Obama can do Iran nuclear deal even if Congress disapproves

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The September vote on the Iran nuclear deal is billed as a titanic standoff between President Barack Obama and Congress. Yet even if lawmakers reject the agreement, it’s not game-over for the White House.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.

Obama doesn’t need a congressional OK to give Iran most of the billions of dollars in relief from economic sanctions that it would get under the agreement, as long as Tehran honors its commitments to curb its nuclear program — at least for now.

“A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations, but limited practical impact,” says Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It would not override President Obama’s authority to enter into the agreement.”

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/16/obama_can_do_iran_nuclear_deal_even_if_congress_disapproves/

[George II]

1. It's my understanding that all he needs is 34 votes in the Senate to block a veto override....

...and/or 144 in the House. If either of them sustain the veto the deal should go through.

[lobodons]

3. My money is on Nancy in House

Nancy will have her caucus together. She knows how to get things done!!

[ashling]

4. This

“A resolution to disapprove the Iran agreement may have substantial political reverberations, but limited practical impact,” says Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“It would not override President Obama’s authority to enter into the agreement.”

[Turbineguy]

2. One would think so.

The special powers that the republican congress gave to Bush would cover it. Repubs just love dictators.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Obama has got this, folks. Always had it. Still does. Do not adjust the horizontal or the vertical.

[karynnj]

6. googling Satloff to get past positions, do not trust him

He argued in the early Obama years that sanctions against Iran were not enough. US military power should be used in some unspecified ways. Thid, he said would give Obama more ability on the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

He is a neo con and against the deal. Now, consider what the impact of this idea is. Many on the fence seem concerned with the consequences of the deal failing. This is an attempt - completely dishonest - to get enough of those votes.

The question is whether you really think Obama and Kerry are either less aware of what could be done or are not being honest on consequences.

PS. If this was true, wouldn't Schumer have used it? This guy is a neo con and head of a pro Israel think tank.

[Johnyawl]

7. If they override his veto, and he does the deal anyway...

...expect the republicans in the House to vote a Bill of Impeachment.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. He can't veto it, only ignore it.

[randome]

11. And since foreign policy is the responsibility of the Executive Branch...

...he'd only be doing his job, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said about Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ShrimpPoboy]

12. The constitution requires

congressional approval to go to war and to enter into treaties. It also gives congress legislative authority over trade and immigration. So while the particulars of this issue may be such that Obama can avoid congress, the notion that foreign policy is the responsibility of the executive alone is a myth. Congress has a very real and important role to play, as they should.

Whether they choose fulfill that duty wisely, or at all, is of course a different story.

[mdbl]

8. I wouldn't expect anything else less intelligent

from the Congress.

[trillion]

9. Good, I hope he does it.