Can you say if this will make a difference in whether or not O gets his agreement with Iran ... passed.. or not blocked.. or whatever is the “fundamentally changed” law as it now stands?
Well there are lots of problems here...
The WH “claims” that the “Iran Deal” is NOT a “treaty” even though it meets Webster’s definition of a “treaty” with great precision.
The WH “claims” that the distinction between “treaty” and “non-treaty executive agreement” has become so hard to see that they can call their “Iran Deal” whatever they want.
The WH “claims” that, as a non-treaty “Executive Agreement”, the “Iran Deal” does NOT require 2/3rds approval by the Senate.
==> IMHO, the Senate should have fought this assertion — in the courts — as soon as it was declared. Why not? What was the risk?
But we got Corker/Cardin instead, which CLAIMS a “right” to lift sanctions LEGALLY imposed on Iran, even though neither that bill nor the “Iran Deal” itself, can LEGALLY amend a REAL Treaty: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
==> IMHO, the Senate should hold a vote on the “Iran Deal” as a “treaty”. That vote will REJECT the correctly-named “Iran Treaty”. That rejection would then VOID Obama’s signature on the UN Resolution as an illegal act.
Result: Lawsuit after lawsuit that will keep Iran from getting the $100,000,000,000 even though insanity rules in the WH.