quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So I am going to ask for honest hindsight.

It would have been ok for the hawks say every dem hawk in the senate to publish an open letter to the Soviets and Europeans making sure they knew that any START neg. between RR and Gorby could be reversed in the next admin. and formally so before a senate vote or voted down soon as presented to the senate ?

Any reply referring to the idea that START treaties had to be and were voted on after the fact...doesn't hold water. I am talking about just as now, such a letter...during negotiations.

Any and every repub would have been all over such an act with every bit if vitriol imaginable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

there is no "usurpation" occurring...the letter was educational.

as to "undercutting"---I would prefer to look at it as keeping Obama in check, or perhaps, in his place if you will.

here's the appropriate mention from the constitution:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

my understanding of the situation is, as ive mentioned, Obama's trying to go it alone, which doesn't fly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I don't know if I'd have been "okay" with that but I kind of had to be "okay" with John Kerry, meeting with members of a government with which we were at war, in Paris, while he was an active reserve officer in the U.S. Navy.

I had to be okay with the horse-faced Pelosi, talking to Assad while our troops were dying because he was allowing jihadists to use his country as a thoroughfare. Pelosi was specifically asked by the then president to NOT meet with Assad, but she felt it was her patriotic duty.

Beam ... your eye ... ya know?

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Buckshot Bounty,they are negotiating about San tions that cannotbelifted without congressional approval....So there's no going it alone.
The Iranians are not significant agreement that does not address those very sanctions.....So anyone claiming he is attempting to do this by fiat is either stupid,lying or uninformed.....I will assume you are uninformed,and leave it at that

quote:

There are still a lot of questions. I've said all along that I think the law requires the undoing of sanctions that were put on by Congress. Obviously, the law would require that Congress would have to undo these, that he can't do it on its own, so there has been a big debate whether the president can undo sanctions on his own. And that is what this bill will be, the discussion about, that Congress really should have to approve the agreement....The interesting thing about it is most of the discussion has been whether the president gets to do it by himself with no approval or not. This is the debate ...And that is a good point. We have had a problem over the last 100 years a lot of powers have been given up by Congress and taken over by the presidency. And there is a category of things they call the agreements. The Democrats maintain there should be no vote in Congress on this. The Democrats are mostly opposed to the Corker bill because they don't believe the president should have any vote in Congress...