Yes, the Iran deal is.
But it’s not like it’s his first impeachable offense. The Founders would be aghast at a Congess that has let a president get away with so much. But it happened because the separation of powers becaame severely weakened with the development of political parties (that most of them hoped would never happen), in which loyalties to one’s own party, even in another branch of government, has superseded loyalties to the institution of Congress and its Constitutional prerogatives. Plus, while electing Barack Obama was clearly an act of color blindness, impeaching and removing him over his repeated abuse of his power would obviously be racist (do I need a sarcasm tag on that one?).
Ultimately, of course, as we saw with Bill Clinton, what constitutes a “High Crime And Misdemeanor,” even when it involves multiple federal felonies and flouting of one’s oath of office, is a political judgment. So we’re stuck with him for another year and a half.
[Monday-morning update]
“The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal”:
Rivkin and Casey are right about the Constitution’s treaty power being circumvented, with the unfortunate blessing of a cowardly Congress. They’re also right that the Administration’s decision to obtain a speedy U.N. Security Council resolution prior to the Corker-Cardin congressional vote is a blatant and reckless end-run around U.S. sovereignty, bypassing our national legislature in favor of a multi-lateral, extra-sovereign body. Any future President wishing to unravel the Iranian nuclear deal–which Secretary of State has assured us repeatedly is “not legally binding“– will now be branded by the U.N. as an international “law breaker,” a point I made back in April.
I hope States do, indeed, continue to refuse to do business with companies doing business with Iran. The financial impact probably won’t be enough to trigger an Iranian accusation that the Obama Administration isn’t enforcing the deal, however, and consequently the Administration is unlikely to march into court claiming that the Supremacy Clause trumps States’ actions. So I doubt States’ doing this will “prompt the [nuclear] deal to unravel.” Nonetheless, this is one interesting and creative way that States can constitutionally push back.
The States need to start reasserting their rights in general, and restore the 10th Amendment and federalism from a federal government run amok (with the aid of both Democrats and Republicans, for decades).
It’s only impeachable if he can be. We’ve become a banana republic by coup. People understand that America no longer exists which is why fuzzy Donald can get traction.
The Trumpster gets traction for 2 reasons:
1) He says things people have been yearning to be said, and
2) MSM gives him tons of air time in an attempt to make paint the entire GOP like Trump – a clown.
I don’t think Trump is going to run. But I note that his antics is sharpening up the rhetoric of other GOP candidates. So does Carly Fiorino’s speeches. GOP candidates are now seeing that a strong, uncompromising, truthful message is a winning message – as many of us have been telling them for years.
Trump gets traction because he makes great, dramatic reality TV, Americans love dramatic reality TV.
Thinking about it, this pretty much explains Trump supporters (and a few other peoples) opinions on what US foreign policy should be, what with peace being so boring.
what with peace being so boring.
Your ignorance of both world affairs and the American psyche is also duly noted.
The notion that Americans like war is deeply offensive. Thus it’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from you.
Perhaps NASA can break out the RTG and get rid of the bulky solar arrays for lunar travel. Anybody who opposes it can be dismissed as advocates for war. Well at least Andrew can be dismissed in such a way, since his reasoning ability is limited.
RTGs are the only way for peaceful space exploration!
It has the benefit of being true too. Unless you do the Andrew style argument: “No RTGs, no peace!”
Now you’re misrepresenting what I said: “Trump supporters (and a few other people)” does not equal “Americans”
There is no reason to imagine that Trump supporters,such as they are, are enamored with war, either.
“There is no reason to imagine that Trump supporters,such as they are, are enamored with war, either.”
When you’re someone like Andrew whose unable to reason and only able to use ignorant caricatures, that’s what passes as political discussion.
It’s fascinating that “what with peace being so boring” can be morphed into “enamored with war”, My point is that going to war is a useful popularity device in the right circumstances, only an idiot would deny that it has been used numerous times throughout history, are you people arguing that Americans are immune to an attraction that has worked for governments in countries from Argentine to the UK and many between??
Trump is a populist, and it’s populist politicians that are most likely to use war as a method of boosting their popularity.
FFS, it’s not rocket science.
Obama is a populist, he didn’t take us to war against foreign nations but he did go ta war against America and political dissidents.
Bernie Sanders and O’Malley are populists. Hillary is trying to imitate one. Who will they go to war against in order to rile up their base?
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. People who create mobs with pitchforks and torches just might set them loose.
Yes, the Iran deal is.
Nonsense, Congress will vote on the wording of the agreement, they’ll only be mislead if their reading comprehension is lacking, as yours appears to be (have you been taking comprehension lessons from Whittington?).
This may be news to you, but NATO countries including the US actually traded with the Soviet block throughout the cold war, the fact that these same countries trade with Iran today is yawn inducing.
Your first point, that Congress will vote on the wording might have truth and value, but your second point is ignorant of history. Iran attacked and held hostage employees of the US embassy. From that point up to today, the Iranian leader leads chants of “Death to the US”. Even if none of that were true, NATO is a defense pack not an economic prosperity pack. Perhaps you should try reading history.
NATO is a defense pack not an economic prosperity pack. Perhaps you should try reading history.
The author of the article,Andrew C. McCarthy argues that one reason for impeaching Obama is that lifting sanctions is providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies, something The Constitution forbids, I would argue that lifting sanctions only enables trade, and point to other instances of American trading with her “enemies”, so using Rand’s logic, lots (most?) other US presidents should have been impeached
Most other presidents didn’t bypass and lie to Congress to do it.
Most other presidents didn’t bypass and lie to Congress to do it.
Reagan did. See Iran-Contra, History of.
And he apologized and suffered for it politically. It was a stain on his legacy.
I agree it is flimsy for impeachment but hard to argue Obama isn’t helping Iran get nuclear weapons.
In case you did not get the memo, Iran was going to get those nuclear weapons in a couple of years with or without maintaining the sanctions.
Unless the Iranians voluntarily quit their nuclear program the only way to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons would be to physically invade Iran and force them to get rid of the weapons.
“In case you did not get the memo, Iran was going to get those nuclear weapons in a couple of years with or without maintaining the sanctions.”
Uhhh, that doesn’t mean we have to help them, prevent others from stopping them, and tie the hands of future Presidents to deal with the problem.
“the only way to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons would be to physically invade Iran and force them to get rid of the weapons.”
I disagree but if that is your position, then why is delaying war until later better than fighting one now? Especially since Obama is gutting the military’s future ability to deal with threats like Iran?
You seem to be saying it is either war or Iran gets the bomb and are cool with Iran getting the bomb.
I don’t know how we got to the point where the Diplomat in Chief who totally sucks at all statecraft except for persecuting dissidents and circumventing the constitution but is supposed to be the greatest diplomat to ever walk the Earth, that can work a good deal with anyone, totally capitulated to Iran and his supporters call it success.
All we hear is how awesome diplomacy is and how it should be our favored tool but then Obama makes a deal that gives Iran nuclear weapons and treats America as an enemy.
NATO countries including the US actually traded with the Soviet block throughout the cold war, the fact that these same countries trade with Iran today is yawn inducing.
Only to people profoundly unacquainted with the fact that one of these things is not like the other.
And we don’t expect Kiwis to either understand, or care about the US Constitution. So your ignorant comments are given all the respect that they’re due.
I don’t get how your Constitution works either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bush
“Nonsense, Congress will vote on the wording of the agreement, ”
Woah, not so fast. Congress doesn’t get to vote on the full agreement as there are side deals that remain secret.
No doubt there are logistical details to be worked out, but secret deals between the Obama administration and Iran? You have proof or just a desire to believe that?
Well, I guess since you think Iran is at peace and not waging several different wars right now you might not know about all the details of this deal. I can’t blame you because no one really does. This whole thing has been shrouded in secrecy with all the parties involved claiming different things about the deal.
