• 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

The President does have the power-authorial to sign this deal does he not? It has to come from some precedent that provides any President this authority?
Then the kicker- If refused does anyone think the other countries will keep their sanctions in place?
The reputation of the US takes a **** kicking then does it not for future issues such as this?

No, not unilaterally. \

Congress must "advise and consent" to any treaties.

The reputation of the US is already taking a **** kicking for no less than he's playing with this dangerous distraction while losing a war
 
Post 29 shows what Clinton came up with. You can note how BOs arrangement mirrors Clinton's. To top it off Bo has the same woman who dropped the ball with the North Koreans working this deal.

Oh, and just like the North Koreans. Iran is not discussing anything concerning their Military programs and ballistics.

I missed where it was/is a Presidential power?
That deal was doomed from the beginning though.
 
No, not unilaterally. \

Congress must "advise and consent" to any treaties.

The reputation of the US is already taking a **** kicking for no less than he's playing with this dangerous distraction while losing a war

It is not a Treaty though.
 
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 am no fan of Chuckles Schumer. However he is right on this one. Any agreement that our government has made in the past with any nation, especially an enemy, has always been considered in effect, a treaty, and the president always knew that for it to stick, he would have to get it past congress. One man should not get to decide what's best for every American...making agreements with other nations, immigration, mass amnesty, etc. We go to the polls to elect senators and congress critters for representation.....not just because we like voting. Obama seems to look at the executive branch as a monarchy. He feels entitled to bypass congress on anything and everything if they do not give him exactly what he wants.
 
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 me see. A democratic Senator from New York, where NYC is the biggest vote grab and has the highest Jewish population outside of Israel.

I think we are hearing from them here
 
I am no fan of Chuckles Schumer. However he is right on this one. Any agreement that our government has made in the past with any nation, especially an enemy, has always been considered in effect, a treaty, and the president always knew that for it to stick, he would have to get it past congress. One man should not get to decide what's best for every American...making agreements with other nations, immigration, mass amnesty, etc. We go to the polls to elect senators and congress critters for representation.....not just because we like voting. Obama seems to look at the executive branch as a monarchy. He feels entitled to bypass congress on anything and everything if they do not give him exactly what he wants.



All agreements between two countries are considered a treaty. The US constitution is clear, congress shall "advise and consent"...

but then there's actually people who think Obama actually cares whether he gets a deal or not and equals his predecessor and husband of the next in line. He doesn't, even if the talks now fail he has his reply "they scuttled a good deal"

Americans keep thinking this guy care about the issues as opposed to his "legacy"
 
Let me see. A democratic Senator from New York, where NYC is the biggest vote grab and has the highest Jewish population outside of Israel.

I think we are hearing from them here

Yep.....Chuckles is suddenly remembering demographics of his constituency.
 
All agreements between two countries are considered a treaty. The US constitution is clear, congress shall "advise and consent"...

but then there's actually people who think Obama actually cares whether he gets a deal or not and equals his predecessor and husband of the next in line. He doesn't, even if the talks now fail he has his reply "they scuttled a good deal"

Americans keep thinking this guy care about the issues as opposed to his "legacy"

As long as any so-called deal does not crash in his final two years, he will simply blame any future president for it's failure. He is legacy hunting.
 
then what is it?

It cannot go into effect if it is not a treaty, there is no other avenue I know of, no way the Obama nerds can change the lexicon on this one...

Exactly. If it's not a treaty....it is not legally binding in any way.
 
He can't remove the sanctions imposed by Congress.....despite his signing this deal. When he actually has one.

What he has Right now is what Clinton came up with. That Framework understanding.

Even if they don't keep their sanctions in place. Will they go ahead and conduct business and then lose money with the US? Can the Europeans afford to lose business with the US?

As that can be a response too.

So now you want to start a trade war with Europe? Is there anything worse than giving Iran the chance to not make an atomic bomb? Is there anything that will stop them if the US reneges on a possible agreement? No. in fact we will be telling them to hurry up and do it before we can attack them. Just like Bush did with N. Korea.
 
Last edited:
So now you want to start a trade war with Europe? Is there anything worse than giving Iran the chance to not make an atomic bomb? Is there anything that will stop them if the US reneges on a possible agreement? No. in fact we will be telling them to hurry up and do it before we can attack them. Just like Bush did with N. Korea.

So what you are saying is that a non-binding agreement that Iran will not likely follow is better then no agreement at all?
 
then what is it?

It cannot go into effect if it is not a treaty, there is no other avenue I know of, no way the Obama nerds can change the lexicon on this one...

