So, the UN Security Council has approved the Iran deal ... and herein lies the problem with the manner in which this whole thing was "manipulated" ... and I DO mean manipulated ...
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council scheduled a vote for first thing Monday morning on a resolution endorsing the Iran nuclear deal.
The resolution was circulated to council members Wednesday by the United States. Members were also briefed by both Iran and the other countries that negotiated the landmark agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program.
With all five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council involved in the marathon Iran negotiations, the resolution's adoption Monday was almost certain.
The resolution implements an intricate deal that places restrictions on Iran's nuclear program while allowing relief from sanctions that the country's leaders say have hurt its economy.
Monday's vote will come despite calls from some U.S. lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until Congress reviews the deal.
CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress' consideration.
The President ends up making this "international law" without consulting the Congress at all? Even Iran said that it's participation in this "deal" would not be a fact until THEIR governing body reviewed it. Yet, the US did not make that stipulation for itself?
So ... does this last sentence mean that no matter what Congress does ... even if they had the votes to override the POTUS's veto, the US would still be bound by this new international law? The Constitution allows that?
Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.
A U.S. official told CBS News that American law doesn't "trump" U.N. resolutions, but if Congress were to vote against the measure -- and garner enough votes to override a presidential veto -- lawmakers could stop U.S. sanctions being lifted, which could prompt Iran to declare the U.S. as non-compliant with the terms of the deal and to back out.
If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday's vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution -- and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.
The chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, "We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement."
But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.
She told reporters: "It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, 'Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress." (Why? Iran made that stipulation with no problem. If their governing body rejects the deal, would Iran also be in violation of this new "international law"? Or because they specifically included their stipulation will they be free to ignore the Security Council?)
Sherman said the council resolution allows the "time and space" for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.
I think this easily is executive overreach in binding the US to what amounts to an "international treaty" without the consent of the Senate.
Does this mean that the Executive Branch can cede US sovereignty to the UN at any time on any issue it wishes to do so?
You might say that when the POTUS signed the Corker bill he was agreeing to letting Congress review the deal BEFORE he would go ahead and pull a fast one as he has done here.
Of course, shame on the Republicans ... if any of them still believe ANYthing the WH says about ANYthing, they are even dumber than they look. I'm sure the WH will exert every possible pressure on the D members of Congress to tow the party line.
Even if this deal were a good one, what has been done here will be a real threat to Constitutional precedent. Of course, if it was a great deal, it could have followed the Constitutional process with confidence of Senate approval, without having to resort to this duplicity.
I've read pros and cons on the Corker bill's impact on how this comes down ... Corker and those who voted for his bill may have been "had". If so, then they will share the "legacy" of whatever results from this "treaty".