Obama says not to trust Iran when they say they will continue with their nuclear program and chant, “Death to America.” Obama claims this is all just politics on the homefront but then why should we believe Obama? Is he not engaged in the deception of the public? Or are we to believe that the story that shifts every time something comes to the public’s attention is a story being told in good faith?
Anyway, https://www.google.com/search?q=iran+side+deals&oq=iran+side+deals&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i65l2j69i60l2.2032j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
Congress doesn’t get to vote on the full deal as they have been cut out of it. Obama is working other channels to circumvent our constitutional checks and balances. He is even using the UN to ties the hands of the USA.
Using the UN to hamper country’s efforts on things we dislike isn’t new. The new thing is using the UN against his own country.
Reading this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11759365/Iran-side-deals-fuel-opposition-to-nuclear-deal-in-Congress.html
Reminds me of how the WMD deal with Iraq broke down, with US inspectors demanding access to buildings and documents that had nothing to do with WMD’s, (does anyone seriously doubt that the CIA was using the inspections as an opportunity to gather unrelated intelligence?) Sadam’s government objected to the WMD inspections being used in that way and, the exclusion of inspectors from politically sensitive government administrative buildings was used as an excuse to pull out all the inspectors and go to war.
That I see as the most likely outcome in the Iran deal if the US, rather than the IAEA, is in charge of inspections.
For those not a fan of the Iraq War, I hope they have studied the geopolitical situation prior to the war. It bears a striking resemblance to the situation we now find ourselves with in regard to Iran.
This deal guarantees future conflict because Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
This arrangement is more about Obama tying the hands of the international community in order to facilitate Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Obama wants to disengage from the Middle East. The fact is the Middle East just doesn’t matter anymore. North America has the capacity to be self-sufficient in oil production. A managed disengagement will be less problematic. Since Iran is a regional power which presently has interests mostly aligned with US foreign policy some sort of agreement is being done.
The main policy emphasis right now is on how to contain the Chinese expansion. A lot of the foreign policy moves can be seen in that perspective. Every other thing is a secondary concern right now. Keeping the Iranian sanctions will only push them closer to Russian and China.
Since Iran is a regional power which presently has interests mostly aligned with US foreign policy some sort of agreement is being done.
Say what?
So Iran’s stated interest in destroying the state of Israel is aligned with US foreign policy?
Oh, OK, I guess it would be in this administration.
Since Iran is a regional power which presently has interests mostly aligned with US foreign policy some sort of agreement is being done.
. . .
So Iran’s stated interest in destroying the state of Israel is aligned with US foreign policy?
I suspect that Most Iranian’s, including the leadership have far less animosity towards the US than many American’s believe.
Iranian’s, realizing how gullible American’s are, are perfectly capable of understanding how America is Israel’s fool, and given that America got rid of Sadam, a man responsible for the death of vastly more Iranians than the US, and given that the US facilitated the replacement of a Sunni government in Iraq with a Shia government, and given that the US and Iran both hate and have militarily attacked ISIS, I have no difficulty in understanding the point Godzilla is making.
Prior to Iran’s Islamic revolution the US and Iran were close allies, it wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case again within a decade, after all, the US has pretty good relations with Egypt and Jordon, countries that tried to conquer Israel not all that long ago.
I suspect that Most Iranian’s, including the leadership have far less animosity towards the US than many American’s believe.
I think that’s true of most Iranians. I have zero reason to think it’s true of its leadership. Or, rather, to use the correct phrase, its unelected totalitarian dictators.
Iranian’s, realizing how gullible American’s are, are perfectly capable of understanding how America is Israel’s fool
Readers of this blog, realizing how gullible Andrew W. is, are perfectly capable of understanding how he is the Iranian government’s fool.
Gee, this is a fun game!
Heh, that is however how many in the Arab and Persian world see the US – Israel relationship, that Israel is the puppet master, with the naive American her puppet, dancing to Zionist propaganda.
Many in the Arab and Persian world see all manner of insane things. That’s no reason to modulate our behavior in response to their insanity.
“Obama wants to disengage from the Middle East. ”
No kidding. He disengaged in Iraq both militarily and diplomatically and now there is genocide and women being sold into sex slavery.
