I see Obama has won a great “victory” by getting 34 stupid Democrats to uphold his veto of Congressional rejection of his Neville Chamberlain prize. Now isn’t that a convoluted process, regardless of what is actually in this deal? Since when do treaties not follow the Constitutional process requiring a 2/3 approval in the Senate and no action by the House, rather that a 2/3 majority of BOTH houses to reject it? I know, it’s that stupid “Corker Amendment,” but since Republicans don’t seem to have the spine to stand up and stop it, preferring to give Obama his political victory over common sense foreign policy, I offer the free advice to them here.
Look, this is a terrible deal, OK? So the House and Senate should both reject it, since both have Republican majorities. BUT, as part of that rejection, there should be a retraction of the Corker amendment, including language saying that the Corker agreement does not apply because the terms of that amendment, most notably no “side deals,” make it moot and therefore requiring that 2/3 Senate approval. Then, there must be a resolution—NOT veto-able by Obama—to the effect that this is a Treaty, and the appropriate Rules committee should change the rules of consideration in the Senate to define it as such and require a 2/3 APPROVAL, not disapproval. Since the deal will then fail, Obama will have nothing to veto. Then let him scream and fume and do all the adolescent histrionics he is capable of, but at least common sense foreign policy and Constitutional law will have been preserved. Now, where’s that Republican spine?