• 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!

White House agrees to give Congress a say on an Iran deal

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
White House agrees to give Congress a say on an Iran deal

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — Bowing to pressure from Republicans and his own party, President Barack Obama on Tuesday relented to a compromise empowering Congress to reject the emerging nuclear pact with Iran. The rare and reluctant agreement between the president and the Republican-led Congress came after the White House maintained for weeks that congressional interference could jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Tehran. But lawmakers refused to back down from their insistence that Congress have a formal role in what could be a historic nuclear weapons deal.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved the compromise bill shortly after White House spokesman Josh Earnest conveyed the president's decision to sign it. The bill, which cleared the committee 19-0, is now likely to clear both houses of Congress. It's expected to come before the full Senate as soon as next week.

Obama retains his right to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle such a pact if the time comes. To override a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate, meaning some Democrats would have to oppose their president to sink a deal. The White House's announcement came after an intensive administration effort to prevent Democrats from signing on to legislation requiring Obama to submit any pact with Iran to Congress. Under the terms of the bill, if a nuclear deal is submitted after July 9 — a short time after the final agreement is to be reached — the review period would revert to 60 days. The president would be required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with terms of the agreement.
Although Obama is negotiating with Iran via a "Sole Executive Agreement" which bypasses Congress, I believe this issue is too important to totally exclude Congress. There simply must exist checks and balances to ensure that any nuclear deal with Iran is extremely robust and that compliance is exceedingly verifiable.
 
Simpleχity;1064529982 said:
White House agrees to give Congress a say on an Iran deal


Although Obama is negotiating with Iran via a "Sole Executive Agreement" which bypasses Congress, I believe this issue is too important to totally exclude Congress. There simply must exist checks and balances to ensure that any nuclear deal with Iran is extremely robust and that compliance is exceedingly verifiable.

I could not believe that the President would even think he should try an Executive Agreement. This is of vital strategic importance on a level of the Kyoto Protocol. Thinking he should be able to make a legally binding commitment was very odd. That is why I did not understand, why he did not bind in the Senators from a much earlier stage on.
 
Simpleχity;1064529982 said:
White House agrees to give Congress a say on an Iran deal


Although Obama is negotiating with Iran via a "Sole Executive Agreement" which bypasses Congress, I believe this issue is too important to totally exclude Congress. There simply must exist checks and balances to ensure that any nuclear deal with Iran is extremely robust and that compliance is exceedingly verifiable.

The problem with such "Sole Executive Agreement" is that it is only guaranteed to apply only while that current President is in office. Any President elected afterwards is free to negotiate a change or even nullify the previous Presidents negotiations. The only way that Obama could have made this deal actually be guaranteed to stick was to get Congresses approval. By getting that approval any President elected afterwards has to go through Congress to get it changed or nullified. Considering that Obama has less than 2 years left in Office he would have had to have been the STUPIDEST President to ever reside in Office if he hadn't gone for Congressional approval. At least not if he wants this deal to actually last. And getting something approved on Capitol Hill is far easier than getting rid of something.

Now I just hope that our politicians will actually do what is RIGHT for this country and not play the party line bullcrap on this deal.

Edit Note: Also considering what Iran is wanting (lifting of all sanctions) he would have had to have gone through Congress anyways in order to remove the sanctions that Congress has put in to effect. He cannot simply nullify those on his own and expect to keep them nullified. Particularly since Congress is in control of what we export and to where we export to.
 
Last edited:
I could not believe that the President would even think he should try an Executive Agreement. This is of vital strategic importance on a level of the Kyoto Protocol. Thinking he should be able to make a legally binding commitment was very odd. That is why I did not understand, why he did not bind in the Senators from a much earlier stage on.
The less oversight, the greater the odds of a deal. Put a different way ... a stacked deck that Iran can exploit. This deal is too important to allow Obama to be the sole and final arbiter.
 
The problem with such "Sole Executive Agreement" is that it is only guaranteed to apply only while that current President is in office.
While this is technically true, history shows us that succeeding presidents rarely nullify such historic agreements. Doing so could weaken any SEA they themselves may contemplate or follow through on.
 
I could not believe that the President would even think he should try an Executive Agreement. This is of vital strategic importance on a level of the Kyoto Protocol. Thinking he should be able to make a legally binding commitment was very odd. That is why I did not understand, why he did not bind in the Senators from a much earlier stage on.

But he does think this way.
 
Simpleχity;1064529982 said:
Although Obama is negotiating with Iran via a "Sole Executive Agreement" which bypasses Congress, I believe this issue is too important to totally exclude Congress. There simply must exist checks and balances to ensure that any nuclear deal with Iran is extremely robust and that compliance is exceedingly verifiable.

What makes you think that Congress is any more capable of ensuring that the deal is credible than the executive branch?
 
That is why I did not understand, why he did not bind in the Senators from a much earlier stage on.

Because there would've been a partisan push to make it fail, or to stop negotiations from the start. By waiting until senators asked to be included, he's made the success of the treaty tie into the senators pride. It's quite well played on his part.
 
