Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

UN Security Council approves Iran nuclear deal

UN Security Council approves Iran nuclear deal

Not waiting for Congress.

https://twitter.com/AdiKhair/status/623118022337761280

Guess the Obama administration isn’t waiting for Congress.

The United Nations Security Council, at around 9 a.m. (Eastern) this morning, unanimously approved the Iran nuclear deal, Resolution 2231, 15-0.

https://twitter.com/AdiKhair/status/623118022337761280

[U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote]

[U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote]

[Iranian Ambassador to U.N., Iran Nuclear Deal Vote]

[Iranian Ambassador to U.N., Iran Nuclear Deal Vote]

(added) The Israeli UN Ambassador responded to the vote:

Last night we asked, If Obama chooses the UN over Congress, what next?, reflecting bipartisan demands that the administration not commit the nation at the UN until Congress has had a chance to exercise its agreed-upon 60-day review.

The Obama administration moved forward anyway.

How will Congress react?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

PersonFromPorlock | July 20, 2015 at 9:49 am

Well, back to rope-selling.

How will congress react?

Based on their recent performance:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I refuse to submit any of my American allegiance to the #UN.

    Technically, it is not possible for any fed government official to surrender any autonomy to any foreign power or state. The constitution contains no enumerated power to do that.

    Glad to see that you do not intend to renounce your citizenship which is the sole method to surrender your allegiance. Notice that no government authority exists to compel you to do so — it must be a voluntary individual act.

    All of this is BS. No authority exists to submit the US to the authority of the UN. Only fools would honor this ‘agreement’.

      Technically, fools are in abundance these days.

      And now that we only have two effectual branches of government left-the Executive branch and the Judiciary-Legislative branch-I wouldn’t be surprised if Samantha Powers was given the go ahead to sell me into indentured servitude to the UN collective at the price of “radical Islam appeasement”.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to platypus. | July 20, 2015 at 2:37 pm

      Time to de-fund, and end the UN-organization.

How will Congress react?

Like a corpse.

i.e., a dead legislative body.

    rinardman in reply to rinardman. | July 20, 2015 at 10:30 am

    That’s why there’s scaffolding around the Capitol Building.

    They’re turning it into a giant tombstone.

    Here lies the Congress of the United States
    b.1776 – d.2015

How will Congress react?

Thank you, ma’am. May I have another?

Next question is what will happen when, not if, Israel strikes the Iranian bomb-making program. (Technically ‘again’ if you count several less-than-public events)

How will Congress react?

They’ll bring vaseline.

mumzieistired | July 20, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Despite Obama’s effort to make Congress completely irrelevant, Congress can still stop this thing (if they have the will to do it…)

The Corker bill does not apply, due to the content of the final agreement (which may not be final, given that the Iranian parliament is looking to change it already). See Andrew McCarthy’s piece here:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421349/congress-must-ditch-corker-bill-and-treat-iran-deal-either-treaty-or-proposed?target=author&tid=900151

Congress needs to treat this agreement as a treaty and vote on it.

Pronto.

    platypus in reply to mumzieistired. | July 20, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Don’t get your hopes up that the DC Cocktail Club (erroneously called Congress) will do anything but order another round of drinks.

McConnell and Boehner are conspicuously silent.

Sammy Finkelman | July 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm

As I said, you need a Joint Resolution of Congress (which Obama cannot veto, since it is not a law) declaring that the agreement is not legally binding on the United States, or anybody else for that matter, but merely day to day; and that Iran does not have immunity from having sanctions placed on it for any other reason, and we have a number of other issues with Iran to deal with.

And furthermore that that our interest in their possible nuclear bomb program does not end after 10 or 15 years, and that if Iran looks like it might move toward a nuclear bomb, it is the sense of the Congress that sanctions should be imposed and re-imposed even before the agreement expires.

It would be argued that all this goes without saying, but this would stiffen the spine of future U.S. officeholders and, if Iran does not reject it, change the understanding of what the deal means.

Sammy Finkelman | July 20, 2015 at 2:38 pm

According to the New York Times, Obama and Kerry actually wanted to have Congress go first, but Iran insisted that the United Nations Security Council go first, and Russia agreed, and the Europeans weren’t so happy with waiting 60 days…

And John Kerry caved, gaining only the concession that the “effective date” of the U.N. resolution (whose exact text, by the way, was negotiated with Iran) would be 90 days after it was passed.

Henry Hawkins | July 20, 2015 at 2:51 pm

I’m sure the GOP, which holds majorities in both houses, will kill this thing directly. Just be patient. Any second now…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 20, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    OK, maybe tomorrow, but THEN they’ll knock this thing down. Or maybe next week.

    Remember – this is precisely the sort of unilateral executive bullshit the GOP promised to kibosh if only we’d give them majorities in both houses of congress.

    Aaaaaany second now…..

What can Congress do? Democrats will block anything significant. They don’t need to filibuster, just sustain Obama’s vetoes. Unless enough Democrats joined to override, it’s all a exercise in futility.

So what CAN we do? Shut down the government in the next budget fight? That seems to be some people’s only arrow in the quiver, they propose it for everything.

– –

What most really complain about is the failure of elected Republicans to treat politics as an exercise in emotional vindication, as Kevin Williamson has noted.

– –

Elections matter. People put their noses in the air and forget that the alternative to “the lesser of two evils” is always and only the greater evil.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Estragon. | July 21, 2015 at 1:58 am

    We elected the “lesser of two evils” All we get is the “greater of two evils”. Funny how that works. Almost like the Republicans either lied, or they are working for the Democrats.

I am suspicious whenever I see people whom I believe do not have our best interests at heart, people like the Communist in Chief, are enthusiastic about something. What is it that we have signed up for that we may regret later? Be careful of treaties, in certain circumstances they may be able to override the constitution. For instance if the treaty said: All tea party members are to be executed, I am not clear what would stop that from taking place if treaties actually do supersede US law.

How will Congress react? It doesn’t matter and no one in the world cares, anyway. Heck, they’re mostly a governmental decoration here at home, why would anyone somewhere else in the world care?

How will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel react? Hmm.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend