Obama administration not committed to following law on Iran deal

[Clementine]

It's not just a hypothetical question as to whether they intend to follow the law if congress overrides a veto. Kerry refused to answer whether they would break the law. He would consult with Obama to make the call. So, congress and the people are now irrelevant as the administration makes their own rules and only respects the U.N. and Iran. America's laws are just a nuisance that they plan to work around. By refusing to come out and answer the question as to what action the administration will take, Kerry made it clear that the administration no longer cares about due process and our constitution. We have a right to know what they will do when congress rejects the deal. This is blatant treason when an administration isn't committed to following our constitution and panders to other countries.
---------

"Let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice, we override a veto, and the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions," Representative Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) asked during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. "Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?"

Kerry demurred. "I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are," he said.

Sherman was clearly surprised by the answer. "So you’re not committed to following the law?"

"No, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all," Kerry said.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421698/john-kerry-iran-deal-obama-could-defy-law-congress

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421698/john-kerry-iran-deal-obama-could-defy-law-congress


Obama knows that congress would never approve of the deal so he opted to bypass the legal process and just do as he pleases. The deal is bad for us. Kerry even admitted it will lead to the death of some Americans. Obama isn't going to let the welfare of America stop him from helping his radical Muslim buddies. There is no logical explanation as to why Obama is in cahoots with Iran and the U.N. to pave the way for Iran's nuclear program. It's one thing to try and stop them, but quite another to actually help them by lifting sanctions. Why are we playing nice with people who continue to vow death to America? At the very least, we should refuse to do anything that aids them in their jihad against us.

John Kerry admits: Iran deal isn't in treaty form because it would never be ratified by Congress

http://www.caintv.com/john-kerry-admits-iran-deal-is

 

[Obiwan]

Obama might have trouble with his support in Congress, too.....

Schumer Pressure party won t sway my Iran deal vote - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is "very seriously" studying the Iran nuclear deal brokered last month before deciding whether to endorse or oppose it -- and he says the D next to his name won't affect his decision.

"This is such an important decision that I will not let pressure, politics or party influence," said Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat who is poised to take over as Senate Democratic leader in 2016 and is considered one of the most critical votes on the Iran deal. "I have learned over the years that when you have a tough decision like this: study it, come to what you believe is the right decision and go forward with it. And that's what I intend to do."

 

[Clementine]

Obama might have trouble with his support in Congress, too.....

Schumer Pressure party won t sway my Iran deal vote - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said Monday that he is "very seriously" studying the Iran nuclear deal brokered last month before deciding whether to endorse or oppose it -- and he says the D next to his name won't affect his decision.

"This is such an important decision that I will not let pressure, politics or party influence," said Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat who is poised to take over as Senate Democratic leader in 2016 and is considered one of the most critical votes on the Iran deal. "I have learned over the years that when you have a tough decision like this: study it, come to what you believe is the right decision and go forward with it. And that's what I intend to do."

Obama has already threatened to veto congress's decision. They have threatened to override his veto. And the administration still plans to proceed by ignoring the constitution and doing it anyway. This is treason.

 

[Clementine]

Obama won't even follow laws that he signed. This is blatant treason because he is doing something illegal, not cooperating with congress and being secretive about the whole thing. We cannot allow him to act as if he has this power. Legally, he doesn't, and yet he doesn't seem to care. He is determined to help Iran and go along with secret deals by the U.N. with no regard to our constitution or security. He needs to be stopped and I hope there are enough people in congress, on both sides of the fence, to do the right thing.

Without releasing Iran side deal documents, Obama is in violation of the law he just signed

"Cotton and Pompeo make it clear there is no room for confusion or interpretation on this point. It's right in the act:

During a recent trip to Vienna to meet with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the organization charged with verifying Iran’s compliance, we learned that certain elements of this deal are—and will remain—secret. According to the IAEA, those involved with the negotiations, including the Obama administration, agreed to allow Iran to forge the secret side deals with the IAEA on two issues.

The first governs the IAEA’s inspection of the Parchin military complex, the facility long suspected as the site of Iran’s long-range ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons development. The second addresses what—if anything—Iran will be required to disclose about the past military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Yet the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act specifically says that Congress must receive all nuclear agreement documents, including any related to agreements "entered into or made between Iran and any other parties." It expressly includes "side agreements." This requirement is not strictly limited to agreements to which the U.S. is a signatory. This law passed in May, well before the nuclear negotiations ended. The Obama administration should have held firm in negotiations to obtain what was necessary for Congress to review the agreement. Iran, not the U.S., should have conceded on this point.

Weaponization lies at the heart of our dispute with Iran and is central to determining whether this deal is acceptable. Inspections of Parchin are necessary to ensure that Iran is adhering to its end of the agreement. Without knowing this baseline, inspectors cannot properly evaluate Iran’s compliance. It’s like beginning a diet without knowing your starting weight. That the administration would accept side agreements on these critical issues—and ask the U.S. Congress to do the same—is irresponsible.

It's irresponsible in the extreme, but what's new? That's how the Obama White House always acts. What really matters now is what Congress will do. If Obama has not submitted all the information the act requires, then Congress cannot hold a vote and it should instead make clear that he is in violation of the law and there is no agreement with Iran.

If Mitch McConnell and John Boehner hold a vote on the agreement when Obama hasn't submitted all the information the law requires, they are once again facilitating his lawlessness. This should be non-negotiable. It's right in the law Obama signed. No compliance, no vote, no agreement with Iran. And if Obama wants to proceed regardless as if the agreement is in force, which he will, then he should be impeached and removed from office.

