House rejects Iran nuclear deal

[VCheng]

@Syed.Ali.Haider @gambit

What is the importance of House rejecting such a bill? Can the senate pass it or President can use his executive powers to force it into law?

These are just Beltway Games in preparation for the upcoming elections, nothing else. The deal with Iran will eventually go through, after much posturing like this.

 

[The Last of us]

Just to clarify, this is just a symbolic rejection. It will not stop the deal. The senate has already stopped even a vote being done in the senate due the fact Obama has more than 41 senator backing the deal. Meaning Obama will not even have to worry about using his veto. This rejection in the house will not change anything.

 

[Spectre]

These are just Beltway Games in preparation for the upcoming elections, nothing else. The deal with Iran will eventually go through, after much posturing like this.

Is Judicial re-course available with respect to blocking of this deal? Though the majority moderate USSC will not interfere but things can take a turn for the worst after Republicans come to power and appoint new Justices after imminent retirement of Ginsberg.

Is the Deal fool-proof against adverse Judicial and Legislative efforts?

Anyway as Obama said, If US backs out it will back out alone.

 

[VCheng]

Is Judicial re-course available with respect to blocking of this deal? Though the majority moderate USSC will not interfere but things can take a turn for the worst after Republicans come to power and appoint new Justices after imminent retirement of Ginsberg.

Is the Deal fool-proof against adverse Judicial and Legislative efforts?

Anyway as Obama said, If US backs out it will back out alone.

Traditionally, the USSC lets the President run foreign policy as he sees fit with his cabinet and the party. The run up to an election is always rancorous, but in the end, national interests win out, always.

 

[Spectre]

Traditionally, the USSC lets the President run foreign policy as he sees fit with his cabinet and the party. The run up to an election is always rancorous, but in the end, national interests win out, always.

Yes, National Interest wins always although interpretation of National Interest is not same across the board.

 

[pak avatar]

This was expected. The House is Republican dominated.
The real game is in the Senate with the Presidents veto. The President will veto and he has the votes in the Senate to pass the Deal through the veto.

 

[VCheng]

Yes, National Interest wins always although interpretation of National Interest is not same across the board.

Of course, but that is what the political circus is all about: promoting one's own views about what is the proper way to achieve national goals. The better act wins, until the next round. Rinse, Repeat.

 

[Spectre]

Of course, but that is what the political circus is all about: promoting one's own views about what is the proper way to achieve national goals. The better act wins, until the next round. Rinse, Repeat.

Don't think it so simple, their is an over-aching theme to national goals outlines by institutions like Pentagon, State Dept, Senior Senators (institutions onto themselves), CIA, NSA etc. They preserve the continuity in important arenas thus making such interests and goals immune to political vagaries.

Some issues of lesser strategic importance are left to Politicians to satisfy their egos. Though I would concede that some Politicians have been able to leave their mark on US Policy spanning decades, Nixon was such a politician. In contrast it is well known that W was miked by MIC and Pentagon to hilt.

If Rinse/Repeat were true we would see a wildly fluctuating US Policy across all spectrum.

This brings home an important point about Iran Deal, is it a whim of Obama and his present cabinet or does it have institutional support with regards to shift in policy towards Iran.

Regards

 

[Hiptullha]

A good beginning to a nuclear Iran ergo a nuclear terrorist sponsor nation ergo a nuclear armed terrorist willing to use it on Israel.

Who isn't a "terrorist sponsor nation" in the Middle East? Heck, we're now even hearing reports of Israel, the "last bastion of human rights and democracy" treating "moderate" Syrian rebels.

 

[Hack-Hook]

What agreement did Ahmedinejad nullify?

Anyway, your insult aside, they wouldn't have to "nullify" the agreement. They can just bring up some cock and bull story, claim that Iran is not living up to their obligations, and then put pressure on us. Some can say, "but they can't do that!". I don't exactly see why not. They have been doing this exact thing when it comes to our enrichment program. As per us being signatory to the NPT treaty, what part of them claims that sanctions are allowed? NPT clearly says we have right to enrichment, so why is this even in dispute? As per NPT, signatories are suppose to disarm, but the west hasn't, so why aren't THEY in court?

