Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"During that period, lawmakers could vote their disapproval of the agreement. Any such resolution would have to clear a relatively high bar to become law, requiring 60 votes to pass and 67, or two-thirds of the Senate, to override a presidential veto."
Actually, they've already cleared the hurdles. There is major bipartisan support for congressional oversight.
Oversight, yes. Rejecting a hypothetical deal with Iran? Not so much.
"During that period, lawmakers could vote their disapproval of the agreement. Any such resolution would have to clear a relatively high bar to become law, requiring 60 votes to pass and 67, or two-thirds of the Senate, to override a presidential veto."
Actually, they've already cleared the hurdles. There is major bipartisan support for congressional oversight.
Oversight, yes. Rejecting a hypothetical deal with Iran? Not so much.
Actually, it wasn't a "hypothetical deal." Given Obama's victory lap over a "framework deal," you'd think he'd found the solution to world peace. A "framework deal" meant that a final deal was supposedly not far off. It wasn't hypothetical at that time, and so that is what Congress was acting on. It only became "hypothetical" when Iran publicly rejected the framework of the deal as it stood by demanding immediate relief from economic sanctions.
Doctor
When the regime changes, the treaty does just disappear. We had a treaty with the Shaw, not the Mullahs. The old government doesn't even exist any more.
Why do you think Congress is passing the bill in the OP, if they already had that power?
it was a stupid move by stupid people.Why do you think Congress is passing the bill in the OP, if they already had that power?
Be cause Obama doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that power. That was the whole point.
White House Would Accept Senate Compromise on Iran Nuclear Deal - NBC News
The White House signaled Tuesday that it would grudgingly acquiesce to lawmakers' demands to have a say in a nuclear deal with Iran — after Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved a measure that would force President Barack Obama to submit any agreement to Congress.
The committee voted 19-0 for a bill that would give Congress at least a month to review the details of an agreement. During the review, Obama would be prohibited from waiving congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran — which the administration says would be needed to get Iran to sign a deal.
The measure now goes to the Senate floor, where the Republican leadership expects it to pass, congressional aides told NBC News. Obama could still veto it, but supporters said they believe they have the votes to override.
Why do you think Congress is passing the bill in the OP, if they already had that power?
Be cause Obama doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that power. That was the whole point.
It doesn't matter. The country is still a signatory of it. The Russian Federation never signed the NPT, either - the USSR did.
It doesn't matter. The country is still a signatory of it. The Russian Federation never signed the NPT, either - the USSR did.
Even though the USSR signed it, the Russian Federation remains bound by it.
Ironic though, that Russia is selling or wanting to sell missile systems to Iran before a deal is reached. They are part of the P5+1 negotiating the deal in the first place. Counterproductive, agree?
If they already had the power, they'd take it to SCOTUS.
Not write a law that gave them that power.
If they already had the power, they'd take it to SCOTUS.
Not write a law that gave them that power.
I agree it was rather redundant, but they wouldn't have had to write such a law if the President simply acknowledged such power. There was no need to go crying to the SCOTUS when Congress could resolve the issue on its own.
It's written plain and clear in Article 2, Section II, Clause II of the Constitution.
It doesn't matter. The country is still a signatory of it. The Russian Federation never signed the NPT, either - the USSR did.
Even though the USSR signed it, the Russian Federation remains bound by it.
Ironic though, that Russia is selling or wanting to sell missile systems to Iran before a deal is reached. They are part of the P5+1 negotiating the deal in the first place. Counterproductive, agree?
Russia selling anti aircraft missiles to Iran doesn't actually seem to matter at all, in terms of a nuclear deal.
By passing this law to give them this power, they are acknowledging that they don't already have it.
It doesn't matter. The country is still a signatory of it. The Russian Federation never signed the NPT, either - the USSR did.
Even though the USSR signed it, the Russian Federation remains bound by it.
Ironic though, that Russia is selling or wanting to sell missile systems to Iran before a deal is reached. They are part of the P5+1 negotiating the deal in the first place. Counterproductive, agree?
Russia selling anti aircraft missiles to Iran doesn't actually seem to matter at all, in terms of a nuclear deal.
Yes it does. The type of system being sold to Iran is the S-300p Long Range Surface to Air Missile system, with an effective range of 93 miles (depending. Russia previously sold these systems to Syria a while back (incidentally, if you placed a S-300p in Daraa, Syria, it would be in striking distance of Tel-Aviv). There is a danger that these missiles can be re-purposed as tactical nuclear missiles. So it does in fact have a major impact. With Russia selling weapons and technology to the Iranians, that possibility is real, given that they [Russia] have the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead.
By passing this law to give them this power, they are acknowledging that they don't already have it.
Flawed logic. The Constitution grants them that power. It is their prerogative if they wish to reassert it.
