Iran

Obama Has Votes to Override Iran Deal Veto Before Congressional Debate Even Starts

The president needed just 34 Senators to back the deal to prevent a veto override.

|

Talk Radio News Service

The process Congress laid out for itself to provide input on and express their approval or disapproval for the Iran nuclear deal may not end up meaning much at all. Nominally, members of Congress wanted the opportunity to debate and deliberate on the bill, and to signal their positions on it by a vote. That vote was always at least partially symbolic—the president has the option to veto Congress' approval. That's possible because the deal is considered an executive agreement not a treaty—it doesn't require Congress' approval but can also be overturned by a future president.

Now it seems all but certain the actual debate itself will be symbolic too. President Obama now has the votes necessary in the Senate (just 34 out of 100) to overturn a veto. Sens. Chris Coons and Bob Casey, Democrats from Delaware and Pennsylvania, respectively, became the 32nd and 33rd senators to publicly support the Iran deal before the debate has started. And now, via The Hill:

President Obama has enough support in the Senate to save his nuclear deal with Iran.

Thirty-four Democratic senators, including two independents who caucus with the party, now publicly support the deal. Sen. Barbara Mikulski helped clinch the diplomatic victory for Obama, announcing her support Wednesday.

More on Congress and the Iran deal here.

NEXT: Rand Paul Argues for Private Marriage Contracts but Also Defends Clerk Not Doing Her Job

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Excellent.

    Now maybe the GOP will quit lying their asses off. WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM NUKES? WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM $150 BILLION? ARGLE BARGLE DERPSTYSHIT??

    Nahh, they won’t stop lying until there is a white Republican in the White House.

    1. At which time their lies can move armies and wreck nations!

    2. How on earth does X Senators willing to tow the party lion disprove that we are giving them $150BB or that there aren’t any real inspections, etc.?

      Who is saying we are giving them nukes?

      Why do you lie so much? Is it because your DNC masters tell you to?

      1. Ending sanctions/unfreezing assets is not “giving them $150 billion”.

        And every crazy GOP candidate has said this deal “assures Iran gets nukes”.

        1. Iran will get nukes out of this deal. Once the assets in question are secured and the sanctions no longer a viable political market, Iran will breakout to a tacit nuclear weapons capability.

          Iran will do this before the current President is out of office.

    3. PB, please explain to me why this peaceful nuclear deal involves removing the arms embargo against Iran?

      1. Why not? Iran has never been an aggressor state.

        Oh, and fuck Israel. Fuck all of Persia and Arabia. I want us out of there.

        1. That’s not an answer, it’s a deflection, and an inaccurate one at that.

        2. “Why not? Iran has never been an aggressor state.”

          LOL, the Kurds will call bullshit on that.

        3. Why not? Iran has never been an aggressor state.

          Iran has been an aggressor state; in Lebanon via its Hezbollah proxy, in Syria with actual deployed advisers, forces, and again Hezbollah.

          Iran schemed – from the highest levels – the Khobar Tower bombing of 1996 which killed nineteen United States Air Force personnel. Iran and Iranian forces were responsible for numerous attacks on US service personnel in Iraq.

          Fact is, Iran has provided the United States with so many casus belli situations over past twenty years it is amazing the bitch hasn’t been smacked around yet – given American proclivities otherwise. But they most assuredly deserve it.

          1. The US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner with 280 innocent people on it, armed Iran’s mortal enemy Saddam Hussein, and deposed its democratically elected president.

            Can you blame them for not trusting us? Or at least not trusting Republican chickenhawk Bible Beaters?

          2. Don’t forget Iraq, where Iran supplied the “insurgents” with weapons and Quds advisors, if not actual fighters.

      2. It’s a country that spent the better part of this new century giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents to kill American soldiers. But yea…

        1. The US is the real aggressor state and you know it.

          1. Well, that’s a swell argument, Buttplug. Just what I’ve come to expect from you.

            I fail to see how American benefits at all by lifting any arms restrictions on Iran. How about you explain that one.

