• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
So I'm glad to see Congress has figured out the same thing. Kagan's just butthurt that Congress is no longer just bringing a knife to a gunfight.

This makes little sense at all. Kagan is a founder of PNAC and is one of the preeminent thinkers of the neoconservative movement. While I disagree on his worldviews, obviously, to just dismiss his argument as being "butthurt" shows you really haven't thought this through.

I think the point is that this isn't a partisan issue, and both liberal and conservatives can agree this is an overreach by Congress and sets a very bad precedent.

Further, you keep saying that Congress is within their "rights." As has been pointed out to you by @OptimusPrime , Congress doesn't have "rights," they have both enumerated and implied powers. Thomas Paine went through lengths to describe the differences between these two concepts; they are not one in the same.

But to the point, while inviting foreign leaders to speak is within their authority, by the strictest interpretation of the law, it is not in keeping with the spirit of the law let alone the traditional power sharing between the two branches of government. Foreign delegations and visits have been handled by the Presidency since 1789.

You see this as a just and proper attack on the President, but that's the point, it's too just that, an attack on the President using another foreign leader. That is inappropriate, and hyper-partisan. It sets a bad precedent, and does not achieve any positive goal.
 
Again, Congress is a coequal branch. It is not required to obtain Presidential approval or consent when inviting someone to speak. The assumption that Congress' right to hear Netanyahu is contingent upon the President's approval is simply wrong.

Again, this isn't about legality, but what is right and wrong. The bolded is a strawman as no one here has stated that Congress has acted illegally.

It's Congress that has been marginalized by the President. And it is now fighting back.

Again, this is hyper-partisan.

There's two parties in Congress. And until recently the Democrats controlled one of the houses of Congress. It's surely a misrepresentation to characterize the relationship between Obama and the Tea Party as the President willfully marginalizing the entirety of the Congress.

That's good, because this is happening within our borders. Within the walls of Congress itself, actually.

Is this facetious? Why waste time writing such nonsense. Involving another head of state in our own political affairs is unprecedented and inappropriate.

The bottom line is that Congress is not obligated to follow the President's lead on matters of foreign policy. Never has been.

That's not the bottom line, the bottom line is that this is an affront to every American who respects his country more than his politics.
 
Well, I'm coming from a little different angle. If the Constitution doesn't mention anything about Congress inviting and hosting foreign dignitaries, that means they don't have the authority to do it. Period. If they want Netanyahu's input on legislation, which I don't know why they would need it, but whatever, they have his phone number. Call him up.
 
Again, this isn't about legality, but what is right and wrong. The bolded is a strawman as no one here has stated that Congress has acted illegally.

Then I don't get it. Congress has acted within it's own authority. Therefore, by definition, it has not usurped the President's authority unless you believe that the President -- Constitutional authority aside -- should have sole responsibility for determining foreign policy. If you agree with that, then I'd see the point. I don't, though.

Again, this is hyper-partisan.

I'd agree to some extent that "partisan" (hyper or not) could be applied to the argument I made below in which I mentioned other aspects of governance where the President has gone beyond what has generally been considered to be limits on his role.

But I don't believe it is fairly applied with respect to Congress' action with Netanyahu being an appropriate response with respect to Iran. In that area, I honestly believe that the President has inappropriately sidelined Congress, and destroyed the balance that should exist with respect to this issue. He's basically backed them into a corner, and so if they want to have a voice, they're going to have to step on some toes. Normally, it's not done that way, but then normally, Presidents don't sign agreements with other countries knowing that Congress won't approve.

There's two parties in Congress. And until recently the Democrats controlled one of the houses of Congress. It's surely a misrepresentation to characterize the relationship between Obama and the Tea Party as the President willfully marginalizing the entirety of the Congress.

The "entirety" of Congress doesn't matter. What matters is the majority, and whether tea partiers are part of that majority doesn't diminish the authority of that majority. He doesn't get to ignore the Congressional majority just because some in the minority agree with him.

The marginalization I'm talking about is pretty specific. The first is him making clear that he's going to sign something he expects to be treated as a treaty, but with no intent of ever submitting it to Congress. And the second is where he's telling Congress not to even vote on trade sanctions.

Is this facetious? Why waste time writing such nonsense. Involving another head of state in our own political affairs is unprecedented and inappropriate.

Unprecedented? Winston Churchill spoke to Congress to rally support for the conflict against the Axis. Manachem Begin met with some members of Congress to lobby against Reagan's plan to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia, which pissed off Reagan. And Congress invited Tony Blair to speak in 2003, despite the lack of unanimity on the Iraq War. Members can hear from whomever they want.

Inappropriate? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder.

That's not the bottom line, the bottom line is that this is an affront to every American who respects his country more than his politics.

Not unless you consider the President the same thing as "the country", which I don't. This is an intra-government spat between the different branches of government, and Congress is using its ability to host speakers to try to shape public opinion. Again, Congress and the President are co-equal branches. One is no more entitled to deference than the other.

ETA: Glad to see the Big-Eared Guy came through for me with this statement:

Asked before a meeting with Defense Secretary Ash Carter about Netanyahu speaking before Congress, Obama said the U.S. has a system of government where "foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels."

http://isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/1001/20150303/APL8920.htm

And you want to be my latex salesman Constitutional Law professor....

If the President is not going to recognize the legitimate Congressional role in foreign policy, then this is the kind of shit he deserves.
 
Last edited:
Do you understand that is not a power If they want Netanyahu's input on legislation, which I don't know why they would need it, but whatever, they have his phone number. Call him up.

The Constitution doesn't say Congress can do that either. It also doesn't say they can follow Robert's Rules of Order, light candles in the Capitol Building, or employ janitors. This is an internal operation, that doesn't have the force of law.
 
Somehow I am not sure how the USFG views guys like Netanyahu and Abdullah as moderate but find the Iranian government to be some grave threat.

What is Netanyahu's endgame here? If we don't have a deal with Iran, but at the same time we cannot allow them to develop WMDs, then doesn't that mean ground war with Iran? I hope I'm wrong but that seems like it could be one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history.
 
Then I don't get it. Congress has acted within it's own authority. Therefore, by definition, it has not usurped the President's authority unless you believe that the President -- Constitutional authority aside -- should have sole responsibility for determining foreign policy. If you agree with that, then I'd see the point. I don't, though.

It's that the Executive is the sole branch of government traditionally responsible with dealing with other foreign parties, and that interactions between heads of state are generally done between heads of state.

Again, this is unprecedented.

I'd agree to some extent that "partisan"

And again, traditionally, partisanship ends at our border. We do not involve foreign leaders in our political disputes. It is inappropriate for another head of state to

But I don't believe it is fairly applied with respect to Congress' action with Netanyahu being an appropriate response with respect to Iran. In that area, I honestly believe that the President has inappropriately sidelined Congress, and destroyed the balance that should exist with respect to this issue. He's basically backed them into a corner, and so if they want to have a voice, they're going to have to step on some toes. Normally, it's not done that way, but then normally, Presidents don't sign agreements with other countries knowing that Congress won't approve.

This makes no sense.

Under the law, the President must consult the advice and consent of Congress.

Congress is aware that any deal between the United States and Iran must because any such deal involves the already levied sanctions against Iran by Congress. This means that Congress cannot be "sidelined."

Instead, it sounds as though you are in the same camp as Rep. Bob Corker (R) who feels Congress should pass one-time legislation forcing the President to submit the specifics of a deal 3 days before any such deal is agreed to by the President.

But, as many analysts on both the right and the left have stated, any such legislation is obviously unconstitutional.

The "entirety" of Congress doesn't matter. What matters is the majority, and whether tea partiers are part of that majority doesn't diminish the authority of that majority. He doesn't get to ignore the Congressional majority just because some in the minority agree with him.

You missed the point.

The point is that a majority of Congress did not disagree with the President's positions until the 2014 mid-term elections; so it is a misrepresentation to say that Barack Obama has continually marginalized Congress. This might be true as of now, with respect to a few issues, but not with historically over his 2 terms and not with respect to the issue of the Iranian
nuclear deal.

The marginalization I'm talking about is pretty specific. The first is him making clear that he's going to sign something he expects to be treated as a treaty, but with no intent of ever submitting it to Congress. And the second is where he's telling Congress not to even vote on trade sanctions.

This is not true.

He doesn't feel the deal itself needs Congressional approval prior to submission; which is historically how these deals have been made (particularly going back to our Cold War era detentes with the Soviet Union), and frankly, it's an overreach for Congress to require the President to submit his proposals prior to acting. However, the President must get Congress to agree to lift sanctions entirely.

At present, Obama has some latitude to lift some of the sanctions levied against Iran, but that latitude was expressly provided to him by the law passed by the previous Congress, it's not inherent.

