Iran Agreement requires Advice and Consent

If the Iran Nuclear Agreement is by internal criteria and substance actually a treaty, there arises a situation where the Senate and House cannot in good conscience categorize this deal for consideration under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed a few months ago. That bill was passed under the false pretenses that the nuclear negotiations were proceeding without the full weight of a treaty, defined as “a formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade,” which, in fact, it is. This being the case, the Review Act that was certified by the Senate is, in itself, a void act, having been created to address something that doesn't exist except in name only. The do-si-do cannot deter the advice and consent duty of the Senate when a treaty is offered for ratification whatever title it sports. It matters not what terminology was used to disguise the force and purpose of the nuclear agreement, and the Senate is free to exercise its power in this and other instances when a treaty is offered for approval. It is incumbent upon the Senate to designate this agreement as a treaty in fact, and consideration by that august body be undertaken applying the advice and consent rules laid out in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; (emphasis mine). In so doing, the Senate would then vote on the treaty according to the ratification process prescribed by our founding documents that require a two-thirds vote in favor of a treaty in order for it to be accepted. To go further, any agreement or treaty approved by the Congress cannot counter the Constitution in any aspect, else it becomes null and void as, according to our Constitution, nothing shall outweigh the Constitution--it reigns supreme to protect the United States of America. Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; (emphasis mine).

The president has, from the outset, attempted to subvert the advice and consent process by promoting this agreement as a non-treaty deal; and one that is hardly worth the paper it's written on as having no expectation Iran will honor the contract while expecting the other parties to uphold their end. Which begs the question of why America would bother to negotiate with a nation that had no intention of retaining the precepts contained within, particularly as Iran has already abrogated the contract. The truth is that this is indeed a treaty involving five other countries and the United Nations and it must be handled constitutionally, arguments that this is anything less and the Review Act's passage notwithstanding. This whole dance has been an attempt by the president to slide a treaty past the Congress cloaked as a lesser document which is detrimental to the United States' defense and that of its allies. The Senate must insist on undertaking consideration of the nuclear accord with Iran as a treaty, properly enforcing Congressional power no matter what it takes to do so. Are there senators willing to stand against the attempt to undercut exact constitutional process by the president's invention of a go-around of procedure? The Review Act was invalid before it was ever signed by the president due to its content and purpose to void the Constitution's superior voice. It would take a Constitutional amendment, properly ratified by two-thirds of the States, to nullify Article II, Section 2. And monkeying with terminology to avoid calling this agreement a treaty cannot alter that.