Why is the Iran deal "2/3rds to block" rather than "2/3rds to ratify" like most treaties?

[Recursion]

Anybody know the rules that this is coming up under?

[pnwmom]

1. It's 2/3 to overturn a Presidential veto of a Republican resolution opposing the treaty.

But we might succeed in filibustering it, so Obama might not even have to veto it.

[Recursion]

2. Thanks (nt)

[pnwmom]

7. Technically it's not a "treaty." Here is more from last spring:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/07/22/how-congress-can-still-kill-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal

Congress should seize the opportunity provided by the Obama administration’s missteps on the Iran nuclear deal to defeat the deal using its constitutional authority, rather than relying on an agreed-upon process that President Barack Obama effectively mooted by seeking United Nations approval first and which his administration seems to have already violated.

Back on May 7, the Senate voted 98-1 to pass a framework under which to consider the then-forthcoming Iran deal. It had been negotiated with Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Ben Cardin of Maryland, the chairman and top Democrat, respectively, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Corker-Cardin agreement – which is of dubious constitutionality – set up an arbitrary process that leaned heavily toward the president, giving Congress 60 days to review the Iran deal, and requiring an affirmative vote to defeat it, which Obama could veto.

As a result, assuming Obama would indeed veto such a measure as he insists he would, the threshold Iran deal opponents must reach to defeat it under Corker-Cardin is a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, the proportion necessary to override a veto.

SNIP

[backscatter712]

3. It's not a treaty.

It's an agreement by the Executive Branch with the Iranian government, which means it's easier for a future president to rescind.

But it's also easier to pass.

Congress has to pass a bill to block it, rather than a bill to ratify it, and if they pass a bill to block it, Obama will veto it, for obvious reasons, and then it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to override the veto.

[Recursion]

4. That greatly raises the stakes for keeping the White House... (nt)

[backscatter712]

6. Indeed.

Hopefully, politics and the world will have moved on to the next shiny thing by the time the next election rolls around, so there will be little motivation to fuck with the Iran agreement after it's been in place for a while.

[davidn3600]

8. Unless Iran cheats, of course

Then we are back to square 1.

[backscatter712]

9. The nice thing about this agreement...

...and the nice thing about nuclear weapons physics,

is that it's easy to catch cheating. If the Iranians try spinning up their centrifuges to make weapons-grade uranium, they'll get caught. It takes a lot of technological infrastructure to build and run centrifuges, so they can't do it without leaving footprints.

Iran's had to agree to open the doors of its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspectors, and to roll back their activities so they're only capable of making stuff for power generation.

[BlueStateLib]

5. Congress can override the Iran Deal "sole executive agreement"

but obama would veto it and then congress would have to get 2/3 majority to override the veto, they only need 34 senates to sustain a veto

Obama will claim that his deal with Iran is not a treaty but a "sole executive agreement" that requires no approval from Congress. Sole executive agreements have been used by presidents since the early 1800s, but the exact scope of this power has long been in question. The Supreme Court has allowed many such agreements to stand (e.g. Dames & Moore v. Regan or American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi)