I would like someone to explain this to me. Whether you are for or against the deal is irrelevant to my questions.

President Barack Obama has reached an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. The definition of treaty: a formal agreement between two or more states (here meaning national states) in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

So Obama had agreed to a treaty with Iran.

All treaties must be approved by the U.S. Senate, per the Constitution.

Problem No. 1: There is conversation that both houses of Congress, not just the Senate, must approve this treaty. If they are discussing only the removal of congressional sanctions, then both houses have to agree to remove them. But they are not. This treaty involves more than just the removal of sanctions, which does require both houses; that’s why it is a treaty. Congress can remove the sanctions anytime it wants without Iran’s or the president’s request. Congress imposed them. (We) do not need a treaty for this.

Problem No. 2: There is also conversation that both houses of Congress are going to reject this “treaty.” If that happens, Obama says he is going to veto their rejection and force the treaty into law. What? If the agreement is rejected by the Senate (or both houses for that matter), it’s over. There is no veto for a rejection.

Congressionally passed laws are submitted to the president for his approval or rejection (veto), if approved, it becomes law. If the law is vetoed, it returns to the congress for an attempted override of the veto. None of the rejected congressional bills go to the president to see if he would like to override the congressional rejection.

The constitution states very clearly that only the Senate can approve a treaty. So even if Obama had the power to veto a rejection from Congress, the Senate has not approved it, so there is no treaty.

The president does not have the authority to approve treaties.

Of course, I haven’t taken a civics class in a long time. Perhaps the constitution was changed allowing this, OR, perhaps a new interpretation of the constitution made this possible. Either way, I’d like someone who knows (not thinks they know) to explain it to me.

Thomas Winn

retired business management manager

Baton Rouge