Rick Moran commenting on the Senate committee approval as reported in the NYT just below, wrote, in American Thinker,
[…]
In the end, Democrats – even those who dearly want Congressional input in the Iran deal – balked at the prospect of undercutting Obama by holding the threat of Congressional disapproval over his head. As for Corker and the Republicans, it’s clear that the president is going to take the deal to the UN Security Council to seek approval there rather than Congress. The only realistic chance they had of having any input at all was in watering down the bill so that Democrats would feel comfortable voting for it.
In the end, the principle of Congressional oversight is maintained, but the reality is that Congress will have its hands tied in giving an up or down vote on the deal. There is still a chance that Congress can derail the agreement if the final deal is unpalatable enough. But as we’ve seen with the framework deal, the administration will interpret the agreement any way they want in order to sell it to a skeptical country.
Some victory.
It is my understanding that BHO can issue executive orders to achieve his ends – regardless of whatever anyone else does, and regardless of the protest that would engender – but that they could be lifted on 1/20/2017 and, thus, Iran is publicly dismissive of this as an “out.”
This bill provides political cover both for Dems [under pressure from Jews] and for RINOs [who fear any type of strife], who then will be “shocked, shocked” that there is gambling in this establishment [translation: “we were going to block funding of homeland security before we decided not to do so”].
Bottom line is that Article 2 Section 2 [“treaties”] would mandate 67 votes to approve of his sell-out whereas, if this goes through unscathed, there would be a 67-vote threshold [“Senate’s say”] to disapprove it.
I have several questions for which I would appreciate clarification:
1. If Obama brings an Iran Nuke deal to the UN and receives Chapter VII ratification, am I correct that while UN sanctions would be lifted it doesn’t necessarily imply that US congressional sanctions would be lifted? In other words, only the US congress can remove US sanctions irrespective of UN action (domestic US legislation supersedes all international treaties, agreements, etc.)?
2. Is the author assuming that while the Bill had a majority in the Senate,
a) the Bill only provides for a vote by Congress on when to remove US congressional sanctions after a deal is agreed?
b) Obama could override any such vote by Congress to uphold sanctions with a Veto?
c) in actuality, if the deal is no worse than the current framework (if it actually is a framework) even those Democrats who voted in favor of the “Review” Bill would not vote to override an Obama veto as per B) above?
Thanks,
I communicated this fact directly to his campaign-office in Austin.
Precisely the way I see it.
It is noted that, although Rubio/Paul voted with everyone else, Cruz has yet to weigh-in.
Rick Levin discussed this yesterday.