess you are looking for a similar result with Iran.

80-11138153_810089155745322_124348755157366622_n_3f3d9a4642f74bbcf994afa051066283668c2dd7.jpg


Yeah, I think it's going to end up in the same place with Iran. Kinda works that way when you make deals with countries that don't honor the deals they make.

Isn't it already well documented that Iran is already cheating on the already existing inspection regimes? <sarcasm> Yeah, that's sure got a bright future. </sarcasm>
 
80-11138153_810089155745322_124348755157366622_n_3f3d9a4642f74bbcf994afa051066283668c2dd7.jpg


Yeah, I think it's going to end up in the same place with Iran. Kinda works that way when you make deals with countries that don't honor the deals they make.

Isn't it already well documented that Iran is already cheating on the already existing inspection regimes? <sarcasm> Yeah, that's sure got a bright future. </sarcasm>

How can they honor a deal that we won't make? Bush broke the N. Korean deal and instead decided that invadng Iraq was the way to prevent them from making nuclear weapons. N. Korea made a bomb soon after.

The Clinton administration negotiated an Agreed Framework with North Korea in 1994, which was successful in “bottling up North Korea’s nuclear program for eight years,” and which eased the crisis on the peninsula. In March 2001, Colin Powell said Bush/Cheney would pick up where Clinton/Gore had left off
The Bush White House immediately rebuked Powell, forced him to walk back his position, and rejected the Agreed Framework. Kim Jong-il hoped for a new round of negotiations, but the Republican administration refused. As Dick Cheney once put it, “We don’t negotiate with evil – we defeat it.” The Republican president instead added North Korea to an “axis of evil.”

By 2002, North Korea unlocked its fuel rods, kicked out international weapons inspectors, and became more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear weapons program. In response, “Bush didn’t take military action, he didn’t call for sanctions, nor did he try diplomacy” – instead focusing his energies on selling the United States on the need for a disastrous war in Iraq.
Indeed, Bush argued at the time that the U.S. had to hurry up and invade Iraq before it could acquire nuclear weapons, effectively telling North Korea that the way to avoid an invasion was to advance its nuclear program as quickly as possible – which it did.
North Korea's road to nuclear weapons | MSNBC
 
Last edited:
How can they honor a deal that we won't make? Bush broke the N. Korean deal and instead decided that invadng Iraq was the way to prevent them from making nuclear weapons. N. Korea made a bomb soon after.

North Korea's road to nuclear weapons | MSNBC

OK.

Even so, Iran's already cheating on their commitments, were part of even entering into negotiations I believe, so there's reason to remain hopeful that they'll honor these other commitments?
 
OK.

Even so, Iran's already cheating on their commitments, were part of even entering into negotiations I believe, so there's reason to remain hopeful that they'll honor these other commitments?

That's why there are rigorous inspections that are part of the deal. Even Reagan said of the USSR we must "trust but verify". To scuttle the deal before it is made is extremely stupid and will virtually guarantee a nuclear Iran. They will be forced to make a bomb or face invasion, just like the ultimatum that Bush gave N. Korea.












'
 
Last edited:
That's why there are rigorous inspections that are part of the deal. Even Reagan said of the USSR we must "trust but verify". To scuttle the deal before it is made is extremely stupid and will virtually guarantee a nuclear Iran. They will be forced to make a bomb or face invasion, just like the ultimatum that Bush gave N. Korea.

Point here being that Iran is already cheating, as listed below, and we continue to believe that they won't.

I think trusting Iran, expecting Iran to comply with something they are already cheating at now, isn't a wise course.

Sure, trust buy verify, not much verify there (or trust for that matter) when verification is already being thwarted, and is only likely to get worse, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom