I have explained what they thought they were gaining. I’ll repeat it.

They passed Corker-Menendez because they wanted to have some input about the sanctions. Corker-Menendez gave them a different pathway, one that had at least the possibility of a bilateral demand by Congress to continue the sanctions. After all, the sanctions had been established by Congress in the first place and Obama should have needed their approval to lift them.

Corker-Menendez passed almost unanimously. They thought it was at least a possibility that they could also get enough votes post-Iran-deal to continue sanctions and override Obama’s veto. That would at least give them some power to stop him from lifting sanctions without consulting them; prior to that they had none.

Was it realistic that they ever would succeed? I don’t think so, but it was at least a realistic possibility, one that was underlined by the overwhelming numbers who voted for Corker-Menendez. I think they were fooling themselves into thinking that enough Democrats might, like Schumer, come along with them to be able to override an Obama veto. It’s actually still theoretically possible.

With Corker-Menendez they are nearly powerless. Without it, they are completely powerless. That’s what happens when you have the combination of a tyrant (Obama) and a weak Congress, many of whose members are without integrity.

I have no idea why you call my explanation convoluted. It’s not all that hard to follow.

And there is almost no chance any court would have called it a treaty, and in the extremely unlikely event that the court did call it a treaty there’s no way a court could it have made that stick. The precedent ever since FDR is for similar agreements to be dealt with in ways other than calling them a treaty.

As far back as 1954 (perhaps even earlier) you can find law articles on the subject such as this one. It makes it clear that in order for Congress to vote on an agreement as though it’s a treaty, the president needs to submit it to the vote as such. Obama would have never done that. What’s more:

It would seem, therefore, that the President, in the final analysis, has the last say concerning the existence or non-existence of treaty…

…[U]nder [FDR], [executive agreements] mushroomed in number to a point where they threatened to replace treaties as the basis for American foreign policy. In the famous case of United States v. Pink, decided in 1942, the Litvinov “executive” agreement of 1933 was held to be “final and conclusive on the courts” insofar as Soviet recognition had there been accorded.

There’s much much more, both in earlier years and later ones, written on the subject and to the same effect. There is virtually no chance it would have been called a treaty by the Court, and even if it had the only remedy would be impeachment/conviction of Obama, which was never going to happen.

They passed Corker-Menendez because they wanted to have some input about the sanctions. Corker-Menendez gave them a different pathway, one that had at least the possibility of a bilateral demand by Congress to continue the sanctions. After all, the sanctions had been established by Congress in the first place and Obama should have needed their approval to lift them. However, they knew he wasn’t going to ask for that approval; he was going to do it without them, and they wanted to reinstate their right to approve or disapprove of his lifting sanctions.

Back when the original Corker-Menendez bill was being debated and voted on, Corker said:

We all want to make sure the administration doesn’t rush into a bad deal with Iran, and without the restrictions on the president in our veto-proof bill, he would have a free hand to immediately relieve all sanctions on Iran before Congress could do anything to stop him,” Corker told me.

Not bringing the deal up for a vote at all allows it to be voided by a new president as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. But the same thing is true of voting under Corker-Menendez to continue sanctions. Both options would allow a later president to void the deal, since it’s just an executive agreement.

However, the fear was (and still is) that without Corker-Menendez, if they just failed to vote to either approve or disapprove of the deal as a treaty, and Obama went ahead and suspended sanctions, then by the time a new president was sworn in and tried to void the deal, sanctions would be impossible to reinstate. It would be too late. So they wanted to at least have a chance to prevent that.

As I said, none of it was ever going to work because they just didn’t have enough Democratic support.

Last time the citizens got outraged and 1 million man marched to DC, the Left’s Active Measure branches nuked them.

Is this with US or UN ?
Why Should this matter whith rough state put on the shulder of US

We’ll just take the Nazi connection to both cities to be mere coincidence.

Hedy Lamarr must be spinning in her grave.