Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 does not apply to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran and submitted to Congress on July 19, 2015, because the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a treaty and, pursuant to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must give its advice and consent to ratification if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is to be effective and binding upon the United States.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 8, 2015
States that:
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, commonly referred to as the Corker-Cardin bill, does not apply to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran because the JCPOA is fundamentally different from the agreement as represented to Congress by the Administration and the Corker-Cardin bill is only applicable to an agreement that is not a treaty;
Article II of the U.S. Constitution declares that the President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senators present concur;
the JCPOA is a treaty and, pursuant to Article II, the Senate must give its advice and consent to ratification if the JCPOA is to be effective and binding upon the United States; and
not later than 30 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, the Senate should schedule and consider a resolution of ratification with respect to the JCPOA.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.410 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.410 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.410 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.410 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.