Believe it or not, we've actually gotten somewhere.
Wow...
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section II.
Which you and I
agree will likely be bypassed because the President won't submit his Agreement as a treaty. That's why I asked, because it means "advice and consent" won't happen.
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.
But It was more than just a "possible gameplan", wasn't it? David Sanger is one of the most respected national affairs writer in the country -- a couple of Pulitzers, Chief Washington Correspondent for the NYT, bucketloads of awards for reporting. That article wasn't just speculating about a theoretical gameplan -- he cited a "senior Administration Official" who told him that's exactly what they
intended to do. He also cited Justice Department sources who told him they've prepared papers on how to do it. And if you google "can Obama lift Iran sanctions unilaterally", you'll see that it is pretty much an open secret that's exactly what he's going to try to do, and there are plenty of ways he can stop enforcement even if they are not formally repealed. As you noted:
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.
So yes, he really can just "wave a wand" and make much of it just go away. There is no statutory mechanism for the Congress to challenge delisting/certification.
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.
Theoretically, yes. But everyone -- including Obama -- knows he's not going to be impeached (and certainly there is zero chance he'd be convicted by the Senate). There wasn't even a hint of impeachment when he unilaterally lifted a lot of restrictions on Cuba, or when he refused to enforce immigration laws on the books. Trying to impeach him during his last two years in office, during a Presidential Campaign, not only would fail, but would reward Democrats by handing them the election.
So yes, he can do it, and yes, he'd pretty much get away with it.
You obviously missed a great deal if you think the Administration would deliberately break the law to support Iran,
So you're saying this President is just not the kind of guy who would refuse to enforce laws on the books as a means of advancing his agenda? Sure you're not the one who has missed a great deal?
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.
Why not? If a new President reverses that, then they'll just say the Agreement is no longer binding on them, which would turn it from a rumored 10 year agreement to just 2. Even better for them.
And I'm "insane" to believe that Iran would sign a deal without Congressional action? You've overplayed your hand a bit on that one.
Iran already has stated that it would accept Obama bypassing Congress and not require a formal lifting of the sanctions by Congress. Which, incidentally. would be a wildly incongruous statement
unless they had reason to believe that's what was going to happen.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iranian-official-on-sanctions/
I highly doubt the Administration takes this course of action, regardless of what the NYT says.
That's the core of our disagreement, because I think it will. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that, either.
But .... again ..... this has nothing to do with Netanyahu's speech now does it?
To me, it is the core justification for Boehner inviting Netanyahu.
If I thought that Obama would submit this agreement to Congress as a treaty for ratification, or at least continue to enforce the sanctions, I would agree that it was wrong of Boehner to invite Netanyahu. But I don't think Obama will do that, and I think the weight of evidence suggest he won't.