            1. Let the Sunni-Shia War consume them for another 50 years.

              We win.

              If every person ‘of the Book’ fell off the planet tomorrow we secularists win.

              1. “Let the Sunni-Shia War consume them for another 50 years.”

                It won’t. A fully armed Iran will put an end to it pretty quickly.

                1. Only with a truly cataclysmic genocide.

                  Nah. The Sunni-Shia war goes back hundreds of years. Its not going anywhere unless and until Islam changes pretty fundamentally.

                  1. It goes back about 1500 years, and has been dormant for over 500. The current “sectarian” struggles are actually nationalist ones, just like Irish Catholics vs. English Protestants. It’s no coincidence that every sectarian group is also an ethnic one.

                    If Iran wants to purge the world of heretics, why haven’t they started with their own population?

            2. Far more likely scenario. America ends up back in the region and has Iranian weapons used to kill Americans once again.

          2. That’s another deflection. The fact is that it’s a terrible “deal,” in no small part because it involves lifting an arm’s embargo on what Barry, Kerry and their douchey ilk insist is a pathway to lasting peace.

            Why does a supposed peaceful nuclear agreement need to lift the arm’s embargo?

            1. It’s not a “deal.” It is acknowledgment of the failure of the sanctions (like with Cuba), and an attempt to back out of them gracefully.

        2. Not to mention support for, among others, Syria and Hezbollah.

    4. “Now maybe the GOP will quit lying their asses off.”

      I wouldn’t say their actually lying, but certainly the GOP is being bombastic about this. I’d be surprised if they aren’t pretty delighted about how this went down. President Obama has backed himself into a corner by agreeing to this deal. Then he doubled down by not even mounting a serious effort to bring the Republican’s in early and get some kind of bipartisan deal.

      Iran has a long history of treaty violations.
      There’s no serious dispute that they’ve violated the ” Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” treaty multiple times since they signed it in 1970. Indeed, they publically admitted that they had previously routinely violated it in 2003. And of course, they’ve clearly violated the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations” many times, the most obvious being during the Iran hostage crisis.

      There are many, many other minor treaty violations, but the above two are the serious ones.

      This deal is a pretty shitty deal when viewed from either side. The US/UN gets nothing more than a fig leaf. Iran, from it’s POV, gets back what it’s rightly owed. So Iran is not going to feel any kind of moral obligation to abide by it. From their POV, they got their money back and it’s not anybody else’s business if they are building nuclear weapons.

      1. “From their POV, they got their money back and it’s not anybody else’s business if they are building nuclear weapons.”

        One might even suggest that that’s not an entirely unreasonable point of view . . .

        1. “One might even suggest that that’s not an entirely unreasonable point of view . . .”

          Sure and I agree. It’s an entirely reasonable view from their point. Furthermore, “they” didn’t sign the NPW from their POV. The illegitimate Shah signed the treaty. So, they certainly don’t feel morally bound by what their reviled predecessors did.

          But it’s also why this current deal will almost certainly fall through.

          1. “Furthermore, “they” didn’t sign the NPW from their POV. The illegitimate Shah signed the treaty. So, they certainly don’t feel morally bound by what their reviled predecessors did.”

            Precisely.

            “But it’s also why this current deal will almost certainly fall through.”

            I don’t think so. The US may back out of it, but the deal goes forward with or without US involvement. That is the crux of the issue.

      2. There’s no serious dispute that they’ve violated the ” Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” treaty

        They’re entitled to enrich by that very treaty.

        The GOP wants war and this agreement will be only a small impediment when they get another chickenhawk in the White House.

    5. We already gave them nukes via “atoms for peace.” This “deal” is much ado about nothing. It’s got no more teeth then an expression of opinion. Read the Constitution:

      Article II Section 2. Clause 2 states “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” So if 34 is the magic number than only 51 senators are present? Where are the rest of them? 34 out of 100 is not two-thirds. I teach math. Trust me.

      If this is not ratified, it is simply a resolution that could be repudiated by future Congresses and administrations.

  2. Judging from the emails Mikulski sent Hillary, I feel pretty damn safe, thank you.

    1. Link? Or explanation?

      1. I will pass on both, thank you.

    2. Ha, ha.

      Those were the BEST.

      Gold, Jerry. GOLD!

  3. In Obamaworld, the Executive can override Congressional vetoes.

  4. I love the new Obama Inverse-Constitution.

    Treaties automatically go into effect unless super-majority votes otherwise!

    1. This procedure was enacted with the full participation and cooperation of Senate Republicans, who want the deal to go through while appearing to oppose it.

      1. Yes, Congress abdicating any and all decision-making responsibility in favor of having “outs” when they face the electorate is another great feature of the Inverse-Constitution.

      2. “This procedure was enacted with the full participation and cooperation of Senate Republicans, who want the deal to go through while appearing to oppose it.”

        I have no doubt that Republicans want Obama (and the Democrats) to suffer the likely consequences of such a bad deal. And they are gleefully looking forward to those consequences.

        That being said, saying “This procedure was enacted with the full participation and cooperation of Senate Republicans” is full on emote Retard. There is nobody capable of counting to 12 with their shoes on who could rationally believe that.

        1. “There is nobody capable of counting to 12 with their shoes on who could rationally believe that.”

          Except that it is 100% true. Politicians being scum, and all.

          1. “Except that it is 100% true.”

            That’s a delusional statement.

            1. I’ll see if I have time to dig up an article for you later, but if you’ve been following this issue, you would know that the Senate Republicans agreed to address this as an “Executive Agreement,” not a “Treaty,” and thus voluntarily gave up their right to ratify it. They did that for a reason.

              1. Now that I take a moment to RTFA, that’s actually what this very article is about-I recommend it.

  5. That’s possible because the deal is considered an executive agreement not a treaty

    Who made that decision, exactly?

    1. I’m for the/an Iran deal, but let’s not kid ourselves. This is a treaty and it has to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.

    1. Janet Reno called – she wants her essence back.

      1. Janet Reno called – she wants her essence back.

        Essence eau de Reno . . . imagine if you could bottle that . . .

        1. Nah. Chemical weapons are still a no-no.

  6. This will be just like Obamacare. It will pass without a single Republican vote. That means the Democrats now own the deal and the results in their entirety. So when Iran breaks the deal and gets nukes or the Saudis and Israelis launch a war to prevent that, the Democrats will own the results lock stock and barrel. This will do for the Democrats on Foreign Policy what Obamacare did for them on domestic policy.

    If you didn’t understand how stupid and incompetent he actually is, you would swear Obama is a Republican Manchurian candidate sent to destroy the Democratic Party. This deal is going to be a tragedy for the world at large. From a strictly partisan perspective, however, it is going to be quite a boon for Republicans. They now get to sit back and blame the whole thing on the Democrats and say I told you so. I can’t believe the Democrats were dumb enough to take the bait and agree to the Senate giving up its treaty power. If they hadn’t, the Senate would have turned it down and the Democrats would have then been free to blame everything bad that ever happens in the Middle East on the evil Republicans hating Obama and killing the deal. Now, they get to have the Republicans do that to them.

    Also understand the Republicans in Congress are horrible cynical bastards for agreeing to do things this way. They only did it for cynical partisan advantage. They should have insisted on an up or down vote in the Senate and killed it.

    1. Please, keep your fapping to the privacy of your own room, there might be ladies present.

    2. “This deal is going to be a tragedy for the world at large”

      How so?

      1. Whether it’s a tragedy or not is probably not foreseeable, but the “treaty” is virtually certain to be broken. The Iranian’s have violated the NPW treaty multiple times in the past and admitted to it. That’s whey they were under sanctions in the first place. They stood fast on their principles and “won” this round from their point of view. Why would they reverse course?

