Who knows what the SC would say about standing on this, as their opinions lately have nothing to do with actual meanings of words and the law. But you would think that a senator who is denied his right to be one of 34 Senators to reject a bad treaty would have standing. The issue that proponents of this Munich agreement would argue is that it is an “executive agreement”. History and practice are strong that it is not, it is a treaty, but the courts are a wild card these days.
So true about the courts. They also don’t give a flip about what the framers would have thought of such transparent trifling. “Oh piffle, just call it something else.”