PDA

View Full Version : Timing is everything ...



SmthBluCitrus
01-05-2009, 01:56 PM
Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power
By JOHN R. BOLTON and JOHN YOO

THE Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.

Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).

Executive agreements have an acknowledged but limited place in our foreign affairs. Congressional-executive agreements are far more troubling. They have evoked scathing attacks by constitutional experts and have been strongly resisted in the Senate, at least so far.

The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.

America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues — many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy — the re-emergence of the benignly labeled “global governance” movement is well under way in the Obama transition.

Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?

Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.

New York Times -- there's more (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=3)

Oh, John Bolton and John Woo ... you guys are funny.

cabernetluver
01-05-2009, 02:24 PM
New York Times -- there's more (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=3)

Oh, John Bolton and John Woo ... you guys are funny.

You're traveling to another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are of imagination. That's a sign post up ahead. Your next stop ...

Come on now, from these two clowns?

SmthBluCitrus
01-05-2009, 02:28 PM
I'm trying to figure out why the Times legitimized this and printed it ... maybe it was an early April Fools Day joke. :shrug:

I do laugh at John Bolton a lot, though.


Bolton Staffer: Mr Bolton, there's a chance of thunderstorms today, so you might want to take an umbrella.
John Bolton: Thanks for letting me know. What this shows is that there is no better time to bomb Iran.

blenderboy5
01-05-2009, 03:21 PM
You can't recognize the fact that the United Nations doesn't matter (and it truly doesn't) for 8 years and then get mad when the other party ignores it lol