I’m confused. “approve it”... and “vote against it” seem functionally the same to me.
Approving a treaty requires 2/3 yes votes. Vote against it requires 60 senators to break a filibuster so 40 wanting it would be able to prevent disapproval and allow it to go into effect. There's a huge difference between needing 67 and 40 to "approve it".
“I’m confused. “approve it”... and “vote against it” seem functionally the same to me.”
It is a huge difference. The constitution REQUIRES the Senate to approve any treaty. This means that BOTH the Legislative and Executive branch MUST agree to the proposed Treaty.
The Senate is now saying that the default is that ONLY the Executive branch needs to make a proposal and it is now by default considered Approved without any action by the Legislative branch. The only input from the Legislative branch is if they can MUSTER enough votes to over-ride a veto!
The Executive branch can now enter ANY treaty that they want and it will be considered approved by the Legislative. Unless the Senate votes it down with a VETO-PROOF majority.
Now, think of this applied to the UN “guns treaty.”
With this action, the Senate has handed the President DICTATORIAL power!
The law was that it took 67 votes in the Senate to approve any treaty.
NOW, the doofus assed Republicans have decided that the Senate gets 30 days to look at the treaty and either approve it or not approve it, BUT the Obongo can veto their ruling and it will take 67 votes to override Obongos veto.
Something like that. ugh No wonder Obongo approves.
Pathetic
....Corker’s legislation in effect lowers the threshold for approving the Iran deal from 67 votes to 41 – a craven betrayed of the Senate’s constitutional role as the final word on whether or not the United States agrees to a treaty.