If we didn’t have the Corker bill, what would the options be for the Congress in opposing the Iran deal?
That’s an awful germane point, and a bigger topic than I can fairly handle.
Primarily though: the President has broad powers to conduct foreign affairs and most of what Obama wants to do, I believe, can be accomplished on his own authority.
Some of it can’t however because it is not within his power and/or laws have been passed that restrict him. I believe this includes many of the sanctions on Iran.
If Obama had followed the Corker bill he would have power to accomplish all he wished, by not doing so he limits himself to being able to do only what he could have done anyway.
I believe the impetus behind the Corker bill was to, firstly, get concessions for Republican donors from Obama and secondarily, to generally limit what he attempted to do with the power it afforded him.
In sum congress would have the same power- judicial determination of what a president can do on his own- as it does now. Only without the distraction of the Corker bill.
But it could have gone differently.
For one, we could have followed the Constitution and required a 2/3 vote in the Senate to approve it rather than turning that on its head.