And that's what this pending agreement would be - a treaty. That is, by common definition, an agreement between/among two or more foreign nations. Foreign nations are involved and there are agreements listed in the text of this (I'll call it by its proper name) treaty, so why isn't there any hue and cry for ratification?
Not only is the media silent, but so is the Tea Party and the GOP. Where's Senator Green-Eggs-and-Ham when we need him to stand up to demand that the Senate must vote on this treaty? I refer you to Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution (2nd paragraph):
QUOTE:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
UNQUOTE.
To put a finer point on this quote, I'll rephrase: "He shall NOT have power to make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate and without a ratification by two thirds of the Senators present."
So where's the "advice and consent" and the concurrence of two thirds? Maybe that's it - since it's next to impