Difference between revisions of "Corker law"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Aschlafly moved page Corker Bill to Corker law: it is a law now) |
(Only one senator voted against this law: Tom Cotton, who explains that it violates the Constitution.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Corker Law''', officially known as Bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and informally still called the "Corker bill," is a misguided federal law that circumvents the [[Treaty Clause]] in the [[U.S. Constitution]], and essentially requires not a 2/3rds vote to ratify a foreign treaty, but a 2/3rds vote to reject one (in order to override a presidential veto). | The '''Corker Law''', officially known as Bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and informally still called the "Corker bill," is a misguided federal law that circumvents the [[Treaty Clause]] in the [[U.S. Constitution]], and essentially requires not a 2/3rds vote to ratify a foreign treaty, but a 2/3rds vote to reject one (in order to override a presidential veto). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Only one senator voted against this law: [[Tom Cotton]], who explains that it violates the Constitution. | ||
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has never addressed the constitutionality of this approach. | The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has never addressed the constitutionality of this approach. | ||
Revision as of 16:55, August 10, 2015
The Corker Law, officially known as Bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and informally still called the "Corker bill," is a misguided federal law that circumvents the Treaty Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and essentially requires not a 2/3rds vote to ratify a foreign treaty, but a 2/3rds vote to reject one (in order to override a presidential veto).
Only one senator voted against this law: Tom Cotton, who explains that it violates the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of this approach.