Obama May Ignore Constitution, Rule by Decree
Tags: US Constitution.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
No, I’m not kidding:
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.
If isn’t ratified then it isn’t a treaty and thus isn’t a law – the President cannot enforce figments of his imagination. This is grounds for impeachment, if he does it…though with solid “don’t-give-a-hoot-about-the-constitution” Democrat majorities, nothing will come of it…
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
6 Responses to “Obama May Ignore Constitution, Rule by Decree”
Caucus of Corruption
There has been a legal precedent established by President Bush. Bush, through signing statements claimed the power “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq”, and the power “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”
He simply claimed that this was a compact and not a treaty. He also stated that congressional legislation “impermissibly infringes upon the president’s constitutional authority to negotiate treaties and conduct the nation’s foreign affairs.”
Why are you trying to undermine the president when he’s just trying to keep us safe? Do you hate America or something?
Difference: the deal with Russia is to be legally binding upon the United States and its citizens. Do try to look into these matters.
anarchist,
The problem with comparing Obama to Bush is that, while it is true that some people here supported Bush, there are many on the left here that absolutely hated his terms in office, calling out such things as violating the constitution. So by that logic, the conservatives here should love Obama and the liberals here should hate Obama, resulting in no net gain.
Do you think that permenant Iraqi bases are free, or that we can control Iraq’s oil without some kind of troop/military presence, which cost taxpayer money. How is where and how many missles we have any different then where and how many troops we have.
If you watch any fox news, or listened to anything that came out of the white house in the last 6 years, they will tell you that to publicly disagree with the president on security matters undermines America’s safety, is un-patriotic, and maybe even borderline treasonous(I can dig up alot of quotes). You wouldn’t want to be responsible for a Russian nuke going off in New York for a chance at some partisan democrat bashing.
oh wait – is this like the “fast track” “free trade” treaties which congress never votes on?
He is however the Commander in Chief and can therefore tell the military to do whatever he wants so long as it is not illegal. There is nothing preventing him from, say, ordering the armed forces to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 10% (or whatever). Once the treaty is ratified, it will become illegal for him not to do that, but he already has the authority as it is.
And besides, I thought you liked ignoring constitutions and ruling by decree. You certainly are fond of the Honduran junta, despite it’s violations of Article 84 of the Honduran Constitution (to say nothing of Article 81).