So what happens if talks with Iran fail because of the letter the GOP wrote?

[LynneSin]

Do these GOP senators think they have the right to send our troops to war especially a war that may include nuclear weapons? And should our soldiers have to agree to be put into harms way because of the stupidity of 47 GOP senators (oh and one dingbat Governor, let's not leave out Bobby Jindal). And as taxpayers, how are we doing to pay for a war possibly created by 47 senators? I know personally I am not interested in my tax dollars being spent on this war. Plus I now have read that Tom Cotton is already speaking to Defense Contractors? So we are going to now pay overpriced Defense Contractors to fight our wars? I think as a voter there are better ways my tax dollars can be spent.

And here's something else. Neither of my senators signed the letter and in fact LESS than 50 of the US Senators signed that treaty which means less than 50% of the population is really represented by the people who wrote this letter. I know I didn't vote for George W. Bush either time but at least I showed up and had a say in his election. Why should I allow some jackasses from Texas or Arkansas or some other part of the country put the rest of the country at risk because of their stupidity!

I'd really like to hear what these 47 Senator's plans are for the war and how they plan on paying for it because personally I'm a bit pissed. The economy is going well and the last thing we need is another expensive long drawn out war that does nothing but send Tax Dollars to Defense Contractors.

[Lurks Often]

1. Any treaty with Iran has to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate

So even if the talks are successful, which I remain skeptical about as I think all of the parties involved are too far apart on what is acceptable, the treaty still has to be voted on by the Senate who isn't going to pass it unless Iran agrees to forego anything that could lead to them posessing a nuclear weapon.

[TexasProgresive]

5. I don't know why it makes a difference but the Senate does not ratify treaties

They vote to consent or not. Now my dictionary defines ratify as consent. If someone who is expert here in constitutional law knows the difference-let them step up to the plate.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

* "The Constitution provides that 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" (Article II, section 2)."
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

[Lurks Often]

9. It may make a legal difference, the rest is semantics

If the Senate doesn't get 2/3 rds voting for a treaty, then the treaty is dead

[philosslayer]

6. Not a treaty

An executive agreement. That doesn't require Senate approval. There is a difference.

http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2359/what-is-the-difference-between-a-treaty-and-an-executive-agreement-in-american-f

[Lurks Often]

11. Then expect it to end up in front of SCOTUS

where I fully expect such an executive agreement to be struck down.

[global1]

2. Click On The Link Below To Get One Signatory Repug Senators Response To Your Question.....

Link:

[11 Bravo]

3. Republicans and the entire RW echo chamber will ...

accuse President Obama of engaging in "failed diplomacy".

[TexasProgresive]

4. As usual they will blame Obama's weak foreign policy. n/t

[Aerows]

7. Even one of my Senators

in MS didn't sign it. Now if that doesn't wake the nation up that not everybody in the US is completely stupid, nothing will.

If you aren't smarter than a Republican Senator from Mississippi, you are in serious trouble.

[magical thyme]

8. the treaty is not with the US; it's with half a dozen or so countries

I think under the auspices of the UN. Iirc, it falls under international law and once it's signed, if we violate it we will be in breach of international law.

[KG]

10. nothing will happen. the demonization of iran is kabuki theatre for the US security state.

[lpbk2713]

12. It's not like the Senate goppers don't have a precedent.

There will be finger pointing galore.

[TheKentuckian]

13. What are you talking about with soldiers and nuclear weapons?

Not that the TeaPubliKlans aren't up for some war, I'm just not the bridge from their fever dreams to reality