T. Belman. In response, Mort Klein, President of ZOA, responded:
After much deliberation. We decided this bill gives us a vote on stopping deal, even if we need to get 67 votes to override a veto. That means 54 republican votes and 13 democratic votes which is difficult but possible. Without this bill there is no vote. Zoa is supporting the Cruz ,Rooney,Rubio amendments. Aipac is not.
By Ted Belman
ZOA just put out a press release in support of the Corker Bill which gives the Senate a voice on the future Iran deal.
It started by saying:
1) They urged their Senators to support S.615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, introduced by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), and thanked the 53 co-sponsors of this legislation. This Bill allows Congress to review and vote on any final Iran Nuclear Deal and vote before sanctions are lifted against Iran.
I have great difficulty with this bill and so do many others.
Sen Ted Cruz in his article “Congress Must Approve of Any Iran Deal” wrote:
On the floor of the Senate, however, I intend to press vigorously for a critical amendment to this legislation. At the end of the debate, if this bill is not strengthened, I will have a great deal of difficulty supporting it.
So what does Corker-Cardin do? It requires the President to submit an Iran deal to Congress, and then it provides that Congress can pass a “resolution of disapproval” to kill the deal. Any such resolution would be subject to a possible Democratic filibuster, which would take 60 votes to overcome. And, even if both Houses were to pass a resolution of disapproval, President Obama could veto it, which would then require two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to override.
If those super-majorities cannot be mustered, the President’s bad Iran deal would go into effect.
Thus, Corker-Cardin motion of disapproval reverses the ordinary presumptions. Instead of the President needing 67 Senate votes to ratify the Iran deal, it would now require 67 votes to stop an Iran deal.
Senate Rejects Tying of Sanctions Relief for Iran with Terror
Senators Bob Corker and Ben Cardin, the committee’s Republican chairman and top Democrat, have been arguing against so-called “poison pill amendments” seeking to toughen the Iran Nuclear Review Act.
They insist that those amendments would kill its chances of becoming law by alienating Democrats and provoking a veto from Obama, who considers tougher restrictions a threat to ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and six world powers.
“We should do everything we can to make sure we have a voice,” Corker said in the Senate on Wednesday, as he appealed to lawmakers not to push forward with partisan amendments.and explains why.
But a Senate voice is of little value because at the end of the day Iran will get the bomb and the money from lifting sanctions notwithstanding its promotion of terrorism and its intention of destroying Israel.
Andrew C McCarthy wrote The Corker Bill Isn’t a Victory — It’s a Constitutional Perversion and The Corker Bill Is Worse Than Nothing
AIPAC vs. Pro-Israel Republicans
Aipac supports Corker’s bill as is. Earlier this year, it quietly dropped its campaign to get Congress to pass new sanctions on Iran latched onto a previous version of the chairman’s legislation. Corker’s new bill, which has added concessions to Obama, would give Congress a chance to review an Iran deal and could provide for a vote on the deal, although language inserted at the last minute makes clear that Obama could begin implementing the agreement even if Congress votes against it.
Many Republicans, however, don’t like Corker’s bill as is. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Thursday that when the bill comes to the Senate floor, there will be a “robust amendment process,” and that he hopes the bill is strengthened. Republican critics say that the bill doesn’t have any real mechanisms to stop Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions although it does stop Obama from lifting those sanctions as Congress reviews the deal.
Of what value is the Corker bill unamended? As McCarthy says, its worth less than nothing.
According to William Kristol,
“Not just the Obama administration, but the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leading establishment pro-Israel lobbying group, all prefer quiet acquiescence to and approval of a toothless bill rather than a serious debate and series of votes over our Iran policy.”
Et tu, ZOA.
As is illustrated by the above-piece, Ted Cruz does not merit being dissed sarcastically for, indeed, he has been a man of unique/multifaceted accomplishment for decades.
Yidvocate Said:
Yes long time ago same paymasters….. Same vested interests pulling strings … they can’t lose. Amrican politics is “SHOW BUSINESS FOR UGLY PEOPLE”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdtjw5hHGN8
Please ensure that your final draft captures the probability that bho will subvert any final bill to his pernicious and perfidious ends.
I have expanded the article and sent it to American Thinker for publication. I’ll send a copy to Mort also.
Redstate.com articles by “streiff” and Leon wolf are also supportive of my dire concerns
Caroline Glick’s column reinforces my concerns.
I keep trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate and the US constitution requires 2/3rds Senate approval. So why would Senator Corker, whom we know is dead set against the Obama sell out, sponsor a bill that in effect reverses the approval threshold by requiring 2/3rds to defeat the deal? Have Republicans morphed into stealth progressives of the Obam stripe?
…and now i see the correct post emerged belatedly; also, emasculated should appear in the present tense.
Will need to monitor how my Samsung modifies typing….
Ted
Tried to correct typos and they were saved but never appeared.
“Mortem” is “Mort” and “solace” is “AIPAC.”
Had e-mail exchange with Mort overnight and he will be available to discuss this after 9 a.m.
Have discussed this extensively with zoa staff, particularly with regard to the solace cave; the lay terrorism violated the fundamental history and goals of solace because it specifically does not honor BB’s unambiguous posture…showing that the core of solace has been hijacked by bho and his Islamist dems.
I suppose zoa will issue a clarification although, to me, opposition is preferable.
Even if bho claims it isn’t a treaty, an executive order would predictably expire on January 20, 2017 and iran announced this prospect would be unacceptable…regardless of whatever the UN security council would do.
Indeed, Even if a constitutional crisis were to be created by a challenge to his dictate (absolutely unprecedented), the Senate must not emasculated itself in the process.
I put Klein’s response at the top of post.
I sent this post to Mort Klein of ZOA. We’ll see what he says.
The real joker about the bill is that it would allow Obama to get an Iran agreement through the Senate with only one third of the Senate instead of the normal treaty procedure where he would need to obtain a two-thirds vote. In effect, it sets up a reverse ratification mechanism. This makes his job of getting an appeasement deal through the Senate easier and not harder.
The Corker bill may be bipartisan but it doesn’t fix what’s wrong with the Administration’s Iran policy. Instead, it would give it a congressional stamp of approval.