“The fact is the Middle East just doesn’t matter anymore. ”
That is a really dim view to take of the people who live there.
” has interests mostly aligned with US foreign policy some sort of agreement is being done.”
I agree that Obama and Iran have similar foreign policy goals but that isn’t good for Israel or the USA. It isn’t good for Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, or even Syria either.
“Every other thing is a secondary concern right now. ”
Than China? What? China is certainly competition and a threat but they are just one of the many threats we face and we have to deal with all of them. Say you take your top 10 threats to the USA, we don’t just focus on the top 1 or 3, we deal with all of them.
“Keeping the Iranian sanctions will only push them closer to Russian and China.”
They are already close. Iran isn’t our friend and doesn’t want to be. This deal doesn’t bring them into the sphere of American influence.
Re: leaving the Middle East to their own devices:
Remember when Clinton sent the Delta Force to Somalia? That did not work so well. Welcome to Realpolitik.
I agree that Obama and Iran have similar foreign policy goals but that isn’t good for Israel or the USA. It isn’t good for Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, or even Syria either.
Well the best alternative for Iraq right now is for them to have good relations with Iran. Pakistan is an ally of China. AFAIK Iran has not been a factor in Afghanistan instability. You would have to look at Pakistan for that. Yemen, sure, it’s a problem. The Iranians and Saudis don’t see eye to eye. But it’s not like Yemen is a new problem. It’s been like that for as long as I can remember. As for Syria it’s better off with the Iranians in it than without them. The alternative is ISIL.
I know the Israelis, Turks, Saudis want ISIL to win, or at least for Assad and the Kurds to lose, in Syria. You bet that if they get what they want you will indeed have ISIL has a permanent fixture in that region and the Kurds will be ethnically cleansed in a way that will make Saddam look like a saint in comparison.
I know the Israelis, Turks, Saudis want ISIL to win, or at least for Assad and the Kurds to lose, in Syria.
Fascinating. Each and every one of them? Can you name your source? Or should we just accept your obvious omniscience?
The IAEA is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. That means they can be trusted to monitor this deal. Just like Le Duc Tho, Yasser Arafat, the IPCC and, of course, Obama.
I dunno which way the Doomsday Clock is going to move on this, but I know which way it should be moving.
President Joe Biden….eligible to run for two full terms, too.
Be careful what you wish for
While the words President Joe Biden would normally fill any rational person with mortal dread, at this point I’m willing to risk it when I think of what Obama is likely to do in the remainder of his term.
Those ‘rational’ people voted for Obama in the first place so as I said, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Concern about impeaching presidents for cutting deals with our hated enemy Iran seem about three decades too late. Reagan carried out secret arms sales to Iran (and may have even been in talks with the Iranian government while he was running for president) — if those shady and illegal negotiations couldn’t work up the political outrage for impeachment, it’s hard to imagine Obama being impeached for this diplomatic agreement.
Three decades later and you still obsess over Iran Contra but apparently Obama helping Iran get nuclear weapons isn’t a big deal. AK’s are obviously much more serious than nuclear weapons.
What did Reagan get for the concessions he made? Now, ask yourself what Obama is getting for concessions. This deal helps Iran get nuclear weapons. It leads to a nuclear Iran and probably a nuclear arms race.
Say what you will about Reagan but he actually got something through negotiations and wasn’t afraid to walk away when the deal was bad for the USA. Obama’s appeasement and capitulation isn’t skilled diplomacy, doesn’t lead to peace, and doesn’t stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
I don’t know if it is criminal that Obama holds the same views about the USA as the countries that view us as their enemy but the Obama holds Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia (Well, prior to Putin embarrassing Obama in Syria) to such high regard shouldn’t go unmarked and his anti-American views should be considered when analyzing his diplomatic efforts or lack their of.
Say what you will about Reagan but he actually got something through negotiations
The only thing he got from those negotiations was the ability to bypass the express will of Congress and secretly fund the Contras. The very thing you complain about above. Have you read about the history of the Reagan years, or do you just not care because you approve of his illegal activities?
