Posted on 07/05/2009 7:23:22 PM PDT by LisaAnne
MOSCOW -- With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
/s
?????????????
You cannot ‘temporary’ bypass the Constitution and it is time some of the GOP Senate leadership got a backbone and called him on it or oust McConnell as the leader since he doesn’t seem to be a very forceful spokesman. I would name Sen DeMint or Jim Inhofe to lead the Senate and maybe then we could see some fireworks and backbone.
Yep so much for that nuclear deterrent thing. This has become the freaking Twilight Zone.
Un.
Frickking.
Believable.
Yes, and ABC wants its readers to think “Oh my gosh...we have to do something! This is an emergency...of course Obama should do something...”
LET THE EFFING THING EXPIRE!
WHY is it that throughout our history as a country, we have somehow been able to observe the Constitution, take months to formulate, debate and pass important legislation and even have that legislation available for lawmakers to READ?
WHY is it that all of a sudden we cannot? WHY?
You said it...I just want to know where our “Jedi Knights” are.
Did we ever have any?
I note your tagline, because I am often reminded of it nowadays.
I think we should remove the traitorous scumbag from office simply for insulting the British by sending that bust back.
I swear, that traitorous asshat is deliberately trying to push the country to the edge, almost to see if he can incite a revolt.
I suppose as long as it is within the scope of his authority as C-in-C he can undertake certain acts pursuant to an agreement with the Russians, but any agreement he makes would not be binding on future administrations as a treaty would be.
As a matter of policy the U.S. observed the Geneva Convention during World War II, although the Senate had not ratified the treaty.
I’m wondering if Robert Byrd would oppose this. Whatever else he is, he has always been a champion of the role of the Senate.
Perhaps he is fearful of angering our very own Emperor Nero, however.
world leaders know BO is just grandstanding in his quest to become the new Ghandi-Jesus-Kennedy-FDR-Gorby-Marx.......they will never let him do it. BO is destined to be spit upon, lied to, and ignored.........
Sure you can--martial law. Of course this current course of events will lead to the same result; it'll just look better on the news this way.
Looks like a lot of us are on the same page. I still think the Homeland Security document that basically called all of us domestic terrorists was to start the wheels turning for martial law but thanks to someone it was outed.
Ask GWB, who was quite fond of such things.
Just the normal MO of these Usurpers.
Emergency means solution needed NOW. Ink the deal and deal with the fallout later. Or, if you want to give the illusion of Constitutionality, dump a 1,000 page Bill on the Legislative Branch the night before the vote.
Why not bypass the Constitution? Congress and 0 have already peed on it.
Indeed - he already has horses’ asses as senators...
This sort of thing is entirely possible within any administration. All it means is that certain things will be done by order of the President and within the power of that office.
So what it’s saying is that we’ll abide by a treaty — in the interim (i.e., before the expiration date and through the time that it takes the Senate to approve such a treaty).
Now, whatever the President does himself is *not* a treaty, but just Presidential action. And thus, it does not last beyond his administration. So, if this doesn’t get ratified, it simply is not a treaty and it will not be abided by, with any future administration. But, if it is ratified by the Senate, then future Presidents will abide by it.
This is not binding the U.S. to any sort of a treaty, as the President cannot do that on his own.
This would constitute high crimes and treason, which he could be impeached for.
Of course that is if we had a House of Representatives that wasnt in his back pocket./
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.