WhatFinger


But why do they need it when the Constitution already gives them that authority?

As Russians sell missiles to Iran, Congress closes on legislation requiring review of Obama's deal



This is horrifying, but it's hilarious too. Some country wants to take action that will put weapons in the hands of Iran's mad mullahs? Why, that's just irresponsible, says . . . John Kerry?
Hey, it's one thing if Kerry and Barack Obama do it, because, well, you see . . . how dare you question them? But the Russians? Selling missiles to Iran? Oh no, we can't have that:
Russia's decision to lift a self-imposed ban on supplying an advanced air defense system to Iran is reverberating in Washington, where officials worry the move could lead to a series of complications, some of which could further destabilize the Middle East. Some of the harshest criticism came from the State Department, which said Secretary of State John Kerry had voiced Washington's concerns directly to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. "We think given Iran's destabilizing actions in the region, in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon, that this isn't the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. Earlier Monday, the Kremlin's website reported Putin had signed a decree lifting a ban on providing Iran with the S-300 system. The announcement Monday comes as world powers are trying to negotiate a final nuclear deal with Iran, aimed at curtailing Tehran's nuclear program to ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.

Support Canada Free Press


Obama's will supercedes the Constitution

What's the difference between selling missiles to Iran, as the Russians are doing, and making an insane deal with them that purports to stop them from developing nuclear weapons but really does the opposite? Well that's easy. At least the Russians aren't pretending. They understand their geopolitical interests perfectly well, and they're advanced when a client state like Iran is given increased ability to wreak havoc in the region. The U.S. purports to be acting in the interest of peace and nuclear non-prolifertion, but no one believes the deal will serve those goals at all. And that's why Congress is closing in on a rare bipartisan agreement to give itself oversight of the deal. Sen. Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, negotiated the deal with Ben Cardin, the Democratic ranking member. The obvious question to start with here, of course, is whether the bill could possibly be a good one if Democrats are signing off. Early reports are not encouraging:
Cardin said the negotiated changes to the bill -- which would reduce the review period and jettison controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran has not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans -- would provide an "orderly and thoughtful" review of the deal. "I think this is the right way for Congress to take up this issue," he said. "I would hope that the White House would recognize that this is congressional prerogative. ... Congress can always take action. This gives us an orderly path forward. I would hope the administration would support that." In a White House briefing prior to the Senate meeting, press secretary Josh Earnest said the "kind of compromise that the president would be willing to sign" would include a bill with no link to a terrorism certification, a shortened review period and assurances from lawmakers that the bill would be "the one and only mechanism for codifying precisely what the Congress's oversight is into this matter."
There is, of course, a much bigger problem with the whole idea of this bill, which is the idea that it's needed at all. The Constitution already gives the Senate the right to advise and consent on treaties. Whether Obama wants to admit it or not, what he's negotiating with Iran is a treaty, and he can't do that unless the Senate gives its advice and consent - which it certainly has not. By passing this bill, what the Senate is doing is essentially accepting the administration's refusal to abide by the Constitution, saying, Fine, we'll negotiate new advice and consent terms agreeable to Barack Obama. They've already publicly stated that no deal Obama signs without them is legally binding, and the Constitution backs them up on that. They don't need to do anything else. Even the fact that they're asking for Obama's signature on this bill suggests they don't have confidence in their own ability to exercise the power granted them by the Constitution. And by the way, you may have noticed that Obama has a habit of not even abiding by the laws he signs. Why should anyone expect him to proceed any differently here? This is a well-intentioned effort, but the Senate doesn't need to ask for Obama's signature to give them a role here. The Constitution has already given it to them. Unless, of course, they now agree with Obama that his will supercedes the Constitution. It's been obvious for a long time that this is what Obama thinks.


View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored