The Obama administration is talking about deliberately going against the Constitution of the United States. Because, you see, the Constitution is inconvenient to what they want to do regarding a treaty with Russia.
MOSCOW — 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.”
Has any other administration in recent history been so blithely and deliberately ignoring the law that has run this country for more than 200 years?
This is an impeachable offense. But I’m going to guess that you won’t even see it raised in the mainstream media. Unbelievable. The administration is considering disobeying the Constitution an option.
Yeah, and Hitler’s “Enabling Act” back in 1933 was supposed to be “temporary” as well.
If there’s ever a military coup in this country, it will be to save the Constitution rather than destroy it. Maybe that’s why Obama is so fixated on returning that fool Zelaya to power in Honduras.
“Maybe that’s why Obama is so fixated on returning that fool Zelaya to power in Honduras.”
This has occurred to me as well. It sets a bad precedent for him.
The linked article, and your post, is a misunderstanding of constitutional law. This would not be unconstitutional, and certainly not an impeachable offense. The President has the power to make executive agreements without Senate approval, which is what he would be doing until the Senate gets a chance to ratify the remainder of the agreement, at which point it becomes binding on the U.S. as a treaty. So, he’s doing exactly what the Constitution allows. I wonder if this will get through….
Of course Obama is interested in seeing how far he can push the envelope that determines what is and is not Constitutional conduct in the new America. Is Obama supportive of Hugo Chaves, the OAS and exHonduran President M. Zelaya because he has a similar plan for a direct ratifaction, via a national referendum (i.e. a one on “vote” by a national plurality), for changes to the US Constitution? Where would these changes most likely occur? Would they be the 2nd and the 22nd Admendments? Something to think about…..
The comment’s approved, anon, and yet, I think I’m not the one without a grasp of the Constitution here. The Senate alone is granted the ability to ratify treaties. Not the Obama administration.
begging your pardon, anon, but Yourish is correct; the quote distinctly states “…bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties”.
This is mentioned by way of exception, were it standard MO, the phrase would have fallen along the “… signed by the president, pending ratification through the Senate…” turn of wording.
just mho…
T I M
Well, the Constitution was written by Dead White Males. That means it has no relevance to our lives today.