        1. “They stood fast on their principles and “won” this round from their point of view.”

          Yup.

          “Why would they reverse course?”

          No reason. I suppose how terrible you believe this to be depends on what you believe their “course” is.

          1. I seriously doubt their course is peace and unicorns.

      2. The Iranians are going to get the bomb much quicker and are now going to have both the money and the ability to buy the long range missiles to deliver those bombs. Understand, the Iranians talk a great game about how they hate us and Isreal and would happily destroy us both if the opportunity ever arises but their real beef is with Suni Muslims. The Sunis are their first and most important targets. No way are the Suni states of the Middle East going to sit idly buy and let Iran get the bomb. They will launch a pre-emptive war to stop it.

        It is almost uncanny how everything the Progs say is a lie. The line on this deal is that you either make it or go to war. The reality is making the deal guarantees a war. The result of this deal is going to be an enormous regional war in the Middle East sometime in the next five to ten years. I would like to think the US will stay out of it. Honestly, do you really think there is any chance the US would be able to stay out of such a war? Doubtful to say the least.

        1. “The result of this deal is going to be an enormous regional war in the Middle East sometime in the next five to ten years”

          *Going to be*? You’ve been watching the news, right?

          “No way are the Suni states of the Middle East going to sit idly buy and let Iran get the bomb. They will launch a pre-emptive war to stop it.”

          Israel won’t; Sunni states are hard to read. Will the Sunnis side with Israel or Iran? There are many variables. Over the long term, however, this will mean greater stability in the ME, not apocalypse.

          1. Israel won’t sit idly by, that is.

          2. They will side with Israel. Survival instinct makes for strange bedfellows. Understand that in a middle east dominated by Iran, the Sunis will be in no better position than the Jews. They are all evil heretics in the Iranians’ eyes.

            1. And I would find this encouraging for the long-term prospects for the area.

              1. But I think we assume different things about the religious fanaticism of the people of Iran generally speaking.

                1. The people are not fanatics. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the people in charge and who have the guns are fanatics. And they most certainly are. The fact that most Iranians are not fanatics and hate their leaders does the rest of the world no more good than the fact that most Germans were not Nazis and didn’t want to go to war. Your opinion only matters if the people who have the guns are willing to listen to it.

                  1. Possibly, but there have been signs that the SCIR is aware of their slipping popular mandate, and I predict a more Chinese-style easing and re-engagement with the outside world rather than going the way of the Nazis, which didn’t turn out so well in the end.

      3. It is hard to say why Obama is doing this. It might be that he is really this stupid and thinks the deal will work even though everyone knows it won’t. I think more likely is that Obama is a petulant immature asshole who is angry that every single policy he has tried in the Middle East has failed and is taking revenge on the world over it by giving the Iranians nukes thereby ensuring he can lie to himself and his low sloped forehead admirers about his “legacy” that everyone after him will be blamed for messing up, and fuck all of his successors in some kind of strange form of revenge.

        1. Just say “uppity nigger”, John. It’s shorter and easier to read.

          1. Yes Shreek, you are a horrible racist who is incapable of judging Obama objectively as you would a real human being and instead judge him on the curve and pretend he is competent.

            We already know you are a racist. You really don’t have to go out and prove it again every single day you come on here.

            1. Did it occur to you the motive of the deal was to prevent a future war with a nuked up Iran?

              Of course not! That is too logical for a racist like yourself who has to make up shit about Obama’s “real” motive.

              1. Yes. I admitted upfront that it is possible that Obama really is so stupid that he thinks this deal will work. I just doubt that anyone is actually that stupid. But yes it is possible that Obama thinks that. And God help him if he does.

              2. Did it occur to you the motive of the deal was to prevent a future war with a nuked up Iran?

                Giving them piles of money, weapons, and an effectively free pass to nuke up seems an odd way to do it.

