67 Senate "ayes" in favor of the bill is not the same as 67 "ayes" in favor of overriding a veto--13 Senate Democrats voting to override their President's veto. The veto override also would need 46 House Democrats to vote against their President's veto. The bill will need a 4/5 majority in each house to retain 2/3 majorities for a veto override.
Congress set a bipartisan letter to Obama in June 2014, http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-royce-ranking-member-engel-release-iran-nuclear-letter-be-sent-president
telling him that Congress played a central role in enacting sanctions against Iran and informing him that any long-term sanctions relief for Iran requires Congressional action.
Because Obama ignored the Congress, the Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, saying much the same thing.
When Congress takes takes careful, procedurally sound steps that involve mutual co-operation and support, it is time to become alarmed.
This is like getting calm but attentive care when you go to the emergency room: It is nice to see the expertise, but it is not so good to know you need it.
It is nice to see the expertise, but it is not so good to know you need it.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it's just been idle chit-chat from the Congress, or maybe as good as the regular season's positioning for the playoffs. The only careful, procedurally sound step[] that involve[s] mutual co-operation and support that counts is the last one: the veto override by each house.
But there are too many Democrats in either one, and too many rookie Conservative wannabes gunning for a name for themselves.
6 comments:
67 Senate "ayes" in favor of the bill is not the same as 67 "ayes" in favor of overriding a veto--13 Senate Democrats voting to override their President's veto. The veto override also would need 46 House Democrats to vote against their President's veto. The bill will need a 4/5 majority in each house to retain 2/3 majorities for a veto override.
Eric Hines
This has been going on for a l-o-o-n-g time.
Congress set a bipartisan letter to Obama in June 2014,
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-royce-ranking-member-engel-release-iran-nuclear-letter-be-sent-president
telling him that Congress played a central role in enacting sanctions against Iran and informing him that any long-term sanctions relief for Iran requires Congressional action.
Because Obama ignored the Congress, the Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, saying much the same thing.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/now-house-writes-iran-letter-to-obama-on-iran/article/2561488
In March of this year, a majority of both Houses of Congress sent a letter to Obama, reiterating the same set of concerns.
http://engel.house.gov/latest-news1/engel-opening-statement-at-iran-hearing1/
When Congress takes takes careful, procedurally sound steps that involve mutual co-operation and support, it is time to become alarmed.
This is like getting calm but attentive care when you go to the emergency room: It is nice to see the expertise, but it is not so good to know you need it.
Valerie
"When Congress takes takes careful, procedurally sound steps that involve mutual co-operation and support, it is time to become alarmed."
Indeed!
It is nice to see the expertise, but it is not so good to know you need it.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far, it's just been idle chit-chat from the Congress, or maybe as good as the regular season's positioning for the playoffs. The only careful, procedurally sound step[] that involve[s] mutual co-operation and support that counts is the last one: the veto override by each house.
But there are too many Democrats in either one, and too many rookie Conservative wannabes gunning for a name for themselves.
Eric Hines
It's un-Constitutional and gives Obozo a free pass to do whatever he wants with Iran.
Really.
See the link in my post on the item.
Hm. There's a point to be made there.
Post a Comment