Again, Obama may be looking to streamline the process and avoid long committee hearings, but regardless, in order to actually achieve a deal, any deal, Congress will need to lift those sanctions against Iran. The only other alternative is that Iran agrees to only a partial lifting of sanctions, which thus far has not been mentioned as a likely possibility.

Unprecedented? Winston Churchill spoke to Congress to rally support for the conflict against the Axis.

Winston Churchill was invited by the President.

Manachem Begin met with some members of Congress to lobby against Reagan's plan to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia, which pissed off Reagan.

You're comparing this to a joint session of Congress? Gtfoh with that. C'mon...

And Congress invited Tony Blair to speak in 2003, despite the lack of unanimity on the Iraq War. Members can hear from whomever they want.

This went through the Bush Administration.

Again.. it is unprecedented to have Congress invite a foreign head of state to speak before Congress without the President's approval.

Inappropriate? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder.

We can't make a qualitative judgement about what is and isn't inappropriate? I think it's fair to say that Netyanhu's visit received a chorus of disapproval from both sides of the political spectrum.

Not unless you consider the President the same thing as "the country", which I don't.

Comments like this waste time.

This is an intra-government spat between the different branches of government, and Congress is using its ability to host speakers to try to shape public opinion. Again, Congress and the President are co-equal branches. One is no more entitled to deference than the other.

It doesn't seem like you're even open to the concept... I'm wasting my time.
 
It's that the Executive is the sole branch of government traditionally responsible with dealing with other foreign parties, and that interactions between heads of state are generally done between heads of state.

Just "generally?" Interactions between heads of state are always done between heads of state. But this wasn't an interaction between heads of state. This was Congress inviting a speaker to sway opinion.

Under the law, the President must consult the advice and consent of Congress.

Which law, specifically, are you talking about here? It's pretty clear that he is going to consider this a "sole executive action", not call it a treaty, and so avoid the advice/consent clause required for Treaties. His statement today that "foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels" seems to validate that. But it's already an open secret that they've already decided to bypass Congress:

WASHINGTON — No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.

Even while negotiators argue over the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to spin and where inspectors could roam, the Iranians have signaled that they would accept, at least temporarily, a “suspension” of the stringent sanctions that have drastically cut their oil revenues and terminated their banking relationships with the West, according to American and Iranian officials. The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

But Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate those sanctions. Only Congress can take that step. And even if Democrats held on to the Senate next month, Mr. Obama’s advisers have concluded they would probably lose such a vote.

“We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years,” one senior official said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0

Congress is aware that any deal between the United States and Iran must because any such deal involves the already levied sanctions against Iran by Congress. This means that Congress cannot be "sidelined."

That's simply false, and as noted above, the Administration plans on avoiding Congress entirely.

First, both of the current sanctions laws contain provisions permitting the President to waive sanctions for up to six months. Those provision were intended just as a temporary measure during negotiations, but if Obama says "I'm lifting those sanctions for six months", Congress has no mechanism to stop him. And he'll just keep doing that.

Second, regardless of what the law says regarding trade with Iran, any such laws depend upon the Executive Branch -- i.e. the President -- for enforcement. And if he issues an Executive Order telling the Office of Foreign Assets Control not to enforce sanctions and the rest of his Administration not to enforce those laws -- like he already did with immigration laws -- Congress has no effective remedy. The laws will still be on the books (just like those immigration laws) but they'll be meaningless because there will be no enforcement.

You missed the point.

I missed nothing. The President isn't permitted to ignore the current Congress just because he liked the prior one better.

However, the President must get Congress to agree to lift sanctions entirely.

If he wants them formally repealed, he needs Congress. But according to the NYT article, the Administration has already decided not to do that. They'll just leave them on the books, and refuse to enforce them.

And if you want further evidence of that, Obama's silence is deafening. If he truly plans on seeking ratification of a treaty, and following the sanctions absent repeal, he could easily tamp down this whole furor by simply saying exactly that. Announce that Congress will have the right to vote on any treaty, and that the sanctions will remain in place and enforced until Congress repeals them. But he's said nothing like that despite the months-long controversy, and not involving Congress at all -- and proceeding in the face of what seems to be very strong opposition -- suggests he has no intention of ever submitting it to Congress.

But all of this is happening because everyone knows that Obama isn't going to put the deal in front of Congress, and will not enforce the sanctions. So again, in light of what I'd consider to be an unprecedented level of abuse of executive power, I've get zero problem with Congress trying to ensure it is not sidelined. The President is no more "the country" than is Congress.
 