What kind of pathetic country are we if we keep putting up with this?"

http://www.caintv.com/tom-cotton-without-releasing-i

 

[bendog]

OMG the SOS won't speculate what the potus might do!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Wouldn't it be more accurate at this point just to declare Obama a dictator so that he can make up his own rules as he goes. Why should the people he governs have any say over this? Just let him do as he wants with us and as much as I complain about this I actually think a lot if Obama supporters think this is an ok idea.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys really don't get it, do you?

This deal isn't about the US. We're peripherals. We don't have any skin in the game.

The rest of the world has already approved the deal - and they're not going to unapprove it, even if Congress manages to override Obama's veto. We don't hold any cards here - the vast majority of frozen Iranian assets are held by the UK and France, not us.

If the US maintains sanctions against Iran while the rest of the world relaxes them, the only people harmed by that will be US business interests, not Iran.

 

[bendog]

You guys really don't get it, do you?

This deal isn't about the US. We're peripherals. We don't have any skin in the game.

The rest of the world has already approved the deal - and they're not going to unapprove it, even if Congress manages to override Obama's veto. We don't hold any cards here - the vast majority of frozen Iranian assets are held by the UK and France, not us.

If the US maintains sanctions against Iran while the rest of the world relaxes them, the only people harmed by that will be US business interests, not Iran.

No they simply refuse to recognize that unilateral sanctions by the US would not harm Iran's economy. It's game over. Despite the hysterical (ly funny) op, Kerry wasn't saying Obama would refuse to comply with the override, he was saying he really has no idea how the admin would respond to upholding the filibuster. Obama might very well have the admin single out US corporations that would be hurt, and ask them if they'd like to weigh in with congress.

 

[Clementine]

You guys really don't get it, do you?

This deal isn't about the US. We're peripherals. We don't have any skin in the game.

The rest of the world has already approved the deal - and they're not going to unapprove it, even if Congress manages to override Obama's veto. We don't hold any cards here - the vast majority of frozen Iranian assets are held by the UK and France, not us.

If the US maintains sanctions against Iran while the rest of the world relaxes them, the only people harmed by that will be US business interests, not Iran.

Yea, that's why Obama and Kerry have spent so much time representing Iran in all the talks. Why all the deal making in secret? Obama seems to have a lot of interest in helping them and it makes no sense for an American president to put that much effort into supporting an American-hating country that sponsors terrorism. Obama is friendlier toward them than he is towards our military.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys really don't get it, do you?

This deal isn't about the US. We're peripherals. We don't have any skin in the game.

The rest of the world has already approved the deal - and they're not going to unapprove it, even if Congress manages to override Obama's veto. We don't hold any cards here - the vast majority of frozen Iranian assets are held by the UK and France, not us.

If the US maintains sanctions against Iran while the rest of the world relaxes them, the only people harmed by that will be US business interests, not Iran.

Yea, that's why Obama and Kerry have spent so much time representing Iran in all the talks. Why all the deal making in secret? Obama seems to have a lot of interest in helping them and it makes no sense for an American president to put that much effort into supporting an American-hating country that sponsors terrorism. Obama is friendlier toward them than he is towards our military.

Is that supposed to be English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

How have Obama or Kerry "represented" Iran in the talks? What does any of your nonsense have to do with what I posted?

 

[Clementine]

Is that supposed to be English? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

How have Obama or Kerry "represented" Iran in the talks? What does any of your nonsense have to do with what I posted?

It's not up to others to educate you. Try keeping up with the news. Obama has been a mouthpiece for Iran for weeks.

The details of the deal that have been shared aren't positive for the U.S. and there are a lot of secrets being kept from congress and the people.

Obama has done a lot for radical Muslim countries since he's been in office.

 

[bendog]

Not from congress. But again it's all irrelevant. The UN and all countries other than the US are ending sanctions. Bibi and the gop senate are toothless old lions ... which seems to be dangerous to be these days.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It's kind of sad how the most democratic country in the world now believes it is ok for the president to implement his own rules just because the democratic process won't allow him. I've read an old definition of democracy that basically described it as rule of the people. How is it that this is rule of the people when the president is allowed to override the legislative branch? I've also read an old definition of a monarch which was a dictator who didn't really didn't need the people's consent as well. Of these two kinds of government, which one is Obama mimicking? The more alarming thing is that there is a lot of people who seem ok with this.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I've heard this argument that basically goes like this. The other countries of the world basically have agreed to end sanctions on Iran so that overrides congress. The law still exist so individual states must enforce it aka supremacy clause. I know you liberals think that Obama should be have unlimited power but the supremacy clause actually says federal laws trump obamas supreme will over you. This means that all fifty states could still enforce Iran sanctions if they chose to. Also, what is to stop the next president from enforcing the law? And just because other countries are enforcing these sanctions doesn't mean we have to. If they want to enforce them then do so. They don't need our help to do that.

 

[bendog]

No one, not even Obama thinks he can refuse to comply with a law congress passes over his veto requiring some international sanction. But only the deluded RW nuts think those sanctions would mean a damn thing other than reiterate to the world that the RW nuts and nuts.

 

[Obiwan]

National US Poll - August 3 2015 - American Voters Oppose Iran De Quinnipiac University Connecticut

August 3, 2015 - American Voters Oppose Iran Deal 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds


American voters oppose 57 - 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
Voters say 58 - 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.
Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 - 3 percent and independent voters 55 - 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 - 32 percent. There is little gender gap as men oppose the deal 59 - 30 percent and women oppose it 56 - 27 percent.

 

[Obiwan]

Poll stats....

PARTY IDENTIFICATION QUESTION WORDING - Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what? REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY IDENTIFICATION
Republican 26%
Democrat 30
Independent 34
Other/DK/NA 10