tmedlin: blog tmedlin's blog
barack hussein obama obviously never bothered to "read" the constitution!
Published Jul. 5, 2009Views: 504
Obama: Hey, let’s bypass the Senate on treaty ratifications
by Ed Morrissey
After listening to the Democrats screech for the last two years about the rule of law, this Jake Tapper report should be surprising …. but it’s not. Apparently, Barack Obama finds treaty ratification a little too complicated, and so he figures he can just commit the US to nuclear disarmament and bypass Congressional oversight:
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.
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the “different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval.”
The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires.
Uh, pardon me, but how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification? The GOP gave George H. W. Bush enough support in 1991 to pass the original START treaty, so it’s not as if ratification would be impossibly complicated.
Well, that is, if the deal actually does put in place an effective verification system and doesn’t amount to a de facto unilateral disarmament. With exactly five months to win Senate approval, the effort by the Obama White House in floating this idea now makes it sound like Obama wants to give away the store in order to score some points with his 1980s no-nukes agenda. And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Words. Just words.
I don't believe there is one dayum word in the Constitution that Barack Hussein Obama believes he has to abide by.
I'm REALLY getting sick of this...seems like every single day. Where are all thost people who screamed about Bush "shredding the Constitution"?
80% of the people who are against this kind of mess, are sitting back, waiting on somebody else to do something about it...If YOU are one of those waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting, then SHAME ON YOU!
If you refuse to get up off the couch, refuse to call or write our representatives, refuse to show up when needed, you'll wake up one day and it will be too late. You'll be one of those sitting around, like the people in Cuba, and Venezuela asking "How did this happen?"
If you want to have a voice in the direction of this state and this country, I suggest you go to www.ncfreedom.us
Information is available on what you can do, what's coming up in both the state and federal governments. Don't sit back and let someone else do the heavy-lifting for you. Our founding fathers didn't...
Join us for the National Tea Party in DC in September. More info coming soon...
Filed under: Politics

































Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%E2%80%99s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/
I've tried to find posts from right-wing GOLO-ers criticizing Bush for his wiretapping program, but those posts are nowhere to be found. I wonder why...
GOLO member since October 12, 2007
July 6, 2009 10:46 a.m.
"QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches — that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant."
GOLO member since October 12, 2007
July 6, 2009 10:43 a.m.
Exactly so.
But even if were one to accept the premise, is it the strongest argument of the Socialists to say "Two wrongs make a right"?
GOLO member since July 12, 2007
July 6, 2009 7:00 a.m.
GOLO member since September 16, 2008
July 5, 2009 10:30 p.m.
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd-mned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people who were either present for the meeting that day or had knowledge of what happened inside the meeting and they all says the President of the United States called the Constitution "a godd-mned piece of paper." "
BTW, isn't it time to get over the childish over-usage of Obama's middle name? When's the last name you used McCain's or Palin's middle name in a post?
GOLO member since October 12, 2007
July 5, 2009 10:02 p.m.
"Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a godd-mned piece of paper' By DOUG THOMPSON
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell-shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court."
GOLO member since October 12, 2007
July 5, 2009 9:58 p.m.
That is, unless he's trying to ram through something even his leftie friends in the Senate wouldn't vote for.
Make you wonder... but not for very long.
2012 can't come soon enough.
GOLO member since July 12, 2007
July 5, 2009 7:56 p.m.
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
July 5, 2009 7:35 p.m.
And all Obama can say is, "I am the ahh...ahh...President". This man is getting VERY scary.
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
July 5, 2009 7:20 p.m.
But if Russia agrees to a deal that is good for them and it's pending approval in the Senate, they aren't going to screw up the deal by going crazy. Maybe if they think we won't pass it, but otherwise it's just too crazy expensive. You don't start making nukes when you might have to shut down in 6 months. It wouldn't make economic or strategic sense.
No, when I look at this idea, I don't think "START Treaty". I look at this idea and I think "Kyoto".
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
July 5, 2009 7:01 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.