Trust us

[liberty]

Now hear this: if Iran get’s nukes it will be a really bad thing and Obama the first black democrat president will be remembered as the man that made it happen.

“ Nukes favor the crazy”

[dales]

Same for Jimmy Carter and North Korea.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Where do I go to register my prediction so that it will not be preserved and not forgotten

That's a real conundrum.

Neade, is one of those that is so easily entertained.
,

I think of it more as an avocation. And so far, you've not disappointed

[liberty]

You can expect future installments; I could disappoint you, but it would be too much work, proof reading twice is my limit

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yore a prints!

[Big RR]

To explain how this works...

Unlike a normal treaty ratification procedure, (which requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate; no vote in the House...that is the way SALT and START, and START II, and every other major treaty commitment has been put in place)

This is a hybrid...

At first Obama wanted no vote by Congress of any sort on this deal...

Then because of pressure within his own party, he signed of on an arrangement where Congress could theoretically block the deal...

But only by having legislation passed in both Houses of Congress, which then could be vetoed, and then would require a 2/3 majority in both Houses to override his veto...

As a practical matter, what's going to happen in the next couple of weeks, is that both the Senate and the House, ( by wide bipartisan majorities) will vote to reject this lousy deal, and send that rejection to The President...

At which point The President will say "fuck you" and reject their rejection....

Then it will fall to the Congress, (both Houses) to vote by two thirds majorities to override the President's "fuck you"...

If they should fail in that effort, (which is quite likely; despite the fact that this is an atrocious deal; a 2/3 majority in both Houses is a very high bar...)

The President will be able to implement the agreement, but because it will not have the binding force of law of a treaty, no future President will be legally bound by it...

Jim--is a president ever legally bound by any agreement; my guess is the only threat he faces inside the US is impeachment--a very high bar. And outside the US, I would imagine the reaction to a breach would be the same whether Congress votes for it or not.

[Guinevere]

With yesterday's announcements there are 42 Dems in support. It looks like there will be no vote, no need to veto.

[wesw]

....unless the senate suspends the 60 vote cloture rule.

BOOM!

the nuclear option. the filibuster should be relegated to dust bin of history. (or at least allowed to gather some cobwebs until it s needed again) (rand paul has had enough lime light)

force a vote you scoundrels!!!!

[wesw]

...in fact, I think that the senate should suspend the rules, and allow bills to move forward upon a simple majority, for the rest of Obama s tenure as pres.

keep him busy vetoing bills so he can t screw anything else up.....

[Guinevere]

You mean, in your opinion. Nothing factual about it.

[Scooter]

....unless the senate suspends the 60 vote cloture rule.

I confess complete ignorance about its history and any potential justifications for it, but I see this one of the most dysfunction-inducing aspects of your poltical system. Although I should probably add the hold (especially when secret) since they tag team so well to prevent getting things done

[wesw]

I see the benefit of the 'hold' and the cloture rule.

they can be effective tools in allowing info to be discovered and revealed, and preventing rapid votes that seek to suppress knowledge before decision making/

they are good tools in a high functioning representative democracy. we no longer have such a democracy.

they may still have a use today, but time limits should be placed on these two tools to prevent abuse of the tools.

just my view,

[Lord Jim]

I give Scooter credit for being consistent in his criticism...

On the other hand, I well recall all the pissing and moaning from American liberals about the filibuster when the Republicans were doing it, but now that Senator Slime is using it...

[oldr_n_wsr]

It's only good if it benefits my guys.

[Guinevere]

I've been consistent in my position as well - live by the sword, die by the sword.

And there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around...

[Big RR]

I have tried to be consistent as well, and have not criticized the rule, but how some use it. There are times when forcing everyone to take a deep breath before acting makes sense. As Washington said, "like tea, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to allow it to cool".

[Lord Jim]

have not criticized the rule, but how some use it.

Would preventing an up or down vote in the Senate on a nuclear agreement with an enemy state just to save the President from the political discomfort of having it come to his desk and his having to veto it fall into that category?

[Big RR]

Being that there is no debate or anything else going on, I would think so; but then, who is fooled by this sort of blatant maneuver?

[wesw]

Kasich just called for using the "nuclear option" , to force a vote on the iran treaty.

he believes that if the president vetoes the bill, it would be possible to over ride that veto

he actually believes that if the citizens speak, they can get their representatives to vote to over ride.

feisty Kasich just might win.

he is right here.

down with Boner!

vote Kasich!

[liberty]

How can it be a treaty if the senate does not vote to consent ?