I do not know why you are asking those questions.

I am the OP and asked a simple question....I did not make any comments about the good or bad. Just wanted opinions. And I did not mention PRE CONSULTED.

Thank you

But since you asked....

SALT 1 USA AND USSR...


"Debate over SALT-II in the U.S. Congress continued for months. In December 1979, however, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet attack effectively killed any chance of SALT-II being passed, and Carter ensured this by withdrawing the treaty from the Senate in January 1980. SALT-II thus remained signed, but unratified. "

Carter and Brezhnev sign the SALT-II treaty — History.com This Day in History — 6/18/1979

The test of the SALT 2 treaty from congress...

"http://www.archive.org/stream/saltiitreatyhear04unit/saltiitreatyhear04unit_djvu.txt

Then the INTERMEDIATE RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY ....

"he Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Signed in Washington, D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on 27 May 1988 and came into force on 1 June of that year.



Of course there is the LAW....

"The Obama Administration prefers that the parties reach an agreement that significantly curtails the Iranian nuclear program. However, any agreement is sure to be controversial among hawkish lawmakers. Congress has already demanded the ability to express an opinion on the talks. In July of 2014, Representatives Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, as well as Senators Robert Menendez and Lindsay Graham, issued harshly worded letters urging President Obama to routinely consult Congress on the status of the negotiations and to allow for a vote on the final deal. The letters garnered the signatures of 344 members of the House and 83 Senators -

"See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

"While the President has not commented on Congress’s role in the negotiations and a final agreement, it seems unlikely that he wants to subject a potentially legacy-shaping international agreement to congressional debate. Precedent indicates that he may not have to. The President’s duty as Commander-in-Chief, stated in Article II of the US Constitution has established him as the main executor of the “vast majority” of national security interests and foreign affairs Although the Court held against asserting executive authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., it did establish that the President is the driving force and main authority behind foreign policy decisions. Other opinions simultaneously stress that the President’s authority, depending on the gravity of a given situation, is more legitimate if it is reaffirmed by an act of Congress. From this holding, one can assume that even though any accord with Iran would be more legitimate if approved by Congress, this may not be necessary. The main question will hinge on the extent to which the agreement reflects the President’s foreign affairs power without infringing on congressional duties.

- See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

I apologize for all the links, but you seemed determined not to answer the question without some historical reference and since you did not check it, I did for you.