All the U.S senators already gave up their power to Obama on the Iran deal by all of them voting for the Corker bill .now it only needs 51 votes and the Senate is neutered with other restrictions on the Senate:
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???