Saw this one go by on a tweet and almost fell over:
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.
Whoa…isn’t this the president who gave George W. Bush SUCH a hard time about Presidential Signing Statements, before he fell in love with them? Now, suddenly, it’s – hey, I’m Barack Obama, and I won; I don’t have to follow the constitution! I don’t even need that Senate!
President Clinton once said, “flick of the wrist, law of the land; pretty cool.” But even he understood that, umm…as Glenn says, if you bypass the Senate, it’s not a treaty.
Wishing not to oversnark, Glenn writes:
A President can, of course, abide by a treaty even if it’s not ratified, so long as he’s not asserting any binding effect on parties not under his supervision, which is likely the case here. Still, it’s of a piece with the “it’s a rush, we don’t have time for the formalities” approach that this Administration has favored.
Emphasis mine, because it is so true: everything Obama does is hasty, rushed and performed under a big, flashing red sign that screams, “emergency; no time to discuss, no time to read, no time for bothersome procedure…just do what I want, and trust me, we’ll be fine…three minutes to critical mass…”
I can only imagine the guttural sounds of outrage that would be coming from the press and the left if Dubya had tried this.
Ed Morrissey wonders why this president needs to strongarm on this: “…how many seats in the Senate does Obama’s party hold? Isn’t it 60? If Obama is simply moving forward with a straightforward, supportable treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles in an effective verification system, why couldn’t he get a quick ratification?
…
Well, that is, if the deal actually does put in place an effective verification system and doesn’t amount to a de facto unilateral disarmament. With exactly five months to win Senate approval, the effort by the Obama White House in floating this idea now makes it sound like Obama wants to give away the store in order to score some points with his 1980s no-nukes agenda. And as much as the Democrats howled over the supposed devotion of George Bush to a “unitary executive,” Obama seems to have no trouble bypassing the check on executive power for treaty negotiation written explicitly into the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2.
Constitutional law professor, and all…hmmm…Happy Independence Weekend.
My Democrat parents are rolling over in their graves.
Harry Reid helps us to understand: “And before anyone gets too high and mighty about principles, they should understand that principles are in the eye of the beholder.”
Irish Spy has more on Obama’s “disarming” world view.
Transparency, again: Reader CJ notices that if you want to watch Chip Reid and Helen Thomas make Robert Gibbs squirm about the WH’s blatant political theatre, you have to specifically search for the July 1st session. On the White House channel, that day is missing from the grid. Probably just an oversight. These things happen, what with a holiday weekend coming up. Of course, the July 2nd video is there, but you know…it’s a nothingburger that’s at least worth noting.
July 5th, 2009 | 4:25 pm | #1
And, my Republican parents are rolling over in their graves as well, Anchoress!!
July 5th, 2009 | 5:05 pm | #2
So how long before somebody places this loose cannon in the White House under arrest?
July 5th, 2009 | 8:11 pm | #3
And people wonder why he’s backing Zelaya?
July 5th, 2009 | 9:07 pm | #4
Does anyone know how far into that very painful Gibberish interview is the squirm?
Ummmm, I just can’t endure the rest.
July 6th, 2009 | 1:49 am | #5
[...] The Anchoress has numerous links. [...]
July 6th, 2009 | 2:11 am | #6
Pretty soon, it will be “L’ etat, c’est moi!”
July 6th, 2009 | 7:11 am | #7
Actually, if you read his audacity of hope book, you would have realized he had/has no intent of adhering to that dead document the Constitution of the USA. I wonder if this country will be able to do what Honduras has done…..uphold our Constitution?
July 6th, 2009 | 8:25 am | #8
Yep, should have read Colonel Obama’s book…
Next time, if you depend on the state run media to vet your candidates, you get what you deserve.
Hey if the Constitution doesn’t apply, maybe the Suporeme Court can disban before Chiquita banana is seated.
July 6th, 2009 | 9:23 am | #9
Unfortunately, Obama has many examples he can give of when the holders of that office bypassed Congress. Each time we engage in a war without an actual Declaration of War, we violate the Constitution. What tricks Obama has not learned from FDR, he has learned from disasterous LBJ.
July 6th, 2009 | 11:03 am | #10
Conservatives can’t have it both ways, Anchoress. You can’t slam Congress for being completely ineffectual since the Democrats took over, and then blame Obama for trying to sidestep it. You can’t speculate during election season that Obama is going to be soft on terror and put on a weak face to the world on behalf of the United States, and then let the most untrustworthy government in the world squeak its way out of the arms treaty because there’s a risk of Congress sneaking out on summer vacation.
Framing it as a “treaty” to make it a move of impropriety by Obama and the Democrats, or a shameless executive power-grab, is solely a display of political demagoguery. It’s not a treaty if the appropriate parties aren’t signatories to it, and I don’t see anyone in this administration claiming that this is a treaty or anything like a treaty. It’s just foreign policy. And, last I checked, that was what we elect our Presidents to do.
[You're NOT really suggesting that Obama's sidestepping congress is for the nation's own good, are you, and he should not bother with the constitution because congress sucks? When both houses are run by his party and can pass whatever he wants without any opposition? Pointing out that this congress is the WORST. Congress. Ever. does not mean I would support a president - any president - just deciding he'd shoot it out with the world alone, without the Senate "advising and consenting" and all that stuff. I mean...what is Obama, anyway...a COWBOY? - admin]
July 6th, 2009 | 11:34 am | #11
Thanks for the laugh UP. I was wondering as I read this story if there was an Obama fan out there willing to defend it. Obvisously there is. At least you can be consistent. Be proud.
July 6th, 2009 | 11:37 am | #12
President Obama IS a weak face to the world. He is clueless, utterly unschooled in history and, for someone who CLAIMS to have been a professor of constitutional law, utterly ignorant on what the Constitution requires of him as president.
None of this is surprising since he was raised away from this country during his most formative years and there is some – justifiable – doubt as to his eligibility for the office he holds.
July 6th, 2009 | 11:40 am | #13
RE Unnecessary: Framing it as a “treaty”…
what the???
The subject under discussion is the Strategic Arms Reduction TREATY
not a lot of subtle framing there…
July 6th, 2009 | 11:51 am | #14
These “little” things tend to pass unnoticed these days, but that quote of Harry Reid’s would get him fired if I was his only employer. Why should anyone trust him?
July 6th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #15
The Obamaphiles will excuse anything, so long as his smiling face continues to beam down upon them.
Bleah.
July 6th, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #16
[...] particularly arriving as Obama is in Russia, mispronouncing Medvedev’s name and considering side-stepping the Congress he owns for expediency’s sake (!) on the START Treaty. All part of the effort to hit that reset [...]
July 6th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #17
I too think it was clear all along that this person never had any intention to abide by the US Constitution.
July 6th, 2009 | 3:12 pm | #18
“as Glenn says, if you bypass the Senate, it’s not a treaty.”
Obama gets plausible deniability when this one tanks & he reverses course once again. It’s called wiggle room.
wait for it, wait for it….
July 6th, 2009 | 5:54 pm | #19
Reading this story just scares the bejeus out of me to no end !!!! When, When is someone in the Congress or elsewhere in Washington gonna put the brakes on this administration and close up shop, surely there has to be several people in and around Washington who truely see what the hell is going on with this POTUS and how he just flying by the seat of his pants and just turning this country on it’s ear !!!!
To not abide by our constitution and otherimportant aspects of how things are done “Checks & Balance’s”, Congress, SCOTUS and to think this is only the first 6 months of this circus with more to come I would hope some of the Liberals would take a time out and say to themselves this guy is farther left then I am and it has to be stopped !!!! Hopefully Hilliary and Bill will step up to the plate though I don’t endorse either but I’m just saying there probably one of the only few people who may have the know how to put a end to the madness, as I see Hillary resigning by the end of the year or early in the begging of next year so she can speak out and start her campaign for 2012 one can only hope someone be it a Liberal or Conserative to find a loop hole to pull this guy from office on a technacality !!!!
July 6th, 2009 | 6:51 pm | #20
[...] Arms Negotiators “Under the Gun,” Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty; Obama WH; we don’t need no stinking Senate! …. (abc, [...]
July 6th, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #21
[...] first one pertains to this: US-Russian Arms Negotiators “Under the Gun,” Might Temporarily Bypass [...]
July 6th, 2009 | 8:55 pm | #22
Anchoress, you’ve completely missed the point that he’s not sidestepping anything at all. He’s acting completely within his Constitutionally-granted executive authority to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the country.
July 6th, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #23
Impeach him NOW before he causes irreversible damage to the Nation.
July 6th, 2009 | 11:57 pm | #24
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Note that the allegiance is to the Constitution, not the President or Congress. Also mentioned are domestic enemies ……. We can only speculate how often in the past few months some officers have privately wondered how far this President should be allowed to trample the Constitution…. I can tell you that the US military is very intently monitoring the events in Honduras and this administration’s reaction.
Without getting into specifics, one tipping point would be the placing of UN or foreign troops into CONUS and another would be the replacement of US officers with UN or foreign officers…. not withstanding Michael New or PDD25.
July 7th, 2009 | 1:02 am | #25
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”
Watch — Once The One sees that he gets away with this, the next body he’ll use his “executive authority” with will be the U.N., agreeing that international law can supercede our own. Good-by, freedom of speech.
July 7th, 2009 | 10:01 am | #26
great article. this guy needs to be impeached but Id prefer a military coup and deportation…seriouslly…he is only 1/8 complete with his agenda. Can you imagine what 2011 will look like??!!!!??
Idiots4Obama dot com- Obama supporters should pay for this for being so stupid and cancelling out our vote.
July 7th, 2009 | 11:00 pm | #27
“I can only imagine the guttural sounds of outrage that would be coming from the press and the left if Dubya had tried this.”
Dubya tried it for the better part of his presidency, remember, enlisting the Justice Department to excuse it. Obama is talking about bypassing Congress temporarily, and if he has seemed hasty and rushed in regards to the economy, as Bush was with the Patriot Act, the reason should be obvious.
July 8th, 2009 | 1:38 am | #28
> It’s just foreign policy. And, last I checked, that was what we elect our Presidents to do.
Well, except that this one seems bound and determined to outdo Jimmy Carter’s four years of FP disasters (with one exception) in his first nine months… with no exceptions.
I’m in the clear for blame — I didn’t vote for the SOB in November, because I knew then he was going to be a total disaster, even as a stealth candidate.
July 8th, 2009 | 1:40 am | #29
> as Bush was with the Patriot Act, the reason should be obvious
Except that this has nothing to do with the economy — and neither does Waxman-Malarkey, for that matter, except for its potential to ruin it.
July 8th, 2009 | 8:53 am | #30
Except that this has nothing to do with the economy”
The stimulus bill had everything to do with the economy,and with START soon to expire, action is need soon.
July 8th, 2009 | 9:07 am | #31
Maybe Obama is contemplating bypassing the Senate because he’ll want to know how to get away with it should he be faced with a Republican Senate after November 2010.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact