Comments on: Obama administration: Throw out the Constitution, please

By: Eric J

Eric J — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:41:04 +0000

Well, the Constitution was written by Dead White Males. That means it has no relevance to our lives today.

By: The Iron Marshal

The Iron Marshal — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:42:24 +0000

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

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:24:52 +0000

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.

By: Melvin shapiro

Melvin shapiro — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:12:22 +0000

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…..

By: anon

anon — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:05:21 +0000

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….

By: Lily

Lily — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:50:12 +0000

“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.

By: MarkJ

MarkJ — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:34:05 +0000

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.