That is who this entire pile of very dangerous Leftist crap treaty’s existence may lie. He is laying low and has tremendous pressure being applied via Israel and the NYC Jews that empower him. Keep your eye on him.

What it appears you don’t understand or don’t know is that the Constitution expressly forbids the kind of executive action that you propose Obama could have done and that the Iran deal prevents. Had Obama simply declared this deal done with an executive action it would not have been legal or carried any weight in law. As with all of his immigration executive actions, the courts would also find any actions taken with Iran without Senate approval illegal.

The Corker deal, voted on by Congress, is also probably illegal according to the Constitution, but it gives Obama the endorsement of Congress, something he wouldn’t have had otherwise. Thus, he can do more and get away with it longer.

I am not sure what your point is. As an Executive Agreement, Obama would not even have submitted the Iran deal to Congress. He would have signed it. The Press would have swooned and Republicans would have griped. The best the Republicans could have down was pass a Sense-of the-Congress bill which carries no legal weight and which Obama and the Press would have ignored.

The Corker bill, poor as it is, at least allows Congress to have a public say. The Press is talking about the vote and there is a small but not insignificant chance Obama’s veto will be overridden. If Congress turns the deal down, it will get press coverage even if its vetoed.

Also, the Corker bill puts Democrats on the record. I imagine ads like “Nancy Pelosi voted to give $150B to Mullahs who hang gays from cranes”. Of course, this won’t cost Nancy Pelosi her seat, but in more marginal seats, it could be very effective. Ads with pictures of Americans killed by Iran, questions in debates. It could be a political goldmine.

NAFTA needed Congress to be involved since it bound the US to do things after Clinton left office. It was actually an Executive-Congressional Agreement, not an Executive Agreement.

NAFTA was not treated as a treaty, but it was passed as a bill; thus, it had a mojority yes vote in both the House and the Senate. The Corker bill makes the requirement to reject it much more onerous to achieve.

Some Historical Executive Agreements
NAFTA
Lead-Lease
Yalta Agreement

I have listened to Tom Cotton, no idiot, say the Corker bill was the only option Congress had.

(High IQ sarcasm alert)

Either way his efforts screw the Constitution and the American people, I say follow the money in this situation and then we will know the real answer to the question: Is Bob Corker an idiot or a traitor? I say traitor, many of them are, starting at the top.

Many of the sanctions include a provision which allows the President to waive them. This disastrous deal will result in a war in the Middle East.

Good point. And the right conclusion. Timing is everything

Still, I wonder, and have not heard discussed, whether removing US sanctions requires an affirmative act of Congress. If so, then I hope no vote is taken, as U.S. Sanctions alone are substantial and impactful against Iran.