FACT:
THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN 5 + SOVEREIGN NATIONS AND IT
IS NOT A TREATY BETWEEN THE U.S. AND IRAN. THEREFORE THE SENATE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT INVOLVED.
Senate Rejects Attempt to Make Iran Nuclear Agreement a Treaty
April 29, 2015 - 4:07 AM
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., authored the
compromise bill providing for congressional review of a final Iran
nuclear agreement. (AP Photo, File)
The amendment to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, proposed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), failed by 39 votes to 57.
If
the agreement was deemed a treaty, ratification would require the
support of 67 of the 100 senators – a threshold the Obama administration
would struggle to achieve, judging from the deep misgivings expressed
on both sides of the aisle over the emerging nuclear deal. (SOL: Because of pressure from BIBI threats)
Instead,
under compromise legislation crafted by Senate Foreign Relations
Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), lawmakers wanting to reject an
Iran deal would need to pass a resolution of disapproval in both
chambers. A presidential veto would almost certainly follow, requiring
just 34 senators to be upheld.
Johnson argued on the Senate floor that this would in effect give 34 senators the ability to approve a “bad deal.”
He
said he believed that the Iran nuclear agreement “is so important to
the security of this nation and world peace, that it rises to the level
of a treaty.” (SOL: Yes, sounds like BIBI wrote the script)
His
amendment would require the president to come to the Senate, in line
with the Constitution, for its advice and consent – “so that 67 senators
would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal.”
“Basically the American public would be involved in the decision through their elected representatives,” Johnson said.
“The
American public is not being given the opportunity right now. What is
happening right now under this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we
have turned advice and consent on his head. We have lowered the
threshold to what advice and consent means as relates to this Iran
deal.”
Republicans
opposing Johnson’s amendment included Corker, who said it would bring
an inevitable presidential veto, thus depriving Congress the ability to
weigh in on the nuclear agreement at all.
“Let
us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” he said. “Let’s
ensure that we have the ability to see the details of this deal.”
GOP
senators who did not heed Corker’s appeal and voted in favor of
Johnson’s amendment included Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and presidential aspirant Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Two other declared Republican presidential candidates, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), did not vote.
Cruz and Rubio have amendments of their own to offer as the Senate continues to consider the Corker bill this week.
Rubio
wants the legislation to include a provision requiring Iranian leaders
publicly to recognize Israel’s right to exist, while Cruz’ proposal
would require Congress to vote to approve any nuclear deal, rather than
to vote to disapprove it, thus placing the burden on the agreement’s
backers rather than on its detractors. Neither looks likely to succeed.
Corker’s
bill in current form requires the president to submit the text of a
final nuclear agreement to Congress within five days of its conclusion.
Congress
would then have 30 days to review the deal, and will be able to vote on
“a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does favor
the agreement” or vote on “a joint resolution stating in substance that
the Congress does not favor the agreement.” It could also take no
action, allowing the deal to go ahead.
Corker
announced Tuesday that he was submitting an amendment too, requiring
not just the English-language text of the agreement to be submitted to
Congress but a Farsi-language one as well.
He said this was designed to clear up any dispute between the U.S. and Iran over exactly what had been agreed upon.
After
a “framework” deal was announced on April 2, laying out the parameters
for a final agreement to be concluded by the end of June,major differences emerged between
the two sides’ depictions of its contents, centered on the timing of
the lifting of sanctions, and the question of access to military sites
for foreign inspectors.
“We
all saw the controversy surrounding the discrepancies between the
American fact sheet and the Iranian fact sheet,” Corker said in
explanation of his amendment. “This agreement is too important to rely
on secondhand interpretations of the text.”
No comments:
Post a Comment