Would the White House really try to get around the Constitution?

The Washington Post ^ | March 12, 2015 | Jennifer Rubin

[Timber Rattler]

What began as the quoted view of “experts,” who just happened to be found by the New York Times, and migrated onto an Iranian state Web site and then got repeated in the Lawfare blog has not gone unnoticed by savvy Republicans and conservative observers of the Obama administration’s Iran antics. As Jack Goldsmith said, the idea — bizarre as it may seem — is that the administration would go to the United Nations Security Council to pass the Iran agreement and thereby boost its status as enforceable international law.

[skeeter]

Or what he meant when he talked about replacing it with a ‘positive charter’ of governmental responsibilities.

[goodnesswins]

Ya think.....!!!!!???? I have postulated thats been the plan by the one worlders all along

[DesertRhino]

“of Hillary being President and Bill being the head of the UN. It would have been a coup in ruling the WORLD.”

Funny thing about ruling the world. Its called span of control. And you still have to come to mine and 100 million other doorsteps,,, and take my gun. Should be easy,,,

[bigbob]

Of course, but they view the Constitution as merely a set of old-fashioned guidelines, kinda like blue laws that prohibit spitting on the street or selling beer on Sunday. Certainly nothing that should prevent them from doing what they know to be best for us all.

[rfreedom4u]

Barry doesn’t go around it. He rips right through it and steps all over the pieces.

[Vigilanteman]

Get around? No. Get around implies that they actually see it as a restriction and an obstacle.

Twist, ignore, run over and impose their own private interpretation? They already have, too many times to count.

[Vigilanteman]

Beat me by a lousy 20 seconds.

[ForYourChildren]

“Would the White House really try to get around the Constitution?”

What a stupid question.

The question is phrased like this and presented to the public to hide the fact that the feds have been actively getting around the Constitution at least since FDR, and if you want to go back to the civil war, a person can make that argument itself.

This question accepts that Obamacare is constitutional.

This question accepts that EPA is constitutional.

This question accepts that NEA is constitutional.

This question accepts that all that which is part of the New Deal (FHA, SSA, Wagner Act, WPA, TVA, etc.)

This question accepts that welfare is constitutional (Davy Crockett once squashed a bill on this topic, and his phrase became famous “Not yours to give.”)

[dware]

It’s our fault. We’re standing idly by as the Administration continues its push to be the most lawless Administration in the History of America. And here we sit, thumbs up our noses...

[Yosemitest]

He's a BIBLICAL CURSE !

Remember:
Don't let anyone deceive you in any way,
for [that day will not come] until the rebellion occurs
and the man of LAWLESSNESS is revealed,
the man doomed to destruction.
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped,
so that he sets himself up in God's temple,
proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you
I used to tell you these things?
And now you know WHAT is holding him back,
so that he may be revealed
at the proper time.
For the secret power of LAWLESSNESS is already at work;
but the one who now holds it back
will continue to do so
till he is taken out of the way.
And then the LAWLESS ONE will be revealed,
whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth
and destroy by the splendor of his coming.
The coming of the LAWLESS ONE will be in accordance with the work of Satan
displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
and IN EVERY SORT OF EVIL
THAT DECEIVES those who are perishing.
They perish
because THEY REFUSED to love the truth
and so be saved.
For this reason
God sends them
a POWERFUL DELUSION
so that THEY WILL BELIEVE THE LIE
and so that ALL will be condemned
who have NOT BELIEVED the truth
but have DELIGHTED in wickedness.

[Baynative]

WOULD?

What the hell does this author think has been going on for 6 years?

[Kathy Ann]

[Cicero]

Of course. He’s done it maybe a hundred times already. And not a peep from the jackals in the press.

[Dalberg-Acton]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts

[arthurus]

NO-O-O-O-O-O!!!!! not EVER would they do that!

[Roger Kaputnik]

I’ll take “Dumb and Rhetorical Questions” for $500, Alex.

[tbpiper]

My guess is that Jennifer Rubin still does not fully comprehend the scatological habits of bears either.

[Billthedrill]

Well, if the idea is far-fetched legally and politically unattainable, why does the State Department not rule it out? It should.

I suspect the reason is very simply that the State Department is so far out of touch with reality that it feels this step permissible to put political pressure for passage in the Senate, very much the cart before the horse. The other implications, of UN primacy over sovereign law, are pretty much a given among the fervent internationalists at State and now and then the latter do need to be reminded that we have a government of our own here in the United States and that supposedly they work for it.

This might have slipped under the radar were it not for the Clinton State Department email scandal, but the aggregate image is of a State Department completely out of control, responsive neither to existing law nor to the government that made it. That is a consequence of the appallingly unqualified leadership at State of the last two Secretaries. This is a stupid, dangerous game to be playing with nuclear weapons on the table.

[DonkeyBonker]

Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear s...?

[CodeToad]

Any agreement is a treaty and requires approval of the Senate. Calling an agreement/treaty a “non-binding agreement” as Obama is doing is still an agreement and therefore a treaty.

Renaming something doesn’t change what it is.

The House and Senate do not support We the People by refusing to enforce the Constitution.