Kerry: Iran deal "non-binding" but Congress won't be able to change it !

The Obama administration gets more insane by the day.  Here's ABC news--total Obama worshippers--reprinting an AP article from three days ago:

Kerry: Congress Won't Be Able to Change an Iran Nuclear Deal

Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that U.S. lawmakers won't be able to change the terms of any nuclear agreement with Iran because it won't be legally binding.

"We've been clear from the beginning: We're not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan," Kerry told the panel. "We're negotiating a plan that will have in it the capacity for enforcement. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now."

Kerry said the letter posted Monday by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas "ignores more than two centuries of precedent in the conduct of American foreign policy."  Whereas formal treaties require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, "the vast majority of international arrangements and agreements do not," he said. "And around the world today we have all kinds of executive agreements that we deal with," he said.

Kerry, who will meet Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, next week in Switzerland for another round of talks, said the senators' letter "erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan. It's not.  Number two, it's incorrect when it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time. That's flat wrong. They don't have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders."

No side has emphasized the need for a legally binding deal because each has stronger forms of leverage. If Iran cheats, the Obama administration has spoken of re-imposing suspended sanctions.

Congress, too, wields a threat: new forms of economic punishment of Iran that would be forbidden in the agreement. This would almost surely require overriding a presidential veto and could pin a diplomatic collapse on the United States.

Negotiators from the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia hope to seal a framework with Iran by month's end and a comprehensive agreement by July. Kerry scoffed at the notion that Obama's successor would discard a deal reached between so many powerful governments and adhered to by Iran.

Jen Psaki, Kerry's spokeswoman, raised the possibility of the deal assuming legal character through the U.N. Security Council. Psaki didn't speak definitively on the matter but cited the example of a 2013 strategy agreed to between the U.S. and Russia on Syria relinquishing its chemical weapons stockpile. That plan was then endorsed by the United Nations' top body.

"This framework was not legally binding and was not subject to congressional approval," Psaki told reporters. "It outlined steps for eliminating Syria's chemical weapons and helped lay the groundwork for successful multilateral efforts to move forward." In that case, she added, the U.S.-Russian agreement "went to the U.N. to the Security Council vote."

Zarif is the only one who has gone on record saying such a model would be followed with a nuclear deal.

U.S. negotiators have been more circumspect. Making such a declaration would amount to telling Congress that it won't have a say on the accord, because it is not a treaty, but that the United Nations will.

This piece, and John F'n Kerry, and the emperor, are all three so full of shit one hardly knows where to begin.  Start with the Catch-22 notion that Kerry claims that because the secret agreement is NOT a treaty and is NOT legally binding, congress can't change its terms.

To say this is utter crap--nonsense in the purest sense of the word--is an understatement.  There is no constitutional authority that empowers any president--even a black emperor--to unilaterally bind this nation to any agreement with any foreign power--including the United Nations.  To claim otherwise is purely an impeachable offense.