Republicans in Congress Revolt

Posted on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 by Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

I’ve been looking for this story all evening and finally found it on Breitbart. Heard about it first on my way home from work. Has our party finally wised up a bit and decided to fight…stay tuned! Here’s what’s being reported now:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A full-scale revolt against House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)—including a looming resolution that could come up for a vote at any time that would remove him from the speakership—has thrown into disarray the House GOP leadership’s previously carefully laid plans to push President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran through Congress without a fight.

Amid a rebellion in the House GOP conference meeting on Wednesday morning, leadership canceled a previously scheduled rule vote that would have set up the House putting through a resolution of disapproval of the president’s Iran deal under the terms of legislation previously signed into law from Sens. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). This all happened as a result of an argument furthered by Reps. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)and Pete Roskam (R-IL) that Congress shouldn’t even vote on the Corker-Cardin resolution, either approving or disapproving of the Iran deal, since the president has not yet complied with the law regarding the release of text of the deal including “side deals” cut with Tehran. …

…This came after a wide scale full rebellion by House Republicans conference-wide—with five thousand Tea Partiers rallying on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol—against Boehner’s push on this matter alongside 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, fellow candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and several other top conservatives on the hill. (emphasis mine…wahoo)

From what I understand the battle in the House became quite loud…could a push for a strong America and the for the people finally be on?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Republicans in Congress Revolt

    • Tina says:
      Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:34 am

      Hmmm, I get the thought behind, “da*n shame,” but there might be another way of looking at this…

      This is basically an illustration of the value of the small government model bequeathed to us by our founders in the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

      The citizens of San Francisco have every right to create an ordinance that will make their city less safe!

      Neighboring cities do not have to be so stupid, although it’s the Bay Area so…

      The beauty of power being vested in the people, power as close to home as possible, is that if you don’t like the local laws put in place you can vote with your feet and move on to friendlier ground.

      Now one could argue that the gun shop has been “driven” from the city unfairly but we all know life isn’t fair. So when power is vested in the people the gun shop can go on to a new location if they choose. The same is true at the state level, although the decision (and move) becomes more difficult. Texas would be one state to consider. 🙂 But power vested in Washington gives the individual citizen few options; in this case it might require moving to New Zealand.

      Freedom people…it’s personal and it matters!

      Reply
  2. Peggy says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 8:15 am

    I watched most of the speeches on the Mall yesterday and think those in the Capital bldg. heard and saw what was being said, which sent them scrambling into the basement for protection and to come up with a plan to undue the mess they made.

    Boehner needs to go. Valid sources are saying his drinking has gotten out of hand affecting his ability to carry out his duties.

    Meanwhile the American people are getting fed up with our supposed leaders. Marcus Luttrell just came out with a new ad that is going viral.

    ‘I Cower to No One’: Marcus Luttrell’s Blunt Warning Should Send Chills Down the Spines of ‘Islamic Extremists’: (Two videos)

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/10/i-cower-to-no-one-watch-marcus-luttrells-seriously-blunt-pro-gun-warning-to-islamic-extremists/

    Reply
  4. Peggy says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Sen. Cruz: We Can Stop the Iran Deal

    “Sends letter to Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner outlining legal approach to prevent Iran nuclear deal from taking effect

    September 10, 2015

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner laying out a three-step approach to stop the flow of funds to the Iranian regime according to the terms of Corker-Cardin, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act which was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama. In his letter, Sen. Cruz reminds the majority leadership that this deal would allow billions of frozen Iranian assets to go directly to jihadists who would use these funds to attack America and our allies, and urges McConnell and Boehner to use their legal authority to declare the deal unlawful.

    Sen. Cruz’s three-step process includes:”

    Continues..
    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2439

    Reply
  5. Tina says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 11:25 am

    RedState:

    From Merriam-Webster.com: “Treaty – an official agreement that is made between two or more countries or groups.” Since this is “an agreement made between two or more countries,” by definition, it is a treaty. According to the Constitution, treaties require approval by the Senate by a two-thirds majority vote. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act turns this on its head. However, the Constitution still applies because the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act did not amend the Constitution. If this deal is not approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, legally, it will not have been ratified.

    CNS News offers up Kerry’s excuse for not pursuing a treaty:

    “Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate,” Kerry replied. “And frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why.”

    “Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore,” he continued. “And it’s become impossible to, you know, schedule, it’s become impossible to pass.

    The typical means to a goal for the new radical Democrat Party is, if the Constitutional system of checks and balances gets in the way just ignore it. In Kerry’s case it appears he’s not even cognizant of the fact.

    Andrew McCarthy at National Review:

    On Thursday, we learned that the administration has begun preparing to circulate a proposed resolution under which the Security Council — before Congress has any opportunity to review, much less approve, the Iran deal — would begin implementing the Iran deal. That includes implementing provisions that relate to nuclear sanctions that were not imposed by U.S. statutes. For the most part, these are Security Council resolutions. In other words, Obama would collude with other countries, but without congressional participation, to modify America’s international legal commitments. Of course, you may have been under the impression — perhaps from reading our quaint Constitution from those dark pre-Fundamental Transformation days — that We the People are sovereign, that our government must take its marching orders from us. To the contrary, President Obama is claiming in his Iran deal that he — unilaterally and without congressional advice, consent, or legislation — may huddle with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Communist government, some European leaders, and our Iranian enemies to devise enforceable law. We and our elected representatives are expected meekly to submit.

    Many of the sanctions and understandings Obama’s Iran deal aims to undo were not adopted to block Iran’s nuclear program. They were adopted to combat Iran’s promotion of terrorism, and its acquisition and proliferation of weapons. Moreover, even with respect to the sanctions and understandings that were directly related to nuclear activity, Congress and the public were led to believe that the administration was negotiating to deprive Iran of nuclear capabilities. The president, in stark contrast, has struck an agreement that obliges the United States and other nations to build up Iran’s nuclear capabilities. That is not just outside the scope of what Obama led Congress to believe he was doing; it is the opposite of what he said he was doing — and patently unacceptable. …

    Alan Dershowitz at USA Today

    The Framers of our constitution probably would have regarded the nuclear deal with Iran as a “treaty,” subject to a two thirds ratification by the Senate. At the very least they would have required Congress to approve the agreement by a majority vote. It is unlikely that it would have allowed the President alone to make so important and enduring an international agreement.

    If President Obama doesn’t treat the Iran agreement with more respect, all his arguments today are beside the point. The agreement won’t have the force of law.

    Article II, section two of the Constitution states that the president “shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur…” Although the Constitution did not provide a clear description of the types of international agreements the Framers viewed as “treaties,” there is evidence that they included significant and long-term commitments with foreign countries. Some early versions of the Constitution allocated treaty-making powers solely to the Senate, but Alexander Hamilton argued that “joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of that by either of them.” He thought it unwise to give a single person all the power to shape the country’s relationship to the rest of the world. He believed that the public is much better protected from abuse under the Constitution than it was under the Articles of Confederation, which rested the power solely in the hands of Congress.

    Obama and Kerry look like a dopes…appropriately so.

    Did you know that GWB got 160 treaties passed by Congress…just saying.

    Reply
  6. Peggy says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Another really good article.

    Those Renegade Republicans:
    Almost half of the GOP’s voters are saying: Let’s start from scratch.

    “Is the Re­pub­lic­an Party go­ing rogue? It’s hard to look at the opin­ion polling in the GOP pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion con­test and con­clude any­thing else. As un­ex­pec­ted as many of the de­vel­op­ments on the Demo­crat­ic side have been, it doesn’t hold a candle to what is un­fold­ing among the Re­pub­lic­ans.

    Clearly, something pro­found is hap­pen­ing in the usu­ally staid and or­derly party. Don­ald Trump is in first place not only in Iowa and New Hamp­shire, but in na­tion­al polling as well, av­er­aging more than a quarter of the vote. Ben Car­son, the re­tired neur­o­lo­gist, is now in second place in Iowa and na­tion­wide, and in a stat­ist­ic­al tie in New Hamp­shire with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a more tra­di­tion­al can­did­ate. That Jeb Bush is av­er­aging single-di­git per­form­ances in both cru­cial states and na­tion­ally is just as per­plex­ing.

    Should we see this as a re­bel­lion against ca­reer politi­cians and the GOP es­tab­lish­ment? Or, is roughly 40 per­cent of the GOP elect­or­ate throw­ing a tem­per tan­trum? The an­swer is: both.

    Not quite half of the Re­pub­lic­an Party is made up of so­cial, cul­tur­al, and evan­gel­ic­al con­ser­vat­ives, tea-party ad­her­ents, and pop­u­lists. None of them ever cared much for the party es­tab­lish­ment in the first place. This 40-something per­cent of the GOP isn’t only more vis­ible and vo­cal than the slight ma­jor­ity of con­ven­tion­al Re­pub­lic­ans, they are also like­li­er to vote in caucuses and primar­ies. That mag­ni­fies their im­port­ance.”

    Continued..
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/66471/white-house-is-ready-bring-more-syrian-refugees-congress-is-divided-whether-thats-such-good-idea?mref=scroll

    Reply
  7. Steve says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    How do we publicly hold our congressional representatives accountable for their vote on this matter? Is there any group left in the north state that would have the courage to do this?

    Reply
  8. Dewey says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Folks I am still waiting for the exact wordage in the deal you disagree with.

    I am neutral right now on this deal. Colin Powell seems to think it is decent and has enough protections to revoke it.

    It is time to talk actual facts on it. From what I understand since the huge increase in their centrifuges during the GW Bush Admin this will greatly reduce them. I do not care what Bibi wants I am an American who cherishes our relationship with Israel not Bibi’s patsy. You do realize with no deal they will have a nuke in a very short time.

    Listen to Colin Powell, read the deal and tell me what you disagree with.

    Politicians against are paid to say so in many many cases. AIPAC is huge! Adelson is HUGE! BiBi Money is everywhere!

    There are no party lines when it comes to the men who die in war.

    Repeating media on something so important is never wise.

    You do realize how hard it is to hide traces right? Ya just can’t move uranium and hide all traces.

    These politicians are all about their campaign donors believe me. This is serious not a game.

    Reply
  9. Tina says:
    Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 9:32 pm

    There you go Dewey. Good luck with the legalese.

    Of course there’s the little matter of the “side deal” (who knows whats in that), or the fact that Iran has proven time and again to be untrustworthy, or the fact that Iran’s leaders display complete disdain and contempt for the deal, Kerry, and Obama, or the fact that their stated number one desire is the elimination of Israel and fulfillment of death to America, the Great Satan. Yes, there’s all of that and the fact that Obama and Kerry made this deal in secret and in breach of our laws.

    It matters not what’s in the “deal,” at least in terms of being for or against it. There’s really nothing to discuss except the nullification, one way or another, of “the deal”…another one of Obama’s nutty, ignorant adventures.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.