With no editorial comments, I simply pose this question....

President Obama has sent signals that he does not want to offer to congress any deal he makes with Iran. He will decide and they will not be involved.

What does everyone think about this nuclear deal being made with NO congressional input, and made by one man ?

The link below is simply a link to an article based on congressional hearings where the President's feelings were made...

Obama Administration Doesn't Want Congress to Play Role in Iran Negotiations - US News

please give us specific examples of the manner in which congress was pre-consulted in negotiations with foreign adversaries. What was the input in nuclear arms negotiations with the USSR? What was the congressional input sought before FDR met with Stalin? What was the input when Reagan negotiated with Iran to free our hostages?

Originally Posted by Guest

please give us specific examples of the manner in which congress was pre-consulted in negotiations with foreign adversaries. What was the input in nuclear arms negotiations with the USSR? What was the congressional input sought before FDR met with Stalin? What was the input when Reagan negotiated with Iran to free our hostages?

I do not know why you are asking those questions.

I am the OP and asked a simple question....I did not make any comments about the good or bad. Just wanted opinions. And I did not mention PRE CONSULTED.

Thank you

But since you asked....

SALT 1 USA AND USSR...


"Debate over SALT-II in the U.S. Congress continued for months. In December 1979, however, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet attack effectively killed any chance of SALT-II being passed, and Carter ensured this by withdrawing the treaty from the Senate in January 1980. SALT-II thus remained signed, but unratified. "

Carter and Brezhnev sign the SALT-II treaty — History.com This Day in History — 6/18/1979

The test of the SALT 2 treaty from congress...

"http://www.archive.org/stream/saltiitreatyhear04unit/saltiitreatyhear04unit_djvu.txt

Then the INTERMEDIATE RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY ....

"he Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Signed in Washington, D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on 27 May 1988 and came into force on 1 June of that year.



Of course there is the LAW....

"The Obama Administration prefers that the parties reach an agreement that significantly curtails the Iranian nuclear program. However, any agreement is sure to be controversial among hawkish lawmakers. Congress has already demanded the ability to express an opinion on the talks. In July of 2014, Representatives Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, as well as Senators Robert Menendez and Lindsay Graham, issued harshly worded letters urging President Obama to routinely consult Congress on the status of the negotiations and to allow for a vote on the final deal. The letters garnered the signatures of 344 members of the House and 83 Senators -

"See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

"While the President has not commented on Congress’s role in the negotiations and a final agreement, it seems unlikely that he wants to subject a potentially legacy-shaping international agreement to congressional debate. Precedent indicates that he may not have to. The President’s duty as Commander-in-Chief, stated in Article II of the US Constitution has established him as the main executor of the “vast majority” of national security interests and foreign affairs Although the Court held against asserting executive authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., it did establish that the President is the driving force and main authority behind foreign policy decisions. Other opinions simultaneously stress that the President’s authority, depending on the gravity of a given situation, is more legitimate if it is reaffirmed by an act of Congress. From this holding, one can assume that even though any accord with Iran would be more legitimate if approved by Congress, this may not be necessary. The main question will hinge on the extent to which the agreement reflects the President’s foreign affairs power without infringing on congressional duties.

- See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

I apologize for all the links, but you seemed determined not to answer the question without some historical reference and since you did not check it, I did for you.

Now that more than a month has gone by, current events would still indicate Obama will make a deal, any kind of deal to be able to claim he did it.

The original post above is still pertinent.
And an answer to the question still needed.....and still ignored.

The entire process is a disgrace and an embarrassment to be displaying in front of world. Congress is putting country at risk with their continuous grandstanding for purely political reasons. President is over his head but we someone needs to show some leadership. I've seen little or none from anyone.

Originally Posted by Guest

With no editorial comments, I simply pose this question....

President Obama has sent signals that he does not want to offer to congress any deal he makes with Iran. He will decide and they will not be involved.

What does everyone think about this nuclear deal being made with NO congressional input, and made by one man ?

The link below is simply a link to an article based on congressional hearings where the President's feelings were made...

