TN Sen. Corker made a deal with Obama, who could not get the Iran deal through the US Senate as a treaty that required two-thirds approval.
So Sen. Corker allowed Obama to submit the deal as an executive agreement that need a simple majority to pass or fail. Then Obama could veto the result and Congress would need a two-thirds majority to override Obama's veto. In other words, Obama would only need one third of the Congress to get the Iran deal approved.
And then it turns out that the Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to prevent the deal from even being debated and voted upon in the Senate so that the deal will take effect without Congress doing anything because of a built-in timeline, or deadline (no pun intended).
Here's a short video of political consultant Dick Morris explaining what Corker did:
http://www.dickmorris.com/senator-b...ame-for-iran-deal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
So Sen. Corker allowed Obama to submit the deal as an executive agreement that need a simple majority to pass or fail. Then Obama could veto the result and Congress would need a two-thirds majority to override Obama's veto. In other words, Obama would only need one third of the Congress to get the Iran deal approved.
And then it turns out that the Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to prevent the deal from even being debated and voted upon in the Senate so that the deal will take effect without Congress doing anything because of a built-in timeline, or deadline (no pun intended).
...Thus was born the Corker-Menendez bill that would be renamed Corker-Cardin after Menendez was forced out as ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and replaced by Senator Ben Cardin. Considering that the administration had openly said that it did feel compelled to present any agreement with Iran for Congressional approval, some sort of response was required. But the only thing Corker could get Corker and other Democrats to sign on to was a bill on an Iran nuclear deal that would provide for a simple up and down vote in both the House and the Senate.
What was wrong with that? The Constitution explicitly states that foreign treaties must be presented to the Senate where they must get a two-thirds vote to be approved. The impetus for this high bar was the thought that treaties ought to be a matter of national consensus since they involve the security of the nation and their impact will be felt beyond the current Congress or the incumbent president.
Corker’s bill turned that approval process upside down. Instead of 67 votes to pass a deal that would give Iran Western approval for becoming a nuclear threshold state and a nuclear power once the deal expired in 10 to 15 years, all Obama would now need was 34 votes in the Senate or one-third plus one vote in the House.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/08/26/iran-deal-filibuster-bob-corker/
Here's a short video of political consultant Dick Morris explaining what Corker did:
http://www.dickmorris.com/senator-b...ame-for-iran-deal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/