- “Abrahamic Dialogue” Is submission to Islam Faruqi’s modern application of Islamic religious doctrine to “Abrahamic dialogue” has engendered a supremacist, jihadist and anti-Israel “interfaith” dialogue. - 08/02/2019
- ANDY BOSTOM: TED CRUZ SACRIFICED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WITHIN WEEK OF IRAN NUKE DEAL……. - 01/23/2016
- ANDREW BOSTOM: ALL THE PERFUMES OF EURABIA WON’T SWEETEN THE SHARIA STENCH OF COLOGNE…….. - 01/22/2016
Ted Cruz Sacrificed His ‘Constitutional Principles’ Within a Week on the Iran Nuke Deal
I’m an equal opportunity provider of info on each candidate, you decide.
On April 14, 2015, a much ballyhooed “compromise”—but in fact a constitutional capitulation—regarding S.615, the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015,” was unanimously agreed upon within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Independent Politico.com and Washington Post assessments of critical aspects of the lauded compromise brokered by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker and Democrat Ben Cardin confirmed my worst fears about what had actually transpired.
Politico observed:
Though it gives Congress an avenue to reject the lifting of legislative sanctions that will be a key part of any deal with Iran, it explicitly states that Congress does not have to approve the diplomatic deal struck by Iran, the United States and other world powers… nor does it treat an Iran agreement like a treaty
This claim was substantiated on p. 32 of the updated bill, under a section titled “EFFECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS WITH IRAN,” which states in lines 16-19,
16‘‘(C) this section does not require a vote by17 Congress for the agreement to commence;
18 ‘‘(D) this section provides for congressional
19 review,
Furthermore, as Karen DeYoung and Mike DeBonis added in their Washington Postreport:
Obama retains the right to veto any action to scuttle an Iran pact. To override, a veto would require a two-thirds majority of both House and Senate.
Thus the Corker-Cardin compromise validated the Obama administration’s negotiations strategy. That “strategy” was contrary to almost all past arms control agreements of consequence, which have been Senate advice and consent treaties, whose approval requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The Obama administration, in contrast, is hell-bent on giving legitimacy to Iran’s uranium enrichment program,and waiving economic sanctions on Iran, while not submitting the fruits of its masterful negotiations to a congressional vote for initial approval, prior to implementing the agreement. These developments should be a tocsin of looming calamity given that the framework fiasco for this pending deal includes an inadequate/“hotly contested” inspections process, while also fully ignoring Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear weaponization programs.
This story first appeared on: Tundra Tabloids
