The interwebz are all atwitter over a controversial open letter the newly-minted Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other GOP senators penned to the leadership in Iran regarding how our system of government works. In case you missed it, it reads:

.@JZarif I wanted to make sure you saw this open letter from me and 46 of my colleagues http://t.co/NVWL4PSFi1 pic.twitter.com/rbqAniHbVD

— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) March 9, 2015

Defending his letter, Senator Cotton appeared on Fox News:

Of course, the Imperial Constitutional Expert Prez felt compelled to once again chastise our elected representatives for attempting to educate Iran’s mullahs on how our form of government is supposed to work, emphasis on “supposed:”

As is typical, the responses to Senator Cotton’s letter ranged from support:

https://twitter.com/BHF_WPS/status/575007607456415745

@SenTomCotton @JZarif Thank you Tom, this is precisely what needs to be done.
Peace

— BroJames (@Docjp) March 9, 2015

To outright charges of treason (I know, I know, stop giggling):

https://twitter.com/BlueDuPage/status/575005555841966080

https://twitter.com/VoteOutGOPn2016/status/575056815118929920

To complete and utter incomprehension on why we have elected representatives:

@SenTomCotton @JZarif We vote for a President for a reason if we wanted Congress to run the show we wouldn't have a President. STFU

— Dufus (@dufus) March 9, 2015

Whether you believe Senator Cotton’s letter was appropriate or not, the question is this: Is Senator Cotton, and the other GOPer’s who signed on to the letter, correct in his assertions? While some disagree, calling what’s being negotiated an “agreement,” not a “treaty,” and therefore none of Congress’ business, according to Fox journalist, former law professor, and respected attorney, Greta Van Susteren, Cotton is right:

“Article 2, section 2, clause 2 includes the treaty clause, which empowers the President to propose and negotiate agreements between the United States and other nations, which become treaties after, yes after, the advice and consent of a super-majority of the U.S. Senate.

That means the ‘president’ has no power to make a deal solely with Iran, solely alone, he can’t do that. Presidents are not kings, they’re not dictators, and under our Constitution the President of the United States has broad powers but by no means absolute powers.

So why does the White House not want Congress to vote on a deal with Iran? Here’s press secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest says, ‘Ultimately we can’t put in place and [sic] additional hurdle for that agreement to overcome here at the eleventh hour.’

Hurdle? That clause is not a hurdle. Josh Earnest may think it trivial, I don’t. It’s the Constitution, to be respected and adhered to. Any deal with Iran, good, bad or indifferent impacts the world and impacts generations.

So none of that slippery stuff about the ‘president’ going alone and any deal between the United States and Iran must go to the United States Senate for advice and consent. That is what the Constitution says, and if the ‘president’ doesn’t believe me he should look it up; article 2, section 2, clause 2.”

Now, I’m not a constitutional attorney, but the naysayers will pardon me if I take Ms. Van Susteren’s word over that of hyperpartisan armchair “constitutionalists” spouting off on the Internet.

I don’t know about you, but I have precisely zero confidence in this secretive administration’s ability to negotiate anything, let alone keep the world safe from the likes of a nuclear Iran. I applaud Senator Cotton for showing the chutzpah that the establishment leaders in both houses of Congress are sadly lacking. At this point, in a world on fire predominantly because of a lack of strong leadership for six long years, and an emboldened Iran on the march across the Middle East, bruised egos are the very least of our worries. Iran wants the bomb, and it’s made no qualms about using it on Israel, and eventually, us. And I take them at their word.

So, what do you think? Is Senator Cotton right? Or is he overstepping Congress’ authority?