In the event of an anti-Iran Deal veto override, Obama could simply ignore Congress
And I have little doubt that that’s exactly what he would do if he thought it would work.
Here are several possible scenarios:
First, [Obama] may simply announced that every bank that does business with Iran in accordance with the deal will not face the sanctions in the Menendez-Kirk amendment, as reinstated and strengthened by the Corker deal, as activated by the veto override. So, number one, ignore U.S. statute,” {Brad Sherman, Democrat member of the House] explained.
“Number two, he will tell the rest of the world to follow the deal and do business with Iran as specified in the deal, saying that is the reasonable thing to do.”
Sherman, who is currently undecided on the deal, went further to say that Obama could go to foreign countries and persuade their governments to mandate that their banks do business with Iran even if the banks are scared to do so to the full extent of the deal.
“He might go to foreign countries and say, ”˜Look maybe your banks are reluctant to do business with the Iran, because they fear this Congress will somehow get them maybe they’ll need a little push, so I’ll speak to your parliament.’”
Eventually, Sherman explained, it will become more difficult for the next administration to undo what was just done.
Like many other Democrats, Sherman is undecided (or says he’s undecided and/or wants to appear to be undecided) on how to vote on Corker-Menendez and an Obama veto override:
Democrats appear to be waiting on New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to decide where he stands on the Iran deal, as some think others will follow his lead.
Now, there’s a group of independent thinkers.
My prediction, for what it’s worth (and subject to change as events unroll): the anti-Iran deal measure will pass, but Obama will veto it. Then the override vote will go Obama’s way, but it will be close. It will be close because the Democratic leadership, knowing the public is against the deal, will allow members of Congress in everything but the bluest of blue areas to vote to override, but they will make sure there are still enough votes against an override to keep that override from occurring.
But if by some chance the override does happen, Obama will do exactly what Sherman describes, and more along those lines.
And then Congress will face another decision: whether to impeach and convict. Because if ever such a thing would be deserved by a president, that president would be Barack Obama. The threshold in the Senate for conviction is exactly the same as the threshold for an override, by the way: two-thirds.
As I have commented here many times here, there is less than zero chance that Obama will be impeached. He’s completely immune from that constitutional check and balance because he is “the historic first black president.”
And because Hillary would have historic first woman president immunity (and also because she is a criminal), she should not be elected. She would be an American Queen only restrained by what she thinks she can get away with.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Cornhead:
I completely agree that Obama will not be impeached no matter what he does.
However, I don’t think the chances are “less than zero.” I think they are about .05%. In the case of his ignoring a veto override, I think it increases to about 2%. Here’s why. If the veto is overriden, it would mean that already 2/3 of the Senate doesn’t want the Iran deal. If he were to ignore their wishes, that is a very direct challenge to their power. If they’ve already voted 2/3 against him on the override, 2/3 of them might (huge accent on the “might”) decide they’ve had enough of him poaching on their territory.
The talk about US/Iran deal taking long and conflicting views.
Whatever what is done in the end Israel should be the core of that deal specially in very troubling region:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-jonathan-pollards-release-means-little-120746.html#ixzz3hb8LlE3m
The fact that Brad Sherman, Democrat member of the House, is discussing how Obama could circumvent the law shows that the Democrats are fully aware that Obama is a rogue president. The fact that they have gone along with him shows that they are equally culpable with him.
We have an “elected King” – the Great Republic is dead. This is only more evidence that F H Buckley is correct.
I don’t think the issue is as difficult as it is made out: whether it passes or not, Obama will enact US participation by executive order and say he had to do it because it is in the nation’s interest. The true believers will nod like a bunch of bobble-heads; the passionate antis will cite the number of days until Jan 20th, 2017. I wrote a column for the National Security Forum on the agreement itself. Google National Security Forum and scroll down to the second article.
Evil has always been immune to weaklings.
Ymarsakar Says:
August 2nd, 2015 at 1:07 pm
“Evil has always been immune to weaklings.”
Not bad.
Josh Rogin had a really interesting column Friday about the French official, Jacques Audibert told House Demorcrats if they voted no there would be some saber rattling and some chaos for about a year but he thinks, in the end, Iran would come to back to the negotiating table. This was a direct refute to what Kerry said. Really interesting read.http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/top-french-official-contradicts-kerry-on-iran-deal