Obama Administration Doesn't Want Congress to Play Role in Iran Negotiations - US News

Please study your basic political science courses. One of the President's chief duties is that of chief foreign policy maker. Unless the foreign policy issue involves a treaty, Congress does not have the advise and consent role.

It was interesting to read that Bob Corker said he did not believe any member of Congress would hinder any talk with Iran. What a schmoe.

The President is doing a great job with a difficult task. Congress should just support the elected leader of our country.

The USNews linked article was very informative.

Originally Posted by Guest

...
The President is doing a great job with a difficult task. Congress should just support the elected leader of our country.
.

There goes your credibility ... down the tubes

Originally Posted by Guest

There goes your credibility ... down the tubes

I would say it CONFIRMS the credibility status of the person.

Originally Posted by Guest

I would say it CONFIRMS the credibility status of the person.

So let's see ... Obama allows Iran to get a nuke in a few years which means nuclear jihad in the US at some point. How can any sane person, which presumably you are, possibly be in favor of that ??

Originally Posted by Guest

So let's see ... Obama allows Iran to get a nuke in a few years which means nuclear jihad in the US at some point. How can any sane person, which presumably you are, possibly be in favor of that ??

So all the 'sane' posters on this forum who support going to war with Iran should just come out and say that, and stop beating around the bush.

Just one more step to put the final nail in the coffin of the US. Let the muslim president along with his Iranian advisor make the sole decision to enrich their brothers so that the takeover of this country finally becomes a reality. Pretty simple to understand. Or are the blinkers on for those who can't (or don't) want to see reality.

Originally Posted by Guest

So all the 'sane' posters on this forum who support going to war with Iran should just come out and say that, and stop beating around the bush.

Could you explain to me why you believe the only 2 options are agree with what our President says and does (no questions asked) or go to war?? Here is my concern - we have a VERY INEXPERIENCED President - inexperienced in about every way imaginable. Having said that, if I was in his shoes and really wanted to make the RIGHT decision for the American people, I would not be going it alone. Wouldn't having discussions with the representatives of the American people make sense? Unfortunately, I believe this President has his own agenda, and it isn't just to make himself look good or to prove some other narcissistic point. I fear that it is much more sinister than that.

Originally Posted by Guest

Could you explain to me why you believe the only 2 options are agree with what our President says and does (no questions asked) or go to war?? Here is my concern - we have a VERY INEXPERIENCED President - inexperienced in about every way imaginable. Having said that, if I was in his shoes and really wanted to make the RIGHT decision for the American people, I would not be going it alone. Wouldn't having discussions with the representatives of the American people make sense? Unfortunately, I believe this President has his own agenda, and it isn't just to make himself look good or to prove some other narcissistic point. I fear that it is much more sinister than that.

Could you explain what is the President's own sinister agenda, and what are the other options besides an agreement or going to war?

Originally Posted by Guest

Could you explain to me why you believe the only 2 options are agree with what our President says and does (no questions asked) or go to war?? Here is my concern - we have a VERY INEXPERIENCED President - inexperienced in about every way imaginable. Having said that, if I was in his shoes and really wanted to make the RIGHT decision for the American people, I would not be going it alone. Wouldn't having discussions with the representatives of the American people make sense? Unfortunately, I believe this President has his own agenda, and it isn't just to make himself look good or to prove some other narcissistic point. I fear that it is much more sinister than that.

Last time I checked, the President is a representative of the American people

Originally Posted by Guest

Could you explain to me why you believe the only 2 options are agree with what our President says and does (no questions asked) or go to war?? Here is my concern - we have a VERY INEXPERIENCED President - inexperienced in about every way imaginable. Having said that, if I was in his shoes and really wanted to make the RIGHT decision for the American people, I would not be going it alone. Wouldn't having discussions with the representatives of the American people make sense? Unfortunately, I believe this President has his own agenda, and it isn't just to make himself look good or to prove some other narcissistic point. I fear that it is much more sinister than that.

The congress couldn't even debate or vote on the authorization to use military force against ISSL, plus they are on vacation until mid-April while the last minute meetings continue in Switzerland.