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 “supreme law of the land.” 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 can’t get his climate-change agreement made supreme law of the land by any of those constitutional routes.
2. The Republican House doesn’t want it. The Democratic Senate won’t act. That’s because the people don’t want it. They’re 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 president’s “climate-change negotiators” have grown “desperate.”
4. ....they fear “repeating the failure of Kyoto.” That was the big giveaway UN treaty attempted in the 1990s. The Senate wouldn’t 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 “working to forge a sweeping international climate-change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.”
6. The Constitution permits a president to enter into a legally binding treaty only, as the Times puts it, “if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate” — but Obama’s negotiators want to “sidestep that requirement.”
7. Obama’s negotiators are saying that end-running the Senate may be the “only realistic path.” Is “realistic” 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 can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
That’s what the Obama administration is trying to do. .... Presidents are perfectly entitled to sign treaties that haven’t been approved by the Senate. That’s part of the process. They ink all sorts of sketchy stuff, but it can’t become binding as supreme law of the land until it gets through the Senate.
9. Sometimes, treaties don’t 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 didn’t trust the Soviet boss ....So it refused to ratify the treaty.
10.If it’s one thing to try to persuade the Senate, it’s 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 — 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 “supreme law of the land.” 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 can’t get his climate-change agreement made supreme law of the land by any of those constitutional routes.
2. The Republican House doesn’t want it. The Democratic Senate won’t act. That’s because the people don’t want it. They’re 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 president’s “climate-change negotiators” have grown “desperate.”
4. ....they fear “repeating the failure of Kyoto.” That was the big giveaway UN treaty attempted in the 1990s. The Senate wouldn’t 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 “working to forge a sweeping international climate-change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.”
6. The Constitution permits a president to enter into a legally binding treaty only, as the Times puts it, “if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate” — but Obama’s negotiators want to “sidestep that requirement.”
7. Obama’s negotiators are saying that end-running the Senate may be the “only realistic path.” Is “realistic” 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 can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
That’s what the Obama administration is trying to do. .... Presidents are perfectly entitled to sign treaties that haven’t been approved by the Senate. That’s part of the process. They ink all sorts of sketchy stuff, but it can’t become binding as supreme law of the land until it gets through the Senate.
9. Sometimes, treaties don’t 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 didn’t trust the Soviet boss ....So it refused to ratify the treaty.
10.If it’s one thing to try to persuade the Senate, it’s 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 — 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:
