'Does that not raise eyebrows?' WH on Iran deal: We don't need no stinkin' Senate!

WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) March 9, 2015

Wut RT @markknoller: WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

— Matthew (@Matthops82) March 9, 2015

Wait what? RT @markknoller: WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) March 9, 2015

Yikes… “@markknoller: WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.”

— KatCara (@Ktcarang) March 9, 2015

Umm… @markknoller: WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

— Nick Mascari (@Nick3BP) March 9, 2015

@markknoller since when?

— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) March 9, 2015

That's comforting RT @markknoller WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.

— Rick Sheridan (@RickSheridan) March 9, 2015

Is he just doing away with the Senate now? Is this like the non-binding climate deal with China? https://t.co/0BSYGnlqeB

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) March 9, 2015

Who needs a legislature? “@markknoller: WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.”

— Dale Franks (@DaleFranks) March 9, 2015

@markknoller Constitutional Scholar Wants Treaty That Violates Constitution

— Razor (@hale_razor) March 9, 2015

@markknoller Does that not raise eyebrows?

— The Post & Email (@thepostemail) March 9, 2015

@markknoller @allahpundit next up, dissolution of Congress altogether. #whoneedschecksandbalances

— Kirsten ten Brink (@onthe10brink) March 9, 2015

Perhaps it is Obama who has more in common with "hard-liners in Iran" than he'd care to admit. https://t.co/BXgo2lFTMT

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 9, 2015