This is Article IV,
"Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."

" All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."

But none of that is respected. So, somehow a "treaty" (which the west claims is not a treaty anyway) is signed, with us giving up many rights, to get some of the rights that is part of NPT, and this is supposed to be binding?

There is no insult that's the fact. Hope you won't believe that when ahmadinejad made his speeches in in it was in front of theall of members.

And it has nothing to do with nullifying . it's like talking something when you must stay silent.
Here is no one country can demand anything its a commission that must decide that the demands are appropriate or not. And here EU , Russia & China wants the deal if USA or Iran pull out of the deal one sidedly they pull out alone and will come in front of the rest.

 

[Madali]

There is no insult that's the fact.

Most of what we discuss in this forum is not "the fact". They are opinions which we hope, through our discussions, to make our case & perspective seem reasonable & logical.

 

[Shahryar Hedayati]

House votes to reject Iran nuclear deal, but action has little impact
WASHINGTON — The House voted Friday to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, but the action will have little real impact now that Senate Democrats have effectively safeguarded the deal.

House members voted 269-162 against approving the agreement. All but one Republican voted against approval, as did 25 Democrats. The 162 members who voted for approval of the deal were all Democrats. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., voted "present."

The House also voted 247-186 to prevent President Obama from lifting economic sanctions against Iran.

However, both bills are expected to die in the House since they are not slated to be taken up by the Senate.

In a big victory for Obama, Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked a resolution to reject the Iran nuclear agreement. Senators voted 58-42 to bring a resolution of disapproval to the floor — two votes short of the 60 needed to advance the resolution.


USA TODAY

Senate Democrats block GOP effort to derail Iran nuke deal


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to hold the vote again Tuesday. But Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted the outcome will not change. The agreement will take effect on Sept. 17 unless both chambers of Congress vote to reject it.

Obama said Friday that he is gratified by the support he received from Democratic lawmakers in the House.

"Now, we must turn to the critical work of implementing and verifying this deal so that Iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon," the president said in a statement. "In doing so, we’ll write the latest chapter of American leadership in the pursuit of a safer, more hopeful world."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Republicans will keep trying to stop the deal from being implemented. The House on Thursday passed a resolution saying that Obama had not complied with a requirement to provide Congress with all documents related to the Iran agreement. Boehner said Republicans may use that argument to file a lawsuit to try to halt the agreement.

"Never in our history has something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support," Boehner said on the House floor Friday. "Our fight to stop this bad deal is frankly just beginning. We will not let the American people down."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the agreement "strengthens our security."

The agreement — reached among Iran, the U.S., and five other nations — would lift economic sanctions against Iran in return for Tehran's agreement not to develop nuclear weapons for at least a decade and to dismantle some components of its nuclear program.

"As this agreement moves forward, we will be making progress for the cause of peachttp://House votes to reject Iran nuclear deal, but action has little impact in the world," Pelosi said.

 

[gambit]

@Syed.Ali.Haider @gambit

What is the importance of House rejecting such a bill? Can the senate pass it or President can use his executive powers to force it into law?

The House represents Americans as individuals. The Senate represents Americans as States. The US Constitution empowered the Senate, not the House, to ratify any treaty concluded by the President. Once a treaty is ratified, the House, who controls the country's purse, must support it.

Because there is no official US-Iran diplomatic relationship, what Obama did was tricked the American people by casting the Iran nuclear deal as an 'executive understanding' between the US and Iran, instead of a 'treaty', thereby bypassing the Senate.

What the House did was symbolically important, at least in the eyes of those who drafted the rejection, that the American people rejected this 'executive understanding' created by the Obama Administration. The rejection have no effects outside of its symbolism.

As for the Senate, because it is essentially a "gentleman's agreement" between two leaders, and not a treaty in the Senate's legal ledger, whatever the Senate does is legally irrelevant. But because there is a Constitutional shadow over this quasi-treaty, it is more important that there is Senatorial approval, even if it is just symbolically, than any response from the House side. This is why politically speaking, the Obama Administration have been fighting hard to get as much Democratic support -- even if just symbolically -- for this quasi-treaty.

Once there is Senatorial approval, a treaty becomes a law that the American taxpayers must annually allocate resources to support. If it is a treaty and approved by the Senate, then there would be legal ramifications far beyond any Presidency, as in if it was approved by the Senate, then only the Senate can legally rescinds or absolves the US from said treaty.

As chief executive, Obama cannot force this "gentleman's agreement" into law but precisely because he does have latitudes that all chief executives of any organization have, he can put the organization's resources into supporting the agreement for as long as he is able. This is why it does not take even an atom's amount of cynicism to see that this "gentleman's agreement" is a treaty without the label of 'treaty' on it. Even Obama's most emotionally supportive in the US media establishment have to concede that it is a treaty without the label. Not that they care anyway. Whatever Obama does -- good.

Obama is more politically shrewd than he is any kind of 'statesman' he perceives himself to be. Obama is more interested in long term benefits for his reputation than for the US-Iran relationship. He knows that as a "gentleman's agreement", any burdens are in effect only as long as he is President and as long as the next President is willing to uphold the agreement. He will put burdens on the American taxpayers until he leave office and if the next President found there are benefits to remain under this agreement, his post Presidency reputation will be enhanced, but if there are no benefits to the US, then his post Presidency reputation will still be enhanced because he can point to the record that 'something' was accomplished under his watch but the next guy/gal decided to abandon the agreement.

 

[gambit]

This was expected. The House is Republican dominated.
The real game is in the Senate with the Presidents veto. The President will veto and he has the votes in the Senate to pass the Deal through the veto.

Here is clarification about a veto from a US President...

Under the US Constitution with its division of powers and responsibilities which implies that all branches are equal, a Presidential veto is a rejection that a proposal, call a 'bill', becomes a law that the President as the executor of laws, must enforce.

A bill cannot come from the Senate -- ALONE. Under the US Constitution, a bill must come from the US Congress, of which the House of Representatives and Senate are chambered. A Senator can propose an idea as foundation for a bill, but then the idea must be presented and debated by all Members of Congress before the idea is rejected or reformat into a bill.

So keep in mind that it does not matter who has any idea to make up a bill, a bill must come from the Congress, not the Senate or the House or the guy down the street.

For this rejection of the Iran nuclear deal, the reason why the Senate is more important than the House is because there is a Constitutional burden on the Senate to approve treaties, so assume that there are enough Senatorial support for a rejection of any US agreement with Iran. Let us call it the 'No Deal With Iran' (NDWI) proposal.

Those who came up with NDWI must present it to the entire US Congress to debate. Since the House is under Republican control, the debate would be a formality with the Democrats going against NDWI. So now there is Senate and House support for NDWI, which then is format into a bill. NDWI now go to Obama who then veto it, meaning he refuse to make it into law. Why should he ? A President must enforce a law so why should Obama help create a law he does not support ?

Does that mean NDWI dies in the Congress ? Not at all. Parliamentarily speaking, there are enough Republicans in both chambers who supports NDWI that it can still be created into a bill. But precisely because it is the Senate who bears the burden of treaty approval, even though the Iran nuclear deal is not presented to the American public as an official treaty by way of wordsmithing from the Obama Administration, if there is not enough Senatorial support for NDWI, the idea should not become a bill. And since there is no bill, there is nothing for Obama to veto.

 

[bdslph]

House rejects Iran nuclear deal - CNNPolitics.com

I don't know why Iranians are so excited about a deal that can so easily unravel in a few years. It's so simple for the west to reapply any sanctions, and it will be so hard for us to restart our sovereignty. I like how Khamenei said in a few days back that some people are portraying USA as the Angel of Savior (fereshteye nejat, I don't know how to translate that).

there are many reason Iranians are excited including that not everything is has to end in war and you can trust and talk to Iran illegal sanction are removed they can do things which they could not do before food medicine etc..
this also show Iran has won that they did get what they want and also gave to the world to show there nuclear is peaceful
off course those who hates Iran wont like the pass the vote
because they cannot blabla like before and also when it is prove Iran do not make weapons nuke it is a slap in there face

as far i know i think IRAN wants to do business with every country they can find
not go to war with anyone