Game Over: 150 House Dems Have Obama's Back On Iran Sellout

by JASmius



Thanks a heap, Senator Corker:

One hundred and fifty House Democrats have now signed a letter expressing strong support for President Obama’s ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, I’ve learned, improving the chances that an eventual nuclear deal could survive the Congressional oversight process.

The 150 Democratic signatories — which include Dem leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen — are significant. Here’s why: If a deal is reached that looks like the recently-announced framework, and the GOP-controlled Congress votes to disapprove of it, it’s now more likely that there will be enough House Democrats to sustain Obama’s veto of that disapproval legislation, allowing the deal to move forward.

Under the current Corker-Cardin framework establishing oversight of the Iran deal, Congress would vote to approve or disapprove of a final deal, determining whether Obama has the authority to temporarily lift Iran sanctions to implement it. If Congress fails to pass disapproval of the deal — or if Congress does pass a disapproval measure, then fails to override Obama’s veto of it — the deal moves forward. Of the 150 House Dems who signed the letter, 145 are voting members — just over the number that would be necessary to sustain a veto.

And thus have the Republicans effectively "repealed and replaced" the Senate's Article II, Section II, Clause II ratification power with this pro-Obama rubber stamp, and reduced the number of seats necessary for Democrat majority control of both houses of Congress to 146 and 34, respectively.  If Congress had any power and still mattered, that is.

That present tense was no accident, by the way, as the Senate passed Corker-Menendez by a vote of 98-1.  Tom Cotton (R-AR) was the only senator to take a futile stand for his branch of government and the Constitution, for whatever it's worth.

I'll let Eeyore handle the implications:

[Democrats are] backing whatever Obama and Kerry end up farting out because, contra what the White House has been telling the public for months, Democrats think a bad deal is better than no deal. No deal leaves war on the table as an option for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program; a bad deal, which will make an Iranian bomb more likely, takes it off the table.  [Thus, a] bad deal is better than no deal.

As for that Senate vote on Corker’s bill, the lone no vote came from Tom Cotton. Presumably the hawks who voted yes simply gave up after McConnell refused to give any of Cotton’s or Rubio’s poison pill amendments a chance to end up in the final bill. It was Corker’s text or nothing, and Corker’s text at least gives Republican a theoretical chance to block the final deal by convincing Democrats to help them form a two-thirds majority against it. That’s another “virtue” of a post-constitutional system. If your only choices are between congressional inaction, in which case Obama’s deal definitely gets implemented, and a weird scheme like Corker’s, in which case the deal almost definitely gets implemented, you go with the latter, right? Those are the choices facing our fightin’ Republican majority these days.

In short, a bipartisan national suicide pact.

"Post-constitutional" indeed.