[Marcella]

The article says the three of them, Cruz, Paul, Rubio fought against that part of the bill to get it out of there but that didn't happen. Therefore, it is still in the bill but the reason for the bill is to give the Senate the ability to reject the Iran agreement, so they had to vote for it to give them the ability to reject it. If the bill had not passed, the Senate would not be able to reject that treaty. Faced with the choice, they voted to give them the power to reject it. Sometimes there is no perfect plan so you have to get the best you can.

If they had voted against the bill, the author of this article would have lambasted them for not voting to give the Senate the power to reject the treaty - that they had given Obama the power to do what he wanted without their approval. This is not a perfect world.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Marcella, thank you for the very clear, succinct, concise explanation! ;-)

That changes the whole ball game and what I was thinking about Ted Cruz after admiring him so much. You have restored my admiration of him.

[Jack Black]

If the bill had not passed, the Senate would not be able to reject that treaty.

That makes zero sense. The Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by the Senate. Obama is free to negotiate whatever he likes, then the Senate votes on it.