Filibustering a vote on the Iran deal would be “unfair and unwise” and “contrary to the spirit of the Constitution,” former Senator Joseph Lieberman wrote in an op-ed (Google link) today in The Wall Street Journal.
Lieberman called on Senate Democrats and the White House not to block a vote on the deal, which they could do if all Democratic supporters of the deal chose to filibuster.
That would be a case of gross executive overreach, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and not least, an affront to the American people’s desire for more mutual respect in the workings of government. I am confident that without external pressure, Democratic senators who support the agreement will conclude that supporting a filibuster is a separate question from supporting the agreement, and their colleagues and country deserve a vote.
Although a treaty must normally be approved by 67 votes in the Senate, President Barack Obama chose to make the nuclear deal with Iran an executive agreement. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, reduced the number of senators needed to pass the deal to 51, a simple majority. But it would only require 41 Senators to filibuster and block a vote on the deal.
It is unfair and unwise for the administration to use a procedural tactic to stop a vote on an agreement that, according to recent public opinion polls, is opposed by about 60% of the American people. Filibustering will further convince U.S. citizens that even important national-security questions have now descended into partisan conflicts.
Lieberman concluded with a plea to allow the vote to proceed.
It’s simple: The deal should be brought to a vote. When Congress passes a resolution of disapproval—the likely outcome now that a majority of both houses oppose the agreement—the president will issue a veto. And then, according to regular order, we will see whether two-thirds of the members of Congress will vote to override the veto. That seems impossible at this point. But at least both sides would have been allowed their constitutionally endowed authority to decide the matter on the merits.
Omri Ceren, The Israel Project’s Managing Director of Press and Strategy, discussed the reasons behind the filibuster with Mary Kissell of The Wall Street Journal. (Video embedded below.) The Israel Project publishes The Tower.
Ceren explained why the administration is seeking a filibuster in the first place.
The White House would like it to send a signal of stability. The White House wants to convince the Iranians that the American people and America’s political institutions are behind this. The problem the White House has is that even the Senators who are signing up to support the president are saying they’re doing so against their better judgment. So they say things like there’s no alternative and so on … but if you read the statements that came out literally today you have people saying things like – these are Democratic senators who have an advise and consent role – … “this isn’t the deal I would have negotiated.”…
The spectacle of Democrats protecting the president from his own deal is something that’s unprecedented. The administration doesn’t want to have to go on the record in a formal sense again on this deal and is arm-twisting Democrats to protect the president from his own deal.
[Photo: Fox Business / YouTube ]