Replies

Although the logic is solid, the wording is still unpolished and imprecise in certain word usage; result of hurried typing. But precision is needed because this bill is convoluted and confusing. It requires focus and juggling a few notions in the mind all at the same time.

Important to distinguish between the words BILL and DEAL and the different bill approaches as MCCONNELL’S VERSION versus CRUZ’ VERSION. Also OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL = OBAMA’S DEAL = OBAMA’S PLAN = OBAMA’S IRAN PLAN.

Also McConnell’s version is actually Corker’s Version but herein is called “McConnell’s version” or “McConnell’s Bill” because Corker is merely carrying water for McConnell and the real battle is McConnell v. Cruz.

Here’s a more polished version:

1. Ted voted NO on cloture. As long as cloture had not passed, McConnell’s bill would have never been brought to the floor for a vote. Therefore, Ted did not want McConnell’s Bill brought to the floor without an important amendment he wanted to introduce but was not allowed to introduce because McConnell cut him off. That amendment would have changed the character of McConnell’s bill by requiring ‘affirmative approval’ of the DEAL. But most Senators will not APPROVE the deal but will gladly DISAPPROVE the deal so they can be safe from the wrath of their constituents.

So in the mind of a US Senator, the simple view is:

Ted’s Bill Version: APPROVE DEAL <— BAD
McConnell’s Bill Version: DISAPPROVE DEAL <— GOOD

2. McConnell allowed the bill to offer Senators a chance to disapprove OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL. Why is this bad? Because Obama can VETO a bill that sends a disapproval OF HIS DEAL, The veto would require 2/3’s of Congress to vote to override his veto. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Then, because Congress cannot pass a bill to disapprove HIS DEAL, Obama gives himself license to go forward with his deal. This is why Obama supported McConnell’s version of the bill.

3. Ted’s version of the Bill would require the Senate to affirmatively approve the deal. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Why is this NOT GOING TO HAPPEN version good? Because it means that the Senate would never approve the deal and because the Constitution requires 2/3’s of the Senate to approve a Treaty, Obama’s deal is without support from the US Congress and that means Obama’s deal could be rescinded in the near future. So Ted’s version was designed to kill Obama’s deal.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS OF THE SENATE PROCESS FOR THE IRAN DEAL

Ted Cruz wants the Senate to ‘sit still’ on this? Why? Because Obama could never get constitutional legitimacy for his deal without TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE voting for his deal (viewed as a treaty). Ted Cruz knew that if he could get his amendment into the bill, that would turn McConnell’e version into the Cruz version and the Senate would ‘sit still’, why? Because Senators do not want to be seen approving of Obama’s Iran Deal. MORE IMPORTANTLY if the Senate were to ‘sit still’, then nothing would be sent to Obama. Why is this good? Because it means Obama could not use his VETO power.

So Ted Cruz’s version was designed to have the Senate ‘sit still’ so there would be no constitutional legitimacy to Obama’s Deal and to deny Obama the power to use his veto.

McConnell on the other hand wants to be seen as “bringing democrats and republicans together” to pass legislation that says “WE DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL”. Now let’s ask ourselves why Obama supported McConnell’s version and also ask ourselves why did every last democrat vote for it. I mean what’s the harm in voting to say we DISAPPROVE of Obama’s Iran Deal?

The answer is because it gives Obama a clear field to VETO; it permits him to exercise his veto power. Why is a veto bad here? Because it requires 2/3’s of Congress to override it - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Here’s the crib note summary:

MCCONNELL VERSION —> OBAMA VETOS —> OBAMA GETS HIS DEAL

CRUZ VERSION —> NO CHANCE OF VETO —> OBAMA DEAL NOT LEGITIMATE

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE NOW?

Yes.

Cruz’ people are working with conservatives in the House to pass an amendment that makes the House Bill similar to the Cruz Version of the Senate Bill.

Therefore, in reconciliation between House and Senate, it may become CRUZ v. MCCONNELL.

” McConnell on the other hand wants to be seen as “bringing democrats and republicans together” to pass legislation that says “WE DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL”. Now let’s ask ourselves why Obama supported McConnell’s version and also ask ourselves why did every last democrat vote for it. I mean what’s the harm in voting to say we DISAPPROVE of Obama’s Iran Deal?