Last edited:
The cosmic ballet goes on.

:fight (7):
 
Just "generally?" Interactions between heads of state are always done between heads of state. But this wasn't an interaction between heads of state.

Wow...

Yeah, again, you're clearly being obtuse here.

Which law, specifically, are you talking about here?

Are you kidding?

The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section II.

Furthermore, the specific law that requires the Congress to act is the CISADA and the ISA which is the basis for 3 Presidential Executive Orders covering Iranian sanctions.

Obama does not have the power to lift all sanctions on Iran; only a portion which has been lawfully delegated to executive authority.

Every deal we've come to understand to be on the table deals the sanctions for the nuclear program. Obama does not have the power to lift the sanctions. And as it stands, Congress likely has enough votes to override a Presidential veto and the leadership surely knows this.

Again, there can be no deal that lifts sanctions without going through Congress. Not unless Iran agrees to stopping their program without first lifting sanctions; which is highly doubtful.

It's pretty clear that he is going to consider this a "sole executive action", not call it a treaty, and so avoid the advice/consent clause required for Treaties.

Yes this is likely, and no I don't support this approach.

His statement today that "foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels" seems to validate that. But they've already decided to bypass Congress:

Yes, I've read the news articles just as you have. The point is that they cannot likely get a meaningful deal without going through Congress because only Congress can fully lift the sanctions imposed on Iran.

That's simply false, and as noted above, the Administration plans on avoiding Congress entirely.

As noted above was speculation. We can't say it's false because you post an article where someone points out a possible gameplan; and again, Obama cannot lift the ISA and CISADA alone or by executive action.

First, both of the current sanctions laws contain provisions permitting the President to waive sanctions for up to six months. Those provision were intended just as a temporary measure during negotiations, but if Obama says "I'm lifting those sanctions for six months", Congress has no mechanism to stop him. And he'll just keep doing that.

This is false.

Congressional Research Service:

Authority to Waive or Lift Economic Sanctions

The ability to impose and ease economic sanctions with some nimbleness and responsiveness to changing events is key to effectively using the tool in furtherance of national security or foreign policy objectives.

Historically, both the President and Congress have recognized this essential requirement and have worked together to provide the President substantial flexibility. In the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran, the President retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions.

In the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA; P.L. 111-195, as amended; 22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.),4 Congress grants to the President the authority to terminate most of the sanctions imposed on Iran in that act as well as the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-158; 22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), and Iran Freedom and Counter-proliferation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-239; 22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.).

Before terminating these sanctions, however, the President must certify that the government of Iran has ceased its engagement in the two critical areas of terrorism and weapons, as set forth in Section 401 of CISADA— SEC. 401 [22 U.S.C. 8551].

GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) SUNSET.—The provisions of this Act (other than sections 105 and 305 and the amendments made by sections 102, 107, 109, and 205) shall terminate, and section 13(c)(1)(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as added by section 203(a), shall cease to be effective, on the date that is 30 days after the date on which the President certifies to Congress that— (1) the Government of Iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies the requirements for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism (as defined in section 301) under— 2 National defense authorization acts were used to enact new sanctions and amend existing provisions on Iran in FY2010, FY2012, and FY2013.

3 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Implementation of the Iran Nuclear Deal, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., January 28, 2014; HFAC Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa, Examining What a Nuclear Iran Deal Means for Global Security, November 20, 2014; HFAC Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Iranian Nuclear Talks: Negotiating a Bad Deal? November 18, 2014; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Negotiations on Iran’s Nuclear Program, February 4, 2014, Regional Implications Of A Nuclear Deal With Iran, June 12, 2014, Iran: Status of the P-5+1, July 29, 2014, and Dismantling Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Next Steps To Achieve A Comprehensive Deal, December 3, 2014. 4 Section 401(a) and (b)(1) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA; P.L. 111-195; 22 U.S.C. 8551), as amended.
...
and (2) Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of, and verifiably dismantled its, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles and ballistic missile launch technology. (b) PRESIDENTIAL WAIVERS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The President may waive the application of sanctions under section 103(b), the requirement to impose or maintain sanctions with respect to a person under section 105(a), 105A(a), 105B(a), or 105C(a) the requirement to include a person on the list required by section 105(b), 105A(b), 105B(b), or 105C(b), the application of the prohibition under section 106(a), or the imposition of the licensing requirement under section 303(c) with respect to a country designated as a Destination of Diversion Concern under section 303(a), if the President determines that such a waiver is in the national interest of the United States. International Terrorism Determination To lift the majority of the economic sanctions imposed by CISADA, the President must determine and certify that the government of Iran no longer supports acts of international terrorism. The government of Iran is designated as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism, effective January 1984, pursuant to the Secretary of State’s authorities and responsibilities under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979. Various statutes impede or prohibit foreign aid, financing, and trade because of that designation. Three laws (§620A, Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2371]; §40, Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2780]; and §6(j), Export Administration Act of 1979 [50 U.S.C. app. 2405(j)]) form the “terrorist list.”5 Because these statutes are not Iran-specific, they are not included in Table 1. The President holds the authority to remove the designation of any country from the terrorist list. Though each of the three laws provides slightly different procedures, the authority to delist Iran resides with the President, and generally requires him to find that • there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the government; • the government is not supporting acts of international terrorism; and • the government has assured that it will not support terrorism in the future.
--end quote--


So no, the President cannot just waive a magic wand and lift the sanctions.

Second, regardless of what the law says regarding trade with Iran, any such laws depend upon the Executive Branch -- i.e. the President -- for enforcement. And if he issues an Executive Order telling the Office of Foreign Assets Control not to enforce sanctions and the rest of his Administration not to enforce those laws -- like he already did with immigration laws -- Congress has no effective remedy.

That's not true in the slightest. Barack Obama could be impeached for refusing the uphold sanctions against Iran. This has nothing to do with immigration.

The laws will still be on the books (just like those immigration laws) but they'll be meaningless because there will be no enforcement.

Yeah, that's not true.

I missed nothing.

You obviously missed a great deal if you think the Administration would deliberately break the law to support Iran, and you'd be insane if you think the Iranians would suspend their nuclear program without assurances that the next President wouldn't just walk in and reimpose sanctions.


The President isn't permitted to ignore the current Congress just because he liked the prior one better.

No one said he should. The point is that you misrepresented the facts when you said this was more or less pattern and practice for this Administration. That's not true.

If he wants them formally repealed, he needs Congress. But according to the NYT article, the Administration has already decided not to do that. They'll just leave them on the books, and refuse to enforce them.

I highly doubt the Administration takes this course of action, regardless of what the NYT says.

And if you want further evidence of that, Obama's silence is deafening. If he truly plans on seeking ratification of a treaty,

I don't think Obama will seek ratification, nor do I think that's the most important issue here.

and following the sanctions absent repeal,

This is the actual issue.

If Congress does not repeal sanctions, the President must enforce them.

But .... again ..... this has nothing to do with Netanyahu's speech now does it?

he could easily tamp down this whole furor by simply saying exactly that. Announce that Congress will have the right to vote on any treaty, and that the sanctions will remain in place and enforced until Congress repeals them. But he's said nothing like that despite the months-long controversy,

But the Administration has spoken out on this issue, repeatedly.

and not involving Congress at all

But that's a lie. Congressional leadership at the committee and subcommittee level has been actively briefed regarding the negotiations. Congress is also free to convene hearings as they see fit.

You're buying into talking points.

-- and proceeding in the face of what seems to be very strong opposition -- suggests he has no intention of ever submitting it to Congress.

Submitting the proposal or the sanctions?

I don't see those as the same thing.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of the deal, and this seems tangential to the original point which was that you think it's appropriate for Congress to invite a foreign leader to speak without the approval of the President.
 
Wanted to look for precedence and similar such actions by an Administration. I was aware of SALT I, which seems somewhat applicable but found the following:

This is from the National Review:

There is some precedent for such agreements. The “Brussels agreements” of the mid 1990s, which formalized the return of nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to Russia, did not require congressional consent, although the U.S. was a signatory.

The Agreed Framework with North Korea, which sought to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear-weapons program, also did not undergo Senate review.

Even the Proliferation Security Initiative, which coordinated efforts to stop shipments of technology that could be used in weapons of mass destruction, did not take the status of a treaty.

None of these agreements required the United States to promise weapons reductions or refrain from the use of force.

If the Iranian deal contains no promise against a future American attack and merely “requires” Iran to renounce weaponization, it could take the form of an executive agreement.


--end quote--

So there is certainly precedent.

I'm still not comfortable with the President not upholding sanctions. I think that's illegal and unconstitutional.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top