Posted on 04/06/2015 6:51:55 AM PDT by ken5050
One of the major issues confronting our nation is the ever-increasing power of the Executive branch, and the apparent willingness of successive Congresses to abrogate their constitutional powers. Since WW II, more than 90% of agreements between the US and other nations, what should in fact be called treaties have been constructed as executive agreements, and Congress, specifically the Senate, has accepted this unconstitutional modification of the separation of powers.
A bipartisan majority of Congress is strongly opposed to the deal, and want to be able to express an opinion as to its merits.
Legislation is now percolating through Congress to the effect that Congress should be able to express an opinion.
Hello!!!
Express an opinion = ratify.
Obama has said that he will veto such legislation if it passes.
Indeed, he is further sticking his finger in the eyes of US Senators by telling them that not only should they butt out, but he is going to take the "agreement" to the UN for ratification.
Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution.
In case anyone hasnt noticed, the same number of votes, two thirds, is required to ratify a treaty as is needed to overturn a presidential veto.
So why then, are Senate Republicans allowing themselves to be drawn into this kabuki theater? Sen. Tom Cotton, whom I greatly admire, penned an open letter a short while back..explaining to the Iranian mullahs that any agreement not ratified by the Senate is NOT legally binding on this country, and can be repudiated by the next president.
Cotton is correct, but he actually addressed his letter to the wrong person. It should have been directed to Obama,and it should have informed him that as of this moment, the Senate is asserting its constitutional mandate, and that any agreement or whatever Obama chooses to call it, between the US and Iran, or any other nation henceforth, is deemed by the Senate to be a treaty and as such will be subject to the requirements for ratification specified in the Constitution.
Why let Obama define the playing field?
Why just limit the national debate to the merits ( or rather, the lack of) of this agreement?
Lets have the debate first on the legality of Obamas action or, to use that word that Washington so loves the process. ..where by the process is defined by that little thing called the Constitution.
Make Obama explain to the American people why he should be king why he alone should be able to enter into this agreement..which is in fact a treaty with Iran, without having Senate ratification.
And with all due respect to Speaker Boehner..who has been eloquent on the matter of the security of Israel and the US (at least as far as he is capable of sounding eloquent) the House has NO business in this process. They can of course hold hearings, and votes, but as it is a treaty it is only the Senate who has constitutional authority here.
Boehners attempt to interject the House into this issue, in that the House should pass the bill giving it the right to approve this agreement is just as much of a constitution mess as is Obamas attempt to ignore the Senate altogether.
It is well past time for Senate Republicans to act ..according to the Constitution.
And for those Democrats who will object to this course of action, we can remind them that the act of deeming is a time honored Congressional pathway. A few years ago, the Speaker Pelosi wanted to deem that the House passed Obamacare without actually having to bother with that pesky little annoyance called a vote.
Or how about Censuring the Imam in the White House for revealing Israel’s nuclear arsenal?
It is well past time for Senate Republicans to act
************
The understatement of the year.
‘Zackly.
If the mullahs of Iran agree to keep Kerry, Obama, and Biden I am with ya.
This deal is not done yet ,you have to wait until June
This Iran deal is definitely treaty territory not Executive Agreement territory. If indeed it is a treaty then Obama is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy so he should be removed from office for treason.
I agree with your idea. I wonder if Obama has even told anyone the terms, or have they just described it? In other words, is there a written treaty that the Senate could vote against?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.