Just yesterday, the NYTimes provided a glimpse into the latest attempt by the lawless President to ignore any restraint that the United States Constitution places on the executive. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/u...ng-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0)
Coming as no surprise, several of our colleagues, the usual suspects, those for whom no illegality by the President would ever be cause for complaint, chafed, bridled, and ground their teeth at the thought of any criticism of their idol.
So, I was filled with joy when the NYSun followed up, castigating the lawless inhabitant of the White House as follows:
1."There are three ways something can become what the US Constitution calls the āsupreme law of the land.ā It can be made part of the Constitution by amendment, it can be passed by Congress as a law or it can be ratified by the Senate as a treaty.
a. ....Obama canāt get his climate-change agreement made supreme law of the land by any of those constitutional routes.
2. The Republican House doesnāt want it. The Democratic Senate wonāt act. Thatās because the people donāt want it. Theyāre no dummies.Even in drought-stricken California, the Hill newspaper reports, Democratic candidates for Congress avoid the climate-change issue. This is driving Obama crazy.
3. According to a bombshell New York Times report, the presidentās āclimate-change negotiatorsā have grown ādesperate.ā
4. ....they fear ārepeating the failure of Kyoto.ā That was the big giveaway UN treaty attempted in the 1990s. The Senate wouldnāt go near it. So a generation later, the Times reports, Obama is trying to evade the Senate and cut a deal on global warming without the democratic niceties.
5. The Times says Obama is āworking to forge a sweeping international climate-change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.ā
6. The Constitution permits a president to enter into a legally binding treaty only, as the Times puts it, āif it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senateā ā but Obamaās negotiators want to āsidestep that requirement.ā
7. Obamaās negotiators are saying that end-running the Senate may be the āonly realistic path.ā Is ārealisticā the best word to use for a conspiracy to evade one of the most fundamental checks and balances in the American system?
8. ....Lincoln put it: You canāt fool all of the people all of the time.
Thatās what the Obama administration is trying to do. .... Presidents are perfectly entitled to sign treaties that havenāt been approved by the Senate. Thatās part of the process. They ink all sorts of sketchy stuff, but it canāt become binding as supreme law of the land until it gets through the Senate.
9. Sometimes, treaties donāt get ratified and are laid aside. This happened to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty known as SALT II. President Carter signed it, but the Senate didnāt trust the Soviet boss ....So it refused to ratify the treaty.
10.If itās one thing to try to persuade the Senate, itās another thing to take a treaty that the Senate is so clearly unwilling to ratify, as with global warming, and enter into a conspiracy to dodge the Senate and evade the Constitution ā a document that every public official in our country is sworn to support."
Constitutional Chutzpah - The New York Sun
A full validation of yesterday's post.
Coming as no surprise, several of our colleagues, the usual suspects, those for whom no illegality by the President would ever be cause for complaint, chafed, bridled, and ground their teeth at the thought of any criticism of their idol.
So, I was filled with joy when the NYSun followed up, castigating the lawless inhabitant of the White House as follows:
1."There are three ways something can become what the US Constitution calls the āsupreme law of the land.ā It can be made part of the Constitution by amendment, it can be passed by Congress as a law or it can be ratified by the Senate as a treaty.
a. ....Obama canāt get his climate-change agreement made supreme law of the land by any of those constitutional routes.
2. The Republican House doesnāt want it. The Democratic Senate wonāt act. Thatās because the people donāt want it. Theyāre no dummies.Even in drought-stricken California, the Hill newspaper reports, Democratic candidates for Congress avoid the climate-change issue. This is driving Obama crazy.
3. According to a bombshell New York Times report, the presidentās āclimate-change negotiatorsā have grown ādesperate.ā
4. ....they fear ārepeating the failure of Kyoto.ā That was the big giveaway UN treaty attempted in the 1990s. The Senate wouldnāt go near it. So a generation later, the Times reports, Obama is trying to evade the Senate and cut a deal on global warming without the democratic niceties.
5. The Times says Obama is āworking to forge a sweeping international climate-change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.ā
6. The Constitution permits a president to enter into a legally binding treaty only, as the Times puts it, āif it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senateā ā but Obamaās negotiators want to āsidestep that requirement.ā
7. Obamaās negotiators are saying that end-running the Senate may be the āonly realistic path.ā Is ārealisticā the best word to use for a conspiracy to evade one of the most fundamental checks and balances in the American system?
8. ....Lincoln put it: You canāt fool all of the people all of the time.
Thatās what the Obama administration is trying to do. .... Presidents are perfectly entitled to sign treaties that havenāt been approved by the Senate. Thatās part of the process. They ink all sorts of sketchy stuff, but it canāt become binding as supreme law of the land until it gets through the Senate.
9. Sometimes, treaties donāt get ratified and are laid aside. This happened to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty known as SALT II. President Carter signed it, but the Senate didnāt trust the Soviet boss ....So it refused to ratify the treaty.
10.If itās one thing to try to persuade the Senate, itās another thing to take a treaty that the Senate is so clearly unwilling to ratify, as with global warming, and enter into a conspiracy to dodge the Senate and evade the Constitution ā a document that every public official in our country is sworn to support."
Constitutional Chutzpah - The New York Sun
A full validation of yesterday's post.
Last edited:
