[Dilbert San Diego]

Can I ask a stupid question?

Is this Iran “deal” legally binding, since they have gone around the constitutional requirement that a “treaty” be approved by 2/3 of the Senate??

In this case, we have a “deal”, not a “treaty”, and in this “deal”, they engineering things so that 1/3 plus 1 vote in Congress will sustain a presidential veto of Congressional disapproval, rather than following the Constitution, which would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Senate.

My stupid question is whether this “deal” is really legally binding as a “treaty” would be, since they have chosen to go outside the legal framework of a treaty???

[4rcane]

I don’t know how, but apparently GOP voted to give up that power so that it only require simply majority. So all those who voted to give up that power are responsible for the Iran deal passing, which I think is every GOP senator. Their excuse on that vote was that it gives them a say in the process.

[Kaslin]

I don't think it should be, but regardless, that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is now well on his way to seal his legacy of which he and the rats who voted for the deal can not proud of

[antidisestablishment]

It’s not legally binding, given the completely unconstitutional basis. Congress cannot abdicate an expressed responsibility without amending the Constitution. However, it doesn’t matter when all three branches are committed to pretend it is the law.

We are truly in a state of absolute lawlessness and completely bereft of a course for redress.

[jjotto]

The US is party to thousands of international ‘agreements,’ and has been party to such agreements since the authors of the Constitution were still around.

Certainly they are theoretically not as binding as ‘treaties’, but no one has challenged them much either.

Background:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html

[Bob434]

[[Can I ask a stupid question?

Is this Iran “deal” legally binding, since they have gone around the constitutional requirement that a “treaty” be approved by 2/3 of the Senate??]]

Not a stupid question but rather one EVERY American should be asking, and one that every American should be asking our senators

[[In this case, we have a “deal”, not a “treaty”, and in this “deal”, they engineering things so that 1/3 plus 1 vote in Congress will sustain a presidential veto of Congressional disapproval, rather than following the Constitution, which would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Senate.]]

And the GOP sit there with their thumbs up their butts doing NOTHING about this VIOLATION of the law

[[My stupid question is whether this “deal” is really legally binding as a “treaty” would be, since they have chosen to go outside the legal framework of a treaty???]]

EVERY GOP candidate SHOULD put Iran on notice right NOW stating that this idiotic agreement entered into by an inept incompetent president who feels he is above the law, is a NON binding act and that as soon as a republican becomes president, the deal is off and sanctions WILL return

[Democrat_media]

The corker bill reduced that 2/3 rds to 1/3 so that Obama now only needs 34 out of 100 supporting his Iran deal to make it pass.

All Senators except Cotton voted for the Corker bill 99-1. (Senator Cotton being the lone sane vote)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/forget_obamarepublicans_made_the_iran_nukes_deal_possible.html

They made the Iran deal unstoppable.

They did a similar manipulation with TPA and Obamatrade.

Corker bill makes the Iran deal unstoppable (34 out of a 100 votes) . so they all voted for it but then they will say they are against it.And only some of us know what they really did