Iran deal: Why doesn't Congress vote to approve, rather than disapprove?

[AlwaysWrite]

I must be missing something, because I'm baffled by all of the "expert commentary" regarding the so-called Iran deal.

There is so much talk about a looming Obama veto, but wouldn't that require legislation forwarded to Obama's desk?

Why don't both houses of Congress approach the situation by bringing up legislation TO APPROVE the Iran deal, rather than pass a joint resolution of disapproval? It's a virtual cinch that such a measure would be rejected ... and hence, THERE WOULD BE NO LEGISLATION forwarded to Obama for his signature, and further, NOTHING for Obama to veto?

Again, am I missing something?

 

[Robadat]

This was written today in an editorial in the NY Daily News; I think it answers your question about the proceedings on the "treaty".

What’s especially outrageous is that this fateful treaty, the most consequential in a generation for the security of the nation and the Middle East, will likely never get a full vote by the U.S. Senate.
The administration cleverly defined the deal not as a treaty, which it clearly is, but as an accord subject to unilateral presidential approval.
Then, under pressure, Obama, charitable fellow that he is, threw Congress a bone. It could register its disapproval — disapproval the President would then summarily veto, leaving lawmakers the opportunity to mount an override vote.
Before this week, thanks in no small part to the courage of Sen. Chuck Schumer and a few other bold Democrats, it appeared that clear majorities of the House and Senate would say no.
Still, the opposition wouldn’t be strong enough to override that presidential veto. Majority, yes. Supermajority, no.
Now, on the eve of congressional debate, Senate Democrats have cobbled together 42 votes — enough to threaten a filibuster and stop the full measure from even coming to the Senate floor.

Difference between a treaty and an accord is that while a treaty is binding on both parties, an accord is not. Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better about this BS deal.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

This was written today in an editorial in the NY Daily News; I think it answers your question about the proceedings on the "treaty".

Difference between a treaty and an accord is that while a treaty is binding on both parties, an accord is not. Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better about this BS deal.

Dear Robadat:

A valid observation ... but in reality, Obama is unlikely to go along with anything Congress may decide, anyway.

 

[Robadat]

Of course he won't go along with Congress. He won't even try...

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Of course he won't go along with Congress. He won't even try...

... and, of course, he'd never deal with terrorists.

 

[Greg T.]

... and, of course, he'd never deal with terrorists.

Nah! He let's Chillary and Kerry do that!

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Nah! He let's Chillary and Kerry do that!

True ... but the deal obviously had the big-time blessing of Barack Hussein Obama.