"We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei," the Republican senators write. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
Just in case there's any confusion, the Republicans remind Iran that the next U.S. president will be inaugurated in January 2017, about 22 months from now, while at least some of the GOP senators who signed the letter will remain in office for many years to come.
The Cotton letter comes on the heels of House Speaker John Boehner's decision to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress in what amounted to an extended attack on Obama's Iran negotiations.
It should go without saying that the reason Republicans are doing these things is because they are deeply concerned about a possible Iran deal. But another reason they're acting is because they can. On Iran and before that on immigration, healthcare, and other matters, Obama has pushed his executive authority beyond its proper limits, on the flimsy pretense that he is entitled to act unilaterally if Congress does not pass bills he wants. Could anyone fail to anticipate that in response Congress would stretch its own authority, too?
White House spokesman Josh Earnest quickly condemned the Cotton letter, calling it "a partisan strategy to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy." . . . . . . . . . A number of senators, led by Republican Sen. Bob Corker, have been working on legislation to require congressional approval for any Iran deal. "The legislation is a response to the administration's intention not to seek approval or review from Congress for the agreement with Iran, despite a long history of Congress playing a role in international agreements, which has provided added legitimacy and longevity to many of these accords," notes one GOP aide.. . . . . . . . . . . . "It's safe to say that no president in modern times has had his legitimacy questioned by the opposition party as much as Barack Obama," says the liberal writer Paul Waldman. "But as his term in office enters its final phase, Republicans are embarking on an entirely new enterprise: They have decided that as long as he holds the office of the presidency, it's no longer necessary to respect the office itself."
Actually, things are much simpler than that. Time after time, Obama has told Congress to go to hell. Now Congress is telling Obama to go to hell. It's an entirely predictable development.
Of course, it is still a bad thing. It is not good to invite a foreign leader to address Congress in a campaign against the U.S. president. It is not good to undermine the president's authority to conduct foreign policy. But it's not a good thing to undermine Congress' authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . . . . read the full article at the Washington Examiner, here.
He is the President of the United States therefore,why should he show up to be disrespected? What the news media is shying away from is the White Racism in Congress under a Black President that's worth talking about as real news. So what does the News Media do? They gravitate to Hillary Clinton which is less embarrassing topic to them as if we are all a bunch of dummies. The news media continue to wearing rose colored glasses during the first Black President's presidency.
ReplyDeleteFor the first two years, Obama turned down request after request on the part of GOP leadership, for conversations with him, for a hearing, for inclusion. During that two year period, Obama met with leadership, only twice and three times in the first three years. He sought to exclude them from all political decisions . . . . . . all of them. He treated the GOP as if they were white trash, laughed at them during his firstyear talk show (726 speeches and public appearances during the first year plus 5 multi-week vacations and around 60 rounds of golf - all in his first 365 days). In other words, he spent about 5 weeks "working," and none of that time included reading the daily security review or time spent with the Opposition Party. But my point really is this: he rejected the process and opposition leadership, thinking, I suppose, that he would never have to be responsible. That was his decision. Now, he pays the price.
DeleteI did not vote for the man, and I am a recovering Democrat, having enthusiastically support Jimmy Carter. several in my family did vote for Obama, the first time, however. No race bias here. In fact, there is no "white racism" in congress, as well. Most of us just don't care for Utopian One Worlders who would sell our nation and keep the change. Obama spent six years telling opposition to go to hell. Like many black tough kids I know, (and I am or was a 35 year wrestling coach), those blacks in the Democrat Party, are, for the most part, anti-Semitic on a par with Louis Farrahkan and Jeremiah Wright. It is not racism that divides but a very angry ideology that wants the world to believe that our country was founded by white slave traders who installed an economy that only benefited the white population.
No one argues that there is much darkness in our past, but no country in this world has the record of correction and reconciliation as ours . . . . . . . . . . none.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine if the Democrats were sending letters to Saddam in the lead up to the Iraq war?
I eliminated your childish slang. And, you don't have to use your imagination. Pelosi, in 2007, flew to Syria and sided up with Assaud in defiance to GW Bush complete with a photo shoot and presser. This was one of her first actions as the new Speaker of the House, so blow it out the backside of your head. Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. That's point one. Point two: there is nothing, NOTHING that you can criticize that the Dems were not the first to practice. You had the Dems undermining Reagan, back in 1983 with the drunk, Ted Kennedy, apologizing to Russia for Reagan's "agression." And you have the record of John Kerry, turned traitor, testifying to a whole series of lies as he worked to undermine the American war effort.
DeleteAsked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that “in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy."
DeleteYep.
Exactly.
Meaningless.
Whifff.
Hey Mr. America, now you are quoting a godless enemy of our state, as if he knows anything about our Constitution. And that is what this is all about. Obama working to put Iran's nuclear ambitions on a 10 year moratorium is not only unwise, it is against the will of every Middle East leader except Iran and is a death sentence for Israel. It needs to be subverted. You consider Obama the "president." I do not. He is lame duck and has been since July of 2010.
DeleteRepublicans face 47 felony counts under United States federal law for violating the Logan Act.
ReplyDelete"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Jail time.
the 47 are representatives of the Federal government. That money order PhD ("piled high and deep??") isn't doing you much good, is it. Besides, all they did was informed the Iranian as to how the Constitution works in this country. Nothing wrong with that. Its time for Obama to stop with his crap and join the rest of America . . . . . . or get out of town. Wanna bet the American voter will support the 47 ? We have been patient long enough.
DeleteQuoting a "Godless enemy of the state"? Did you happen to know that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, after receiving a prep school education in CA, went on to get a BA and MA from San Francisco State University in International Relations, a second MA in International Relations from the Univ. of Denver, and a PhD in the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver? Do you think he might know something about International Law and the US Constitution? Or are all Iranians godless idiots in your view?
DeleteYour stupid and uneducated idiots that lead your party and freshman Senator Cotton have just been humiliated and put in their place... and so have you.
He is "the enemy," both to the US and the entire Middle East region. I absolutely do not care where members of the enemy forces attended school. Good grief. All you have proven is that some folks with degrees, are willfully ignorant. Does he know "international law or the US Constitution?" Who cares? What I know about this killer is this: HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT US LAW. And, neither do you, making you equally part of the terrorist problem.
DeleteYou act as if there are people who think this "deal" is a good one, when, IN FACT, no leader in the region, leaders far more qualified than you, wants this treatise . . . . . . no one.