Cruz: GOP Leadership ‘Prepared to Roll Over’ On Iran Deal and Move to ‘Their Real Priorities’

[Bigun]

The guy's jab at Cruz for holding Trump's coat seems valid.  Jeb and Kasich seem to be their own men.

 

[bkepley]

Why fancy that: "Jeb and Kasich seem to be their own men".  The very 2 RINOs the Dems are hyping to be the Repub candidate. What a coincidence.

I thought you were so concerned about folks who criticise Republicans?

[Scottftlc]

The guy's jab at Cruz for holding Trump's coat seems valid.  Jeb and Kasich seem to be their own men.

You seem to be forgetting about all the many Uber-donors they have, those interests might take great exception to the idea that they are "their own men"...their owned men, most likely.

[bkepley]

You seem to be forgetting about all the many Uber-donors they have, those interests might take great exception to the idea that they are "their own men"...their owned men, most likely.

I just wish that he would just once in a while criticise something Trump says.  I think it would do him good.

[Fishrrman]

[[ Cruz, after denouncing the deal, said, “Sadly, Congress has given away its constitutional authority to ratify it as a treaty, or reject it as a treaty. And so it’s going to take 2/3ds of the Senate and 2/3ds of the House to defeat it. Which means Obama needs to hold on to 34 Democratic Senators to push through this terrible deal.” ]]

Let me ask some rhetorical questions to anyone who cares to answer.
I'm a dummy, I apologize for even asking, but...

How can the Congress -- the Senate, the House, or both of them combined -- unilaterally change the Constitutional provision that requires a 2/3 vote to ratify a treaty?

They CANNOT simply pass a law that changes the language and the requirements of the Constitution, can they?

Could someone -- a citizen or a group of citizens -- bring suit in the Supreme Court to have such a law declared unconstitutional on its face?

[Oceander]

I'm so confused by this.  Doesn't the Constitution stipulate that treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate?  How is the House involved in this one?  Or more to the point, why? 

It's not a treaty, it's merely an executive agreement.  As such, it doesn't technically require approval by the Senate.  The 2/3s will be needed in order to overcome the inevitable Obama veto.

[Paladin]

Fishrrman, you ask several good questions, none of which I am able to answer beyond saying that since Obama became Emperor nothing that is written law seems to matter a whit.

What I want the Repubs to do is pull a Reed and change either the number of votes to end any filibuster at 51 or raise the number of votes to sustain a veto to a majority or 51.

If Harry can do it, why not us? Oh, wait, that's right because our side is led by such spineless wimps as McConnell, Graham, Cornyn, et. al. In the name of bipartisanship that crowd will probably vote with the Democrats.

[EC]

They CANNOT simply pass a law that changes the language and the requirements of the Constitution, can they?

Could someone -- a citizen or a group of citizens -- bring suit in the Supreme Court to have such a law declared unconstitutional on its face?

Did it with Obamacare, nu? Declared the mandate "not a tax" to get around the pesky need to have the House initiate it (as all revenue generation must be). It was then declared a tax after all by the Supreme Court - and nothing happened even though that should have nullified the whole lot at a stroke as a significant portion of the Bill was initiated illegally.

So the answer to your two questions are:

Yes, they can.

Yes they can and it won't make a lick of difference.

[Oceander]

[[ Cruz, after denouncing the deal, said, “Sadly, Congress has given away its constitutional authority to ratify it as a treaty, or reject it as a treaty. And so it’s going to take 2/3ds of the Senate and 2/3ds of the House to defeat it. Which means Obama needs to hold on to 34 Democratic Senators to push through this terrible deal.” ]]

Let me ask some rhetorical questions to anyone who cares to answer.
I'm a dummy, I apologize for even asking, but...

How can the Congress -- the Senate, the House, or both of them combined -- unilaterally change the Constitutional provision that requires a 2/3 vote to ratify a treaty?

They CANNOT simply pass a law that changes the language and the requirements of the Constitution, can they?

Could someone -- a citizen or a group of citizens -- bring suit in the Supreme Court to have such a law declared unconstitutional on its face?

Because it isn't a treaty.  It's an executive agreement.  This sort of agreement is used in other contexts; for example, there are a number of social security agreements the US has with other countries that are not treaties (these sorts of agreements essentially work out how to integrate two different social security systems together).

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Because it isn't a treaty.  It's an executive agreement. ]]

From my OS X "Dictionary" app:
===========================
treaty |ˈtrētē|
noun ( pl. treaties )
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French traite, from Latin tractatus ‘treatise’ (see tractate) .
===========================

Does not the Constitution specify that the president will negotiate treaties?
And what -is- "a treaty"?
It's an (suprise!) "agreement".
Negotiated by "the executive".

What am I missing here?

Your explanation sounds like something out of "Alice Through The Looking Glass".

With a hat tip to George Orwell.

Again -- I think someone ought to go to the courts with this...

[DCPatriot]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Because it isn't a treaty.  It's an executive agreement. ]]

From my OS X "Dictionary" app:
===========================
treaty |ˈtrētē|
noun ( pl. treaties )
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French traite, from Latin tractatus ‘treatise’ (see tractate) .
===========================

Does not the Constitution specify that the president will negotiate treaties?
And what -is- "a treaty"?
It's an (suprise!) "agreement".
Negotiated by "the executive".

What am I missing here?

Your explanation sounds like something out of "Alice Through The Looking Glass".

With a hat tip to George Orwell.

Again -- I think someone ought to go to the courts with this...

The Administration PUBLICLY stated during the so-called negotiations and certainly during the roll-out that this was not going to be any treaty, therefore it was exempt from the 2/3 House and Senate majority requirements.

Therefore they gave themselves total control to do whatever the hell they wanted to do.

And with Obama having pictures with Boehner with sheep or at a glory hole, we've been rendered defenseless spectators.

I have to tip my hat to the strategists in the Obama regine behind the curtain.

They are good.  No!  Beyond good.  They are the best. 

They've covered every base.  Find dirt.  Use dirt.  Proceed with your plan.  Render your opposition eunuchs.  Rinse.  Repeat.

[flowers]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/28/cruz-gop-leadership-prepared-to-roll-over-on-iran-deal-and-move-to-their-real-priorities/

by Ian Hanchett28 Aug 2015

Texas Senator and Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
stated of GOP leadership’s handling of the Iran deal, “it appears that they’re prepared to roll over, to have a show vote, to lose the show vote, and then move on to their real priorities, which is growing government, passing corporate welfare, and passing cronyist programs like the Export-Import Bank” on Friday’s “Mark Levin Show.”

Cruz, after denouncing the deal, said, “Sadly, Congress has given away its constitutional authority to ratify it as a treaty, or reject it as a treaty. And so it’s going to take 2/3ds of the Senate and 2/3ds of the House to defeat it. Which means Obama needs to hold on to 34 Democratic Senators to push through this terrible deal.”

continued

Cruz voted for this.  He was 1 of the 99 who voted to change 2/3ds vote. Only one senator did not. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.  That is why he is no longer on the top of my list.