but in doing this crazy political manuvering in how this is being voted on, does this mean that this “deal” or “arrangement” with Iran is not officially a “treaty”?? Legally speaking? I would question that from Day 1 of a Republican presidential administration, as far as whether it’s legally binding or not.
Is is really legal for the Senate to do parliamentary shenanigans to get around the constitutional requirement of a 2/3 approval vote for a treaty???
And if not, then this “deal” with Iran is not really a treaty, the way it appears to me. It’s an “understanding” between Obama and the mullahs of Iran, an understand which the next president may not have.
Does anyone else agree with me that this whole thing is questionable on the face of it???
I have to hand it to Obama, he really is a constitutional scholar and political genius as much as I hate to admit it.
He’s continued to run circles around the GOPee for years. The way I understand the order of events surrounding this whole Iran deal - Obama wanted an “agreement” with Iran but NOT in the form of a treaty. Therefore no 2/3 Senate approval required. Congress still wanted a voice in the deal and hence the Corker bill was passed. If I didn’t know better, this was planned by Obama from the start and executed with perfection. Everybody was fooled!! Now the world will suffer...