Simpleχity;1064530010 said:
While this is technically true, history shows us that succeeding presidents rarely nullify such historic agreements. Doing so could weaken any SEA they themselves may contemplate or follow through on.

Would you really put it past a Republican President to not nullify it? I don't have that much confidence in either party.
 
What makes you think that Congress is any more capable of ensuring that the deal is credible than the executive branch?
Why have a congress at all? Lets just have a supreme ruler like Iran does. That will make everything so much easier.
 
Would you really put it past a Republican President to not nullify it? I don't have that much confidence in either party.
Succeeding presidents never annulled historic agreements such as Potsdam, Yalta, etc. But I agree, anything is possible with the neverending beltway animosities.
 
Why have a congress at all? Lets just have a supreme ruler like Iran does. That will make everything so much easier.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking why would Congress be any more capable of ensuring that the deal is credible than the executive branch.
 
No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking why would Congress be any more capable of ensuring that the deal is credible than the executive branch.
Because it is hoped that Congress will ask the politically inconvenient questions that a legacy-seeking Obama White House may not ask.
 
Simpleχity;1064530068 said:
Because it is hoped that Congress will ask the politically inconvenient questions that a legacy-seeking Obama White House may not ask.

You have assumed that Obama is primarily motivated by his legacy and not by what is good for the United States. That is one thing. The next problem is that you have assumed that Congress is more motivated to get a legitimate deal than the President, and is not under the influence of elements who do not necessarily have the best interests of the U.S. in mind, but are rather seeking to promote their interests, regardless of what effects that might have on U.S. foreign policy.
 
No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking why would Congress be any more capable of ensuring that the deal is credible than the executive branch.

It's not which branch is more capable; it's about shared governance as the Founders intended. Just reading "White House agrees to give Congress a say" in the thread-head ticks me off.
 
It's not which branch is more capable; it's about shared governance as the Founders intended. Just reading "White House agrees to give Congress a say" in the thread-head ticks me off.

Shared governance is a good thing. But the founders did intend for the President to be in charge of implementing foreign policy. It is not good to put up obstacles to the President's foreign policy initiatives simply for the sake of political gain.
 
Because there would've been a partisan push to make it fail, or to stop negotiations from the start. By waiting until senators asked to be included, he's made the success of the treaty tie into the senators pride. It's quite well played on his part.

True, it would have been more difficult with a few important Senators being brought in. But he knew what had happened to the Kyoto Protocol and must have realized that this was as touchy as the other. A Republican like McCain could swing a lonely ride on the Iran issue, because he would be beyond suspicion. But a Democrat like Obama? After all his foreign policy red lines, disasters and defeats?
 

This changes nothing at all. The deal will still be signed by 0bama or stamped with his Imperial Seal and then the Senate will decide - as they would have in any case - whether or not to lift the sanctions but the rest of the world will have lifted the sanctions while the Senate is pretending to be relevant and 0bama would be returned the billions that Iran needs to pay for more terrorism.



Our next president will never be able to "Snapback" the sanctions and everyone knows that.


 
Shared governance is a good thing. But the founders did intend for the President to be in charge of implementing foreign policy.


Powers of the President:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.


I don't see that the Constitutions gives the president to power to make international agreement without the consent of the Senate.


It is not good to put up obstacles to the President's foreign policy initiatives simply for the sake of political gain.
The obstacles are welded into place in our Constitution.




0bama has also violated other Powers of the Congress:
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; Holding the nation hostage; 0bama forced the Congress to barrow trillions of dollars and his treasury is still printing money to make it look like things are great.

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
The EPA is regulating commerce the way 0bama wants and he is ignoring immigration laws that our founders was important enough to put in the hand of the people's representatives.
 
Because there would've been a partisan push to make it fail, or to stop negotiations from the start. By waiting until senators asked to be included, he's made the success of the treaty tie into the senators pride. It's quite well played on his part.

Err.... no. By insisting that he didn't need no stinking authorization, he provoked a rebellion among his own party. Even Chuck Schumer (likely next Democrat leader in the Senate) was in the opposition on that one. It's played disastrously on his part.
 
Shared governance is a good thing. But the founders did intend for the President to be in charge of implementing foreign policy. It is not good to put up obstacles to the President's foreign policy initiatives simply for the sake of political gain.

What about that pesky little constitutional detail of advice and consent of the Senate when making legal treaties?
 
If the P5 passed a UNSCR, this would be binding.
 
If the P5 passed a UNSCR, this would be binding.
It would only be binding if adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter. Much would also depend on the specific language of the resolution.

A US presidential Sole Executive Agreement is considered a legal treaty under international law, but it is not considered a legal treaty under US law.
 
Simpleχity;1064529982 said:
White House agrees to give Congress a say on an Iran deal


Although Obama is negotiating with Iran via a "Sole Executive Agreement" which bypasses Congress, I believe this issue is too important to totally exclude Congress. There simply must exist checks and balances to ensure that any nuclear deal with Iran is extremely robust and that compliance is exceedingly verifiable.

any treaty has to be ratified by congress. that is in the constitutional Obama cannot sign a treaty without congressional approval no matter what he thinks.
his executive agreement is about as worthless as the paper he signed.
 
Back
Top Bottom