So, AK’s are bad but nuclear weapons are totally cool.
As angry as you are about Reagan, do you not share some concern for Obama, considering the magnitude of what we are dealing with?
And I am sure you dislike gun running so much that Fast and Furious must really upset you, right? How about arming and training Islamic militants?
At least Reagan was fighting communism, Obama is fighting America.
So, AK’s are bad but nuclear weapons are totally cool.
Of course I don’t think nuclear weapons are cool. We disagree on fundamental assumptions. You believe that if we’d left the situation with Iran as it was, their weapon development would have been slower than it will be under this agreement. I don’t believe that’s true. We won’t be able to convince each other.
I notice you didn’t say Iran is prevented from getting nuclear weapons and that is what this comes down to. You think this deal will make it harder for Iran to get nuclear weapons than before but still allow them to get them?
That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of this deal that is being sold as preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And really it just comes down to you thinking Iran was going to get weapons and that they still will but that them having nuclear weapons wasn’t dangerous enough to actually work on stopping them from getting them.
Thanks goodness Bush did Stuxnet or Iran would already have nuclear weapons.
And really it just comes down to you thinking Iran was going to get weapons and that they still will but that them having nuclear weapons wasn’t dangerous enough to actually work on stopping them from getting them.
Every conservative has claimed that Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Netenyahu has repeatedly claimed that they are months away. If we did nothing, that situation would continue. If we make a deal that puts intrusive monitors on their programs, the programs are delayed. Why is this hard? But again, you don’t believe the monitoring is effective. I do. We will never agree, because we don’t share any fundamental assumptions.
We will never agree, because we don’t share any fundamental assumptions.
Well, we can certainly agree on that, because your fundamental assumptions are insane. So you’ve been proven wrong once again, at least on that narrow issue.
People went to jail for Iran/Contra, who Dave are your proposing go to jail in the Obama Administration. Personally, I think Fast and Furious, also done against both the express will of Congress and the Mexican Government, was more equivalent to Iran Contra, but no one has gone to jail for Fast and Furious. So what about these side deals, Dave?
We will ignore for a moment Libya, which wasn’t worked through Congress, or US support for the Muslim Brotherhood, also not worked through Congress and severely damaged US relations with Egypt.
who Dave are your proposing go to jail in the Obama Administration
Iran-Contra was done in secret, in direct defiance of laws passed by congress denying aid to the Contras. The recent Iran agreement was concluded by a coalition of world powers after a series of openly acknowledged negotiations. You do see a difference between these two situations, right? I don’t propose that anyone from the Obama Administration go to jail for committing diplomacy.
So what about these side deals, Dave? Some technical arrangements are kept confidential by the IAEA. I’m confident congress will be briefed with more details.
Dave, your response is ignorant of the issue at hand. The side deals were done in secret as well. That’s the entire premise of this discussion. The issue is exascerbated by Obama consecrating the deal through the UN. Your confidence that Obama will now do the right thing is both unfounded and irrelevant. If you are this ignorant of the topic, why are you commenting?
If you are this ignorant of the topic, why are you commenting?
Just to offer a differing opinion, as long as Rand is willing to tolerate it. Which probably has its limits 🙂
So the “side deals” are done in secret? Or just part of normal protocol for something as sensitive as arms inspections?
How would you know what the deal is? The administration is claiming the deals are so secret that they can’t share with Congress. The President has decided that the security of IAEA trumps the US Congress need to know. That’s why the topic of impeachment is brought up.
Yes Rand does allow idiots to make fools of themselves, so you are welcome to comment here.
Regarding political parties making impeachment more difficult, parties were practically inevitable once plurality elections were settled on. For all the problems they create, they serve a vital role patching a flaw in plurality elections when there are more than 2 strong candidates.
I’m starting to suspect that my mind is somehow downloading things off the internet while I sleep. I was having this very thought this morning before my first cup of coffee.
That thought may disturb you. It scares the willies out of me.
Humans gonna human.