                  1. Sorry Shreek we live in reality, not in the voices in your head. The deal gives the Iranian $150 billion dollars in released assets, which is the equivalent of giving the US government over two trillion dollars when you adjust for each country’s GDP. And it ends the prohibition on Iran buying long range missile technology which of course Putin is more than happy to sell them.

                    When are you going to understand this is not DU. The people here are not retarded like you and your fellow Progs are. So the usual Prog bullshit doesn’t fly here.

                    Now go back in your hole. You have tolled enough for today.

                  2. We’re releasing their assets (“giving them money”), lifting arms embargos (“weapons”), and we are agreeing to a farcical inspection regime that expires in 10 years (“effectively a free pass to nuke up”).

                    Does that help?

              3. Why does an agreement that purports to be about using reactors for nuclear energy involve a lifting of the arm’s embargo?

                1. This was meant for PB. Damn threading!

        2. Obama did not make this deal. Obama and Kerry sat at the same table that the deal was made at.

        3. He wants to say he accomplished something while in office and is hoping the shit hits the fan before his administration is over.

  7. People keep pretending as if the alternative here is war. I still just look at as you just gave the Iranians a bunch of treaty obligations that can and will be used as justification at a later date to use some level of force against Iran.

    1. The Democrats do love to lay the groundwork for starting future wars, so this isn’t totally unreasonable.

  8. Not exactly. Obama has enough votes to SUSTAIN a veto. Congress votes to reject the Iran deal. Obama vetoes. Congress votes to override, but Obama has enough votes in Congress to prevent the override and sustain the veto.

    1. The real issue here isn’t even Obama. It’s why the fuck any Congress ever abdicated its authority to ratify an agreement like this.

      Congress is so full of craven GO TEAM fucks that they just hand over their power entirely to the executives over time.

      1. I don’t think it’s love of the executive – I think it’s the need to maintain the illusion of distinction between the two parties, the same way they changed the rules for voting on the debt ceiling so that it could be raised without Republican support (to all appearances, anyway). Ted Cruz did a speech on this a few months back – one of his better moments.

        1. The whole point of doing that was to make every Democrat in Congress cast a public vote on the deal and ensure that it if it wasn’t rejected it would be passed without a single Republican vote. This of course sticks the Democrats with the full responsibility for the results of this. Obama of course doesn’t give a fuck about the Democrats or anyone but Obama and happily took the deal. Why the Democrats are so stupid that they are willing to continue to sacrifice their careers and their party for this idiot who is now a lame duck is beyond me.

          The whole thing stinks. If we had a properly functioning political class, the Democrats in Congress would care about the institution of Congress just as much as they do about Obama and would have made it clear to him that he wasn’t going to duck Senate approval and if he implemented the deal anyway, he was going to be impeached. Even then, the Republicans should have done the right thing and insisted on the Senate reviewing it and at least tried to impeach his sorry ass when he didn’t submit it. Even in losing, they would have stood on principle, which is better than this. But no one gives a shit about the institutions anymore. That of course is why our republic is dying.

      2. I think they did for two reasons. First, Obama told them to go fuck themselves and if the required Senate ratification he would just refuse to submit it and implement the deal anyway. That of course should mean his impeachment but the Democrats will never support that so he would have gotten away with it. So the Republicans figured something was better than nothing.

        Second, they figured if they were going to get fucked anyway, they might as well fuck the Democrats in Congress in return. So they came up with this cockamamie scheme where the Congress can reject it but the village idiot can veto it and the only way to stop the deal is to override the veto.

  9. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

    1. Homejobs? Does that mean you give the whole household handjobs? This sounds right up Crusty’s alley.

  10. What if the MajLeader doesn’t even put it on the schedule, but instead brings a bill forward to re-instate and toughen the sanctions against Iran?

  11. Article II Section 2. Clause 2 states “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” So if 34 is the magic number than only 51 senators are present? Where are the rest of them? 34 out of 100 is not two-thirds. I teach math. Trust me.

    If this is not ratified, it is simply a resolution that could be repudiated by future Congresses and administrations.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.