Apparently he can. Otherwise there would be no rush to pass a law in Congress. Clearly congress does not "yet" have the authority to override this.
 
Obama is doing his best to help Iran in any way he can, and Chuck Shumer, of all people, is trying to stop him.

Yes, that's where we are.
 
Apparently he can. Otherwise there would be no rush to pass a law in Congress. Clearly congress does not "yet" have the authority to override this.

Actually, congress is attempting to pass a law in order to reign in a rogue president who know longer thinks our elected representatives in congress matter.
 
If it's done in the UN as a UNSCR its binding. But I don't know that that's the plan.

Dunno, but betting on a toothless tiger doesn't seem like it's a good place to put your bet.
 
I'm sure they disagreed with North Korea too. Color me skeptical, very skeptical, that it'll turn out as they believe, as they imagine, especially so with a partner that has already cheated on their obligations.

Guess we'll see how this all unfolds,

That is true. I just hope that the US is not the reason that Iran makes a nuclear weapon in the near future. Since I don't believe we will invade that means Iran will quite possibly ignite an nuclear arms race in the M.E. Just what that region needs and it could again be our fault.
 
When the terrorist group Hezbollah and Obama are both praising this deal with Iran what does that say?

Hezbollah praises US-Iran nuclear deal as 'victory' - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

Today an Arab paper say they have proof that Hezbollah and Iran trained the Houthis to harm Yemenis.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/04/07/Iran-and-Hezbollah-trained-Houthis-to-harm-Yemenis-.html

About 8 weeks ago Hebollah attacked Israel with a salvo of advanced missiles. And it was barely covered in the MSM.
Hezbollah Attacks Israel, Uses New Advanced Weaponry

I hope Schumer is serious. Because Congress is the last hope of stopping this administration from passing a bad deal. Someone has got to become the grownups in the room. There's still 579 days till the next election.
 
All agreements between two countries are considered a treaty. The US constitution is clear, congress shall "advise and consent"...

but then there's actually people who think Obama actually cares whether he gets a deal or not and equals his predecessor and husband of the next in line. He doesn't, even if the talks now fail he has his reply "they scuttled a good deal"

Americans keep thinking this guy care about the issues as opposed to his "legacy"

This is all about Obama's legacy.
 
I'm not betting on anything though.

Well, in a way we are.

The US (and the other countries negotiating with Iran) are betting that the nuclear talks with Iran will be successful, that Iran won't build a bomb, and there won't be a ME nuclear arms race.

And all this is betting that the UN inspectors will discover any illegal or non-sanctioned nuclear development by Iran, betting they won't be blocked from the sites they want to inspect, and betting that Iran will comply with the restrictions as stated in the framework as well as any following negotiated deal.

This is where Obama and Kerry want to the US to place their 'bets', as it were.
 
When the terrorist group Hezbollah and Obama are both praising this deal with Iran what does that say?
Nothin' good, that's for sure.
Another proxy war by Iran, billing the vacuum left by US departure and disengagement.
About 8 weeks ago Hebollah attacked Israel with a salvo of advanced missiles. And it was barely covered in the MSM.
Hezbollah Attacks Israel, Uses New Advanced Weaponry
Typical.
I hope Schumer is serious. Because Congress is the last hope of stopping this administration from passing a bad deal. Someone has got to become the grownups in the room. There's still 579 days till the next election.
Passing what appears to be a bad deal. Some here and elsewhere are touting how good their work is. I'm not at all convinced of how good the deal is, nor am I at all convinced that Iran will abide by their agreements and commitments. Some are saying 'trust but verify', well, that's prefaced on the assumption that the US inspectors will have the access they need to inspect and verify, and from what I'm hearing, Iran hasn't even lived up to that commitment.
 
So now you want to start a trade war with Europe? Is there anything worse than giving Iran the chance to not make an atomic bomb? Is there anything that will stop them if the US reneges on a possible agreement? No. in fact we will be telling them to hurry up and do it before we can attack them. Just like Bush did with N. Korea.


The EU can't afford to lose business with the US. Moreover this isn't giving the Iranians a chance to not make a bomb.

The Iranians are doing the same thing as NKorea did with Bill Clinton. Which is why the Iranians are using the NKoreas same end run play. No discussion on their Military Programs and their ballistics.

Do you think the Iranians can be set up, and made so angry that they would do the Stupid and utter those 7 words we want to hear? That would be.....We Declare War on the United States.

As then there is Only one response and Iran will no longer be a problem in the world anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom