47 Republicans did NOT send an open letter to the leaders of Iran
Much has been made by the left and by the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) about the open letter Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans signed and sent to the leaders of Iran. My position on this issue was that it was silly and short-sighted for the Republicans to do this because it would come back to haunt them–they should have waited to see what was in the deal before they opposed it–while the left’s position was it was treasonous, traitorous, a violation of the Logan Act, and a deliberate attempt to undermine the President’s negotiations with a foreign nation.
But now it turns out, if this story is true, that these Republicans never actually sent the letter to Iran and never contacted the leaders of Iran as those who are screaming to hang the treasonous bastards would have us believe. Tom Cotton simply posted this little civics lesson on his website and to some social media sites.
Here is more:
Before U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and 46 of his GOP colleagues are frog-marched to the gallows and hanged for treason, one vital point of confusion must be cleared up. Say what you will about the Republicans’ open letter “to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The Cotton/GOP letter regarding Tehran’s atom-bomb talks with Obama was not sent to the ayatollahs. Had Cotton & Co. actually delivered their communiqué to Iran’s mullahs — perhaps via a Swiss diplomatic pouch or something even more cloak and dagger — their critics would be on less swampy ground in calling them “traitors,” as the New York Daily News screamed. Either through befuddlement or deceit, many of the Republicans’ detractors have echoed this gross inaccuracy.
And here is more still:
“Because it was an open letter, it was not sent to Tehran but rather posted on Senator Cotton’s website and social-media accounts,” Caroline Rabbitt, Senator Cotton’s communications director, explained to me last week. Cotton & Co. never even dropped an envelope in the mail.
Tom Cotton and his Senate colleagues never contacted anyone in Iran. That fact alone should turn the Left’s fluttering “GOP = Treason” banner into a wet rag.
To quote Rick Perry when he was running for President in 2008, “whoops.” But of course this will not stop the left from promoting this lie because, as someone in Germany once said, “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” And he was right because apparently the people have already come to believe it…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
If he didn’t actually send it, but just publicized it, then I guess Iran’s characterization of the letter was accurate: “Propaganda ploy”.
I think using the word “treason” is hyperbole. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t address whether it violates the Logan Act, but it is true that when negotiating with a foreign power in concert with our allies, presidents represent the nation, not senators. The “advise and consent” clause seems clear about that. This isn’t a treaty, and is intended (if they can even get an agreement now) to be sent to the UN, not to Congress. Cotton (and co.) unwisely stuck their noses in where they appear to have no jurisdiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only treaties are mentioned in the Constitution. So, if this isn’t a treaty, then the president has no authority to be negotiating anything.
The president wasn’t delegated sole authority regarding treaties. The Senate must first give its consent, then it is authorized to advise the president. Then, a treaty is only law if 2/3 of the Senate ‘concurs.’ It’s a separation of powers. The Founders understood that to give a president too much power regarding international relations was very dangerous. He could very well ‘executive agreement’ the Country into something horrendous. Just like recent presidents have done with EOs – which only affect the executive branch because the president only has authority over the executive branch.
So, the Senate was delegated the authority to be involved in the entire treaty process.
There is no authority to bypass Congress and deal directly with the UN. There is no authority for the government to even make our Country a member of the UN. That puts us under their authority and that is a violation of the Constitution. Remember, no treaty can violate the Constitution, or is above the Constitution.
No. These Senators told obama that they are not going to stand for his shenanigans any longer. If obama isn’t negotiating a treaty, then he has no authority to do anything at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You appear to have misunderstood both this situation, and the Constitution. It’s not a treaty, Cotton said it isn’t a treaty, and even Iran pointed out it isn’t a treaty. Therefore, all you had to say about treaties and the Senate’s duty was irrelevant.
As far as who represents the nation in the negotiation of any and all agreements with other nations other than treaties, it’s the president and his staff, including cabinet appointees like the Secretary of State. This is nothing new. What’s new is trying to insert yourself into negotiations, with no precedent for that participation.
LikeLike
It is you who has misunderstood.
Does the Constitution mention any kind of international agreement other than a treaty? No.
Then, by what authority is obama negotiating anything? You seem to be under the same misunderstanding as most of the Country. Executive agreements are not mentioned in the Constitution, ergo, they are not valid. The president is only delegated authority to negotiate treaties, nothing else. And, he must make treaties ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.’
If you dispute this, cite Constitutional authority.
I am not inserting myself, that’s ludicrous. I am saying the president is bound by the Constitution, has no authority except what is delegated by the Constitution. Do you disagree?? Again, I say cite Constitutional authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/congress-us-foreign-policy/p29871
LikeLike
Riiigggght, because the government gets to define the rules it must obey.
Not hardly. I asked for Constitutional authority. Not what the government says its authority is.
The Constitution is Supreme Law, not what anyone in the government says. The government is bound by the Constitution, it has no authority to define the Constitution. The Constitution was defined by the law-givers – the states. The government is bound by those definitions of the Constitution. They don’t get to make up their own.
The Constitution only grants power to negotiate treaties. This power is shared between the president and the Senate. The president was delegated no other authority regarding international agreements. If you disagree, cite Constitutional authority.
Kerry already admitted they weren’t negotiating a legally binding agreement. What the heck are they doing then???
Who writes that stuff anyway??? The government???? Sheesh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Laura, the idea of bringing an agreement before the UN and not to the Congress is very troubling. I guess this would be that “global test” John Kerry talked about when he was running for President.
LikeLike
Yes, Kerry pretty much said what this letter says when he said the agreement was non-binding and yet nobody has called Kerry treasonous…
It has been speculated the reason why Obama wants the treaty to be non-binding is so that he would not have to go through the Congress but I am not sure if that is true.
LikeLike
Whatever deal he negotiates would never get past the People, Steve. That’s why he’s not doing this Constitutionally, by treaty. The last election showed Congress that we are not happy with them. They want to keep their seats more than they want to curry favor with obama. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obama will get by with whatever he is allowed to get by with. That is the bottom line! It doesn’t matter any more if it is legal for him to do it or not. Congress set a precedent for this when they allowed him to get away with the first illegal crap he pulled. There are those people that will continue doing this crap until someone stops them….guess there is no one with enough guts to do that. What a pity for America!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, lou. It won’t always be that way, though. 🙂
Precedent is not valid law any more than SCOTUS rulings are law. The Constitution hasn’t changed. It doesn’t allow the president to do what he is doing, it doesn’t allow Congress to do what it is doing, it doesn’t allow SCOTUS to do what it is doing. That they are doing these things doesn’t make what they are doing legal and Constitutional.
The People are the ones who have allowed this lawlessness. I think, for the most part, because the majority just didn’t know any better. We got lazy, complacent, we put our trust in the wrong people. We know now. Everyday more and more people are realizing that our government(s) are operating way beyond their delegated authority.
The Constitution doesn’t recognize precedent as law. So the violations obama has committed, if done by the next president, will still be violations of the Constitution. Time doesn’t change illegal into legal.
You are correct that this Congress isn’t going to do anything. It’s up to the people to make the necessary changes. The first step is to get rid of all the lawless idiots currently serving. We aren’t going to accomplish that by supporting corrupt political parties. Those political parties are a huge part of the problem. Political parties have stolen the loyalty and obedience of our elected officials with money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is, Laura, that people will vote as they always have and will hope for the best. The bigger problem is that there is no “best” left. We see what is going on, but we are but a handful that actually pay attention. Then there are the others that are only interested in the “game” or where they are going drinking that night. I guess, they think as long as they are doing alright, then what is the problem! THEY ARE THE PROBLEM! They just will not admit it. We know that what is going on is not legal and they know we know it, so they are just daring anyone to step forward and call their bluff. Then you have the media that is ready to run cover for them at a moments notice. In case people have not noticed we are really not a FREE country anymore. This is as good as it gets unless this Administration is stopped. I will also add that there are those in the Republican party that neither cares what happens to the country nor cares what we think. But, still they get voted back in.
Laura, you are wasting your time trying to get the facts across, you do know that? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Laura, you are wasting your time trying to get the facts across, you do know that?’
No, lou, I refuse to believe that. I’m not going to stop, I can’t stop. 🙂
The reason people continue to vote as they always have, is because they have no viable alternative. By viable, I mean candidates who will truly represent the People after they are elected. Candidates who are loyal to no one except people in their district. They won’t be loyal to political parties, special interests, banks, corporations, non-constituent donors. They will be loyal to and obey only the people in their district.
There are people like that out there.
Another problem is that the majority of the people don’t realize that the federal government was never given authority to define its own powers. Too many people think SCOTUS was actually created to interpret the Constitution, to decide the Constitutionality of laws. They believe that what SCOTUS says is law, that they are the final word on everything. They believe actually believe the government can expand its own powers. Too many people believe Congress has the authority to transfer its power to the executive branch through legislation – war powers, federal agencies writing laws.
You are correct about the other things. However, our population is not static. We have to reach the young people and give them the truth. We have to give the voters a better choice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Laura and who ever else wants to hear this: Mark Levin’s program from yesterday the 16th is a must hear about just what we are discussing here. Please listen to it if you can have it playing in the background of whatever you are doing. HE is Constitutional Scholar, not Obama, as we are constantly being told.
.http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=4136673
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t agree with Levin’s position on some things. I don’t like how he has dismissed nullification and ridiculed people who support it. He may be a ‘Constitutional scholar’ but he does not understand Article V.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was talking about the facts on this particular posting. I have tried on numerous occasions to state the facts, but there are some people that really do not want to hear it and they are only here to state THEIR facts and stir the pot. That is when it is a “lost cause”. Yes, keep up what you are doing, did not mean for you to not try.
As for Mark Levin, no I do not agree with what all he says, but this was pretty spot on. It is worth listening to. I also do not agree with Alex Jones on much, but there are times he is right and I will pass that along, too. We have to do what we can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh….nevermind, then. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly Laura, even some Democrats are balking at this deal but that will not stop Obama from pushing his agenda any way he can and if that means circumventing the Constitution so be it…
LikeLike
Lou, you are right: Obama will get away with whatever the Congress allows him to get away with and so far they have not stopped him so is it any wonder he keeps pushing the envelope?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that simply writing something and posting on your website is quiet different than getting involved in the negotiations. Everybody knew the Republicans were opposed to even negotiating and have made it clear for awhile now. I fail to see how putting their opposition in writing could be construed as interfering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because it is a different opinion than the left, hence, it is wrong! Surely you see that, Steve!
LikeLiked by 2 people
More importantly, it’s not what obama wants, so it’s more than just ‘wrong.’ lol
Did anyone else notice that obama said the letter told iran that obama can’t be trusted? Others have said they did it just to embarrass obama. Way to completely dismiss the facts in the letter. His ego knows no bounds, it’s always about him, personally. Waaah, those evil republicans are being mean to me.
Dismiss, deny, deflect, deride. I used to call these the ‘democrat 4Ds’ but now, I’m changing it to the ‘4Ds of politics.’
Here’s another D – disgusted.
Sorry, bad headache and I’m taking it out on the government. hehe
LikeLike
My personal favorite saying is “lie, deny and make them prove it” and it fits this Administration to a “T”!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is OT, but I’m concerned.
(not in any particular order)
1. negotiations with iran
2. iran and other terrorist groups removed from The 2015 “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/16/iran-removed-from-terror-threat-report-as-obama-negotiates-nuclear-deal/
3. US fails to renew emergency oil supply pact with Israel
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-us-fails-to-renew-oil-supply-agreement-with-israel-1001018925
4. White House is removing regulations that subject its Office of Administration to Freedom of Information Act requests.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03/17/white-house-office-exempts-itself-from-foia-regs-announces-on-national-freedom-of-information-day-187531
What’s going on?
LikeLike
Just chipping away at our ability to be thought of as a Super Power, but as a laughing stock, for us to never be able to NOT be looking over our shoulder at who is coming after us, to at some point not be able to drive AND heat/cool our houses OR to have to pick one or the other and for us to never ever be able to question anything the White House does or be able to get hard copies of anything. Such a great Administration that has our best interest at heart! /s
LikeLiked by 2 people
It depends on what the message says, Steve. The “open letter” was a way of taking the position that Obama does not speak on behalf of the government, which is false and counter-productive to the process. The 47, most of whom signed over a brief lunch meeting, probably didn’t think it through very carefully.
Their rookie behavior makes the US government look like the Knesset, unable to agree on anything, full of petty tyrants, and ultimately weak from dischord and gridlock. Perhaps it is a well-earned international perception.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They did not say obama doesn’t speak on behalf of the government. Shall I post it?
“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” the letter states. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” ”
This is factual. Just as EOs can be revoked by a new president, this unconstitutional executive agreement can be revoked by the next president.
The Senators were reminding obama that he is not the sole voice of the government. Whatever obama negotiates, for it to be legally binding, 2/3 of the Senate has to approve. Must I point out, again, that Kerry said the agreement they are negotiating is not legally binding?
Our government has 3 co-equal branches. What’s counter-productive is a president with a go-it-alone attitude. He really believes Congress is there to do his bidding and if they won’t, he’s made it clear he’s gonna do it all by himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t say it was literally spelled out in the letter. The message is still obvious, and still incorrect. No, Congress does not have a co-equal role in MAKING international agreements. The Senate can and should advise, but that is NOT a public role! That we have three branches and checks and balances blah blah blah is once again irrelevant, and off-topic.
I know you see this as senators reminding Obama that they too have power, and that he shouldn’t ever EVER forget it, or ever try to take an initiative on his own, even where it is a president’s ordinary place to, that isn’t how most people here and abroad see it.
It’s grandstanding by a rookie, and it has no positive intent behind it.
LikeLike
The message? What message? The one you imagined or the one that is actually in the letter. Which is not incorrect. The letter is absolutely correct.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I did not say a co-equal role in making international agreements. I didn’t use ‘international agreements’, because the only agreements that are Constitutional are treaties. I said co-equal branches. I said obama is not the sole voice of the government.
“The Senate can and should advise, but that is NOT a public role!”
You believe these things should be done in secret? That’s how the People get screwed. It should be public, as should the negotiations. Neither the president nor Congress are our leaders. We tell them what to do, even after they are elected. They are not elected with carte blanche to do whatever they want and to do things in secret, presenting things to us afterwards as faits accomplis. No. Wrong. And very bad for our Constitutional Republic.
No positive intent? How about getting obama to follow the law? That seems pretty positive to me. obama should not forget that Congress is a co-equal branch and no, obama doesn’t have authority to ‘take initiative.’ Which I believe is left-speak for going outside Constitutional authority.
LikeLike
If you seriously believe the negotiating processes of BOTH treaties and international agreements are, or should always be done in public, then you don’t know the first thing about negotiations and I’m wasting my time writing to you.
Businesses and governments do not ordinarily hold all their talks in public, or in view of cameras or recorders. They very often hammer out details behind closed doors in an atmosphere where they can be entirely candid, then bring proposals back to their allied parties for further discussion. Some kinds of talks are held in public, but ordinarily the more sensitive the topic, the more likely it will be discussed out of public view.
LikeLike
You have misunderstood. Public means that we are not presented with a done deal. Like the TPP and the FCC’s Net Neutrality. Public means that the Senate is involved the entire time. Public means that the president and the Senate listen to and obey the People, as they are supposed to.
International agreements aren’t valid, only treaties are. Maybe you should read yankee’s comment and my reply regarding where SCOTUS found the authority for presidents to make international agreements. It’s not Constitutional authority and they say so.
If you think you are wasting your time, by all means don’t reply to me anymore. I won’t mind at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Last I checked we had 3 EQUAL branches of the government. With this Administration, that turns a bit cloudy when we have wishy-washy leadership in the House and Senate that can be manipulated. They are “yes” men, as far as I am concerned. You are right, Laura, they work for US, how do we make believers out of them? I honestly believe one could take an average Joe off the street that could run the country better than it is being run now.
LikeLike
I think so, lou.
We should be treating elected officials as employees. We need to change how we choose our representatives. We should be interviewing them as prospective employees. I want to know how well they have obeyed the Constitution and their constituents. When they don’t follow the rules (Constitution or law) or obey their constituents, they should be fired just like employees are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right Lou, there is a double standard isn’t there?
LikeLike
The way I read the letter Invisible Mikey is that the Republicans were saying that any treaty which is not approved by the Congress is an Executive Action which can be rescinded by the next President. It is factually accurate and when John Kerry admitted it would be non-binding he pretty much confirmed the content of the letter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course Obieone, a constitutional scholar – time out while I pee my pants from laughing loud and hearty- is putting his own spin on the constitution as he separates congress from its power. This new republican majority congress brings to mind the old joke: why is rape impossible? Because a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bwhahahahahahaha….
What if the woman is wearing pants, too?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! I had not heard that one before Peter!
Yeah, Obama was a Constitutional lawyer so we can trust him not to pervert the Constitution or usurp powers not granted to the President…
LikeLike
I will give you 2 words “Affirmative Action”! Constitutional scholar, my butt!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that sums it up!
LikeLike
Who said Republicans don’t have a sense of humor? The Libs got their bowels in an uproar over nothing… again,
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly! I think after six years of hearing some people call Obama a traitor they jumped at the chance to return the favor and now it turns out to have been all about nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two thoughts:
Since when have Liberals cared about reality?
If Cotton had personally hand delivered it to the Ayatollahs, I’d still be fine with it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story…
LikeLike
On has to wonder, Dr. J., why they need any more authority to do what they want to do than Obama does!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was “ONE”, I imagine you have figured that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting statement: “…why they need any more authority to do what they want to do than Obama does!” They were acting completely within their authority to approve treaties and to make their opinions known. All they did was remind the world that in negotiating with the United States, Congress has the last word. That isn’t adding authority, that’s emphasizing existing authority. I take it that’s the reality you don’t care to recognize.
A large percentage of the people and congress, does not believe that Obama’s negotiations with the Iranians are good for our best interest. That’s pretty simple.
How would you contrast that with John Kerry’s activities in Paris during the Viet Nam peace negotiations?
There are plenty more instances I can cite. It’s one of the results from a strong First Amendment and a very high bar for convicting someone of traitorous acts.
“That was “ONE”, I imagine you have figured that out.” Snark and name calling, the marks of the Neo Fascist Liberal. Come on, pull out the race card while you’re at it. I’ve never found a Liberal who could actually debate with facts and law. Then again, most Liberals seem to consider Bill Maher a very wise and educated individual. I guess that explains it.
Over to you Lou.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have tried using the Kerry/Vietnam and the Pelosi/Syria examples in debate and they just will not admit that they are anything along the same lines as this issue.
LikeLike
Dr. J., you misunderstood what I said and I know it was short. I meant the “Administration” (and Obama), not Congress has more than enough authority, they do NOT need more. Of course Congress has 1/3 authority, but they are letting Obama and his Administration get away with whatever he (they) want to do. I loathe this man with every breath I take. What Cotton did was commendable, the rest of Congress should take lessons from him and keep the Administration in line. John Kerry is a useless SoS, he is a laughing stock and so are we, they have made sure we are no longer a super power and no one is afraid of us anymore. That is very dangerous to all of our service members we have stationed around the world. I am as conservative as they come, so please never, ever refer to me as a “liberal” again. I made a typo and corrected it from “on” to “one”, that was all that was, but then stated that you probably figured that out, still I had to correct it. Bill Maher is a jerk. I think you really misunderstood what I said. We are on the same page when it comes to what is happening to our country.
LikeLike
Dr. J., I guess you have never read any of my postings or you would not have assumed I was a liberal. I am surprised that you took that stance on what I had said and reacted so negatively towards my post.
LikeLike
They didn’t send it? So how did the Iranian leaders get it?
The fact that they didn’t fold it up, put it into an envelope, and drop it in the mailbox, etc., doesn’t mean the letter didn’t reach its intended recipient.
And I do think it was gross interference with the President and his ability to discharge his duties under the Constitution. SCOTUS seems to agree with me.
“”[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.'”
I see it suggested above that because the Constitution only specifically mentions treaties, the President somehow doesn’t have any of the other powers usual to the executive of a sovereign nation. SCOTUS disagrees:
“The power to acquire territory by discovery and occupation (Jones v. United States,137 U. S. 202, 137 U. S. 212), the power to expel undesirable aliens (Fong Yue Ting v. United States,149 U. S. 698, 149 U. S. 705et seq.), the power to make such international agreements as do not constitute treaties in the constitutional sense (Altman & Co. v. United States,224 U. S. 583, 224 U. S. 600-601; Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement,2d ed., p. 102 and note 1), none of which is expressly affirmed by the Constitution, nevertheless exist as inherently inseparable from the conception of nationality. This the court recognized, and, in each of the cases cited, found the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations.”
— United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
299 U.S. 304
Take good care, and may God bless us all.
TGY
LikeLiked by 1 person
yankee,
Would you be so kind as to cite Constitutional authority for SCOTUS to tell us what the Constitution means? Our Founders did not create our government with 3 co-equal branches, with all the checks and balances and separation of powers to ensure no one branch became too powerful, only to give authority over the other two branches and the Constitution to nine men. Absurd!
So, SCOTUS has Constitutional authority to hear cases and decide disputes. They are one arbiter of Constitutionality, but not sole or final. They have no greater power regarding Constitutionality than any other court, the other branches, or the states. The People are the final arbiters and the highest authority.
If a court thinks a law is unconstitutional, they say so. That is the extent of their authority regarding that law. The law must go back to the legislature to be fixed, repealed, or,if the legislature disagrees, they can ignore the ruling.
Courts have no legislative authority at all. They can’t make, change, or strike down a law. Case law and precedent are invalid. They can’t define the law, either. The law is defined by the law-makers, that’s their job.
SCOTUS also cannot grant the government new or expanded powers. They admit executive agreements are not Constitutional. That is correct. Where they erred is when they said it is found in the law of nations. So? We are not governed by the law of nations, but by our Constitution. Our government operates on enumerated powers. If a power is not delegated to the government by the Constitution, the government does not have that power. SCOTUS cannot change that. Only amendments by the people can alter the Constitution. The president was only delegated power to make treaties, he has no power to do anything else.
I encourage you to read this article. 🙂
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0316/Tom-Cotton-s-open-letter-to-Iran-was-hardly-mutiny
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you may know, the Constitution doesn’t give SCOTUS the power of judicial review — the Court took it, and the other two branches acquiesced. It’s the way rela law is made — not just by words on paper, but how those words are interpreted. SCOTUS today has the (mostly) undisputed power to review and pass on a law’s constitutionality.
The fact that a handful of people in the country disagree with that practice because they cannot see anywhere in that document any specific allocation of that authority to SCOTUS is interesting, but moot. The real world moves on.
Note also that you twist the Justice’s words when you claim he says agreements between governments that do not rise to the definition of a treaty are unconstitutional. What he actually says is this: ” . . .none of which is expressly affirmed by the Constitution, nevertheless exist as inherently inseparable from the conception of nationality. This the court recognized, and, in each of the cases cited, found the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations.”
It’s also precious to suggest that we are not bound by the laws of nations, as if we’re some tyrant nation demanding that all the other nations in the world kowtow to us. Precious, yes, but inaccurate and imprecise.
Finally, the only restriction on the President’s Constitutional authority does come from the document itself. You claim that because it mentions that he can negotiate treaties, he’s powerless to do anything else. 200+ years of history prove you quite wrong. In reality, the President has broad latitude to conduct our foreign policy — with every expectation that his exercise of that authority won’t be undermined by partisan interests in the Congress.
The Framers weren’t shy about restricting this or that branch of the government from exercising certain kinds of power. They limited punishment of treason to traitors, and forbade the government from punishing a traitor’s relatives. It took some prodding, but they also forbade the government from billeting troops in civilian homes in peacetime, and from interfering with the free exercise of religion, or the freedom of the press. If they’d intended that the President’s role in foreign affairs to be limited to negotiating and enforcing treaties, they’d have said so.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
‘If they’d intended that the President’s role in foreign affairs to be limited to negotiating and enforcing treaties, they’d have said so.’
They did say so, in the Constitution when they listed the powers of the president. Which authorizes the president to make treaties and nothing else.
‘200+ years of history prove you quite wrong. In reality, the President has broad latitude to conduct our foreign policy — with every expectation that his exercise of that authority won’t be undermined by partisan interests in the Congress.’
You are mistaken, if you think that time turns an illegal action into a legal action. Congress is not subservient to the president. Congress is delegated power to provide crucial checks on the president and the judicial branch. Lack of action by current and previous representatives doesn’t mean the president’s actions are legal.
Nor does it mean SCOTUS’ usurpation is Constitutional.
You didn’t read the article did you? Well, here, I’ll help you out.
‘Cotton is a United States senator. He is in that capacity a member of a separate, co-equal branch of government. As a matter of protocol, he’s expected to address Obama as “Mr. President.” But he’s not in any way the president’s subordinate. Nor is he required or even expected to observe any sort of “discipline” with regard to the negotiations in which the president engages.
The distinction Eaton makes between “voicing [an] opinion in opposition to any deal” and “directly engag[ing] a foreign entity” is nonexistent. Not only are members of Congress absolutely permitted to engage foreign entities as much as they please, but the “open letter,” like all open letters, was clearly a publicity stunt aimed at the American people, not the leaders of Iran. And, while I happen to disagree with Cotton and his co-signers on the merits here, they’re absolutely entitled to “undermine” foreign policy strategies with which they disagree.
The president is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He’s not commander-in-chief of the United States. He’s not even commander-in-chief of US foreign policy.’
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0316/Tom-Cotton-s-open-letter-to-Iran-was-hardly-mutiny
‘It’s also precious to suggest that we are not bound by the laws of nations, as if we’re some tyrant nation demanding that all the other nations in the world kowtow to us. Precious, yes, but inaccurate and imprecise.’
Where did I say that??? We have our own laws and other countries have theirs.
We are governed by the Constitution, Constitutional federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the U.S. We are not governed by the laws of nations – international law. Nor can SCOTUS cite international law as a basis for an unconstitutional expansion of the president’s limited powers. They don’t have that authority. The power by which the government operates comes from the people, it is not given to the government, it is only loaned to them. The People didn’t expand the president’s power to include agreements other than treaties.
‘Note also that you twist the Justice’s words when you claim he says agreements between governments that do not rise to the definition of a treaty are unconstitutional.’
That is what the ruling says. ‘…none of which is expressly affirmed by the Constitution…’
‘…not in the provisions of the Constitution…’
Basing their decisions on anything other than the Constitution and federal laws is a violation of the oath the justices take.
‘I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]’
Our courts are only permitted to use the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties – not international laws. Those laws are not made by Congress and we are not bound by them. The laws of nations cannot convey any power to the president. His power comes from the People, delegated through the Constitution, only. SCOTUS can’t change that.
‘…the Constitution doesn’t give SCOTUS the power of judicial review — the Court took it, and the other two branches acquiesced. It’s the way rela law is made — not just by words on paper, but how those words are interpreted. SCOTUS today has the (mostly) undisputed power to review and pass on a law’s constitutionality.’
You are so wrong on so many levels. Real law, valid law, in this Country is made by Congress, everything else is invalid. The passage of time doesn’t turn invalid law into valid law. SCOTUS does not have that power. What they are doing is not legitimate, it is a merely a usurpation. Undisputed? It is very disputed. Our representatives just aren’t obeying us as they are supposed to. That’s changing, though.
‘The fact that a handful of people in the country disagree with that practice because they cannot see anywhere in that document any specific allocation of that authority to SCOTUS is interesting, but moot. The real world moves on.’
Yes, we do move on. That ‘handful’ of people, in many states, has nullified more than a few unconstitutional federal laws. They stopped the ATF’s attempted ammo ban. They made themselves heard last November.
Your time is ending, yankee, I hope you’re prepared for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course I read the piece you suggested. It’s an opinion piece, not an article, and while it was interestingly presented and well-written (unlike many con pieces today), I disagreed with much of it.
You disagree with much of the jurisprudence that’s taken place over the oast couple of hundred years in this country, and smugly assert that every instance of a federal court overturning a duly-enacted piece of legislation is itself unconstitutional.
I’m grateful that people who share such opinions as yours really are in a dwindling minority, because I fear the chaos you’d gleefully impose on the country with an interpretation of the Constitution that even if it ever had been correct, is hopelessly wrong now.
And may God bless us all.
TGY
PS — The ATF’s reversal wasn’t “nullification,” it was the system working as intended – a rule was proposed, the people responded, and the rule was withdrawn.
LikeLike
An opinion piece, just like what you write – opinion. I didn’t say the ATF was nullification. I was pointing out the overwhelming reaction of the people. It’s not a handful and it’s not dwindling.
The Constitution is never wrong. It is as it was when it was ratified by the states. That’s the way the law works. It doesn’t mean one thing today and something different tomr because a different person is ‘interpreting’ it. That’s not the rule of law, that’s the rule of men. If that is the case, a country ends up in chaos. Pretty close to what we have now. Courts can’t change the meaning of the Constitution, only amendments can. Courts can only use the law as it was defined by the law-makers, that is their authority. The authority of the law-makers is to make the laws – that includes defining the laws they make.
Courts are definitely ONE arbiter – something I already said. They can say a law is unconstitutional, but their authority ends there. Only the legislature can fix or repeal the law – that’s their purview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the letter said was that any treaty which is not approved by the Congress is nothing more than an Executive Action which can be rescinded by the next President and John Kerry admitted as much when he said the treaty was non-binding.
LikeLike
Thought this was an interesting comparison you might want to read:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/03/19/tom-cotton-vs-barack-obama-tale-of-the-tape/
LikeLike
Read the responses after the article, as well.
LikeLike
Awesome, lou. Laughed out loud at several of them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sums up half of the American people when it comes to voting, it is a privilege to be able to vote, some either don’t care or just pull a lever.
Students were asked “What is the difference between ‘Ignorance’ and ‘Apathy’?” The most common answer the questioners received was “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A very good read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, a very good read, thanks for the link, lou.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If they didn’t send the letter, they achieved their stated goal anyway. The left publicized it enough so that you know Iran’s vile leaders knew what that letter said anyway and that it was signed by the 47. Smart move!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Lou,
Here’s your overdue apology for shooting from the lip and not thinking more. It’s ironic, but if you had been a Liberal, you would have flamed me and stomped out with your finger in the air. Instead, you composed a reasoned and informative response. That liberal trait of acceptance that another is in error without giving in to anger, using reason and principle instead, is the mark of a modern Conservative.
That’s what brought me here from the Darkside.
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No problem, Dr. J. It is hard sometimes to get a thought put across in words, without using speech and facial expressions. I can see how you might have taken it the way you did, I might not have been as detailed as I could have been on who exactly I was speaking of. We all, are very high strung when it comes to our Country being taken over by something we are not able to accept. I try to use reason and common sense over anger, it seems anger really doesn’t get you very far. Apology accepted, but I know you feel as strongly about your convictions as I do. There may be times that we have to agree to disagree, but then there are other times we will always find common ground. Maybe that comes from age, who knows. No worries!!!!
LikeLike
No kidding, I appreciate that.
I don’t know how many of us there are, commenting, sometimes posting somewhere or running a small blog of our own. I like to think we make an impact, but sometimes I wonder.
I really did used to be an official Liberal, back in the 60’s and 70’s. I watched a movement of Free Thinkers degenerate into mindless Socialist/Communist control freaks. Beginning with the Reagan years, I watched the Conservatives return to the basic principles and ideals that made us the greatest country in the history of the world.
That’s why my bio begins: “Renegade Liberal….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think any of us that went to college in the late 60’s or early 70’s were official liberals. Those were the “cool” teachers, the ones that sat ON their desks, not AT their desks, or took you outside in the grass to sit for class, etc. We had that “mush” for brains that we hear so much about now. At some point, after college, we had a rude awakening, that it was not all rainbows and unicorns and we actually had to earn money and GROW UP!. Thus, we became the Reagan supporters and I think it has served us well over the years, but now we have a fight on our hands. It is up to US to mold the 30-somethings into being Conservatives, because the schools have pushed liberalism from day one. this is all they know if they have not been schooled at home about the right way of things.
As for people that come here to stir up shit (you know who you are), you would do well to take a few lessons from some of the seasoned posters that have more knowledge than you “think” you have. All is not as it seems to be in this Administration.
Dr. J., I am glad to call you “friend” on this post, as I said before, we might not always have the same exact opinion of situations, but we are sure as hell alot closer than most in this world. We should also keep an open mind to others opinions that may be a bit different and to give them a chance to justify why they feel that way. Sometimes, it might just change our way of thinking. I like to think at 61, I still have an open mind and can accept something a little different, even if I am not totally on board with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person