47 Senators signed an open letter to Iran

These men and women, who are elected to represent the People, aren't being professional. The fact they corresponded without proper permission isn't excusable. Unfortunately they are following the lead of our elected "president". He has, on many occasions, excluded Congress when dealing with countries and the PEOPLE. Charging the authors of this letter with anything SHOULD result in CHARGING the "president".

The problem is is that legally congressional approval is only required on a treaty - not an executive agreements. Fine line but there's a difference. We've had exec agreements since the founding.

The statute that would make what the senators did treason comes from the alien and sedition act that were passed under john Adams. This statute is commonly acknowledged as unconstitutional and has never been enforced.

What they did was bad form, but not illegal.

The US Congress enjoys a 9% approval rating for a reason. They can't do the jobs they were elected to do. Because they can't function as a team, they look to make others less efficient, so they threw a turd in the punchbowl with this moronic letter. All they did was give away intel to the Iranians. They sent a very clear signal that the Iranians can play rope-a-dope for two years while they continue to work on their capabilities. I don't know if it rises to treason, but maybe some prosecutor ought to have a look at it. I do know it is contemptible. The two Senators from Idaho signed and I think they are ill-advised. They do not have enough integrity to admit their mistake. None of the others will either.

Blatant disrespect!!! The Senate's job is to ratify not to negotiate. They destroyed whatever "progress" that has been made in these talks

All these stupid senators did was just tell our enemies that our so called leaders are not United. We keep our disagreements here at home not out in the streets. SMH.

Usual nonsense from both sides. Pelosi flew to Syria and opened talks subversive to the Bush Administration's negotiations with that country and old Ted Kennedy actively tried to sabotage Reagan's nuclear talks with the USSR. It's stupid, but nothing new.

I think people are confusing their hatred for the POTUS with wise foreign policy and Constitutional law. In 2 years, Obama will be gone, but the effects of this letter will be around for years to come and that effect is not a positive one. The Senate GOP overstepped the Constitutional bounds of its role in foreign policy while simultaneously announcing to the world that they can nullify HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of international agreements going back to the founding fathers we are part of on a whim.

Not every international agreement is a treaty and treaties are the ONLY place the Senate has Constitutional authority with regards to foreign relations.

Whether pro or con, President Obama brings out strong feelings and opinions with almost every speech or action. So I guess we can credit him for raising the passion for politics in the USA. But, along with that passion, people tend to get a little crazy, on both sides. Calling the signatories to Senator Cotton's open letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran treasonous is a bit of a stretch. Senator Cotton didn't go to Iran, didn't call up Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and didn't drop a letter to be delivered to someone's secretary. He posted an open letter.

Senators don't give up their First Amendment rights when they take office, and they aren't in the military chain of command thereby abrogating their right to criticize the president. The USA has a long and rich history of congressmen and senators disagreeing with the president. Senator Cotton was well within his right to post his feelings about being left out of the agreement process and possible results of that exclusion. During Secretary Kerry's testimony to Congress the other day he claimed that the letter would undermine faith in the trustworthiness of the US. Then he went on to claim that the agreement was not a legal document and is non-binding. In other words we wouldn't have to wait for a new president as Senator Cotton claims, we could change it at any time. What a statesman!

The alternative to the agreement is not a US war with Iran, as many claim. We are already in a state of war with Iran. It's just a "soft war". They are speaking of an invasion type of war. The USA and Israel already admitted to sabotaging a centrifuge facility and it didn't result in a direct war. Israel recently killed some Iranian generals in Syria and bombed a reactor, no invasion ensued. We can continue with sanctions and destroy specific targets to keep Iran from developing a bomb. We can use that time for a propaganda campaign to re-kindle and strengthen a moderate, secular change in government.

I don't think Senator Cotton’s letter was effective. It was similar to repeatedly putting an opponent in check without the pieces or strategy for mate, it can be fun for a rookie, but annoying to an experienced player. But it wasn't illegal or unprecedented. I really can't fault him. He was a captain in the Army and went to Airborne and Ranger School. So he will take action when faced with a situation that he deems as dangerous to the country. But, he lacks the experience to choose the most effective action.

Those who excuse their actions should be willing to do the same if it is applied to a future Republican President.

What's the point of signing a non-binding "executive agreement" between the two leaders, particularly when the leadership of Iran has proven itself a sponsor of terrorism, AND has declared the destruction if Israel, all the while supplying insurgents with high end explosive devices to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

That being said, I think the letter would have been more effective had it been released as an "open" letter published in a few major newspapers. The message would have gotten to the Iranian Leaders. The Senators could have then avoided the criticism associated with the perception of getting involved in foreign affairs. (An action many on the other side of the aisle have engaged in regularly under Republican Presidents.)

It is also important to note that were this an official binding "agreement", it would be known as a Treaty, and would then require a 2/3 approval of the Senate, AND, should it cost any money to enforce the treaty, OR the agreement, the House of Representatives is the body that would have to approve the spending.

What's missing in all this is the idea that the Congress is a Co-equal branch of government, that was consciously and deliberately put in place to act as a check, and a balance to the powers of the Executive. A concept our President seems to want to ignore on an ever more regular basis.