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.
ty for the reply. I was thinking that BC (Before Corker) the congress would have had to approve the treaty and then Obama could sign it, as opposed to now AC (After Corker) where Obama agrees to the treaty and then the Congress has to have a super majority to override it.??
I also though I remember McClintock being in favor of the Corker Bill, which since I thought very highly of McClintock, struck me as unexpected.
Ofcourse, they call it an agreement instead of a treaty and that is allowed to nullify the Constitution. Anyway what I am trying to find out is if the GOP controlled congress, even by using a nuclear option in the Senate could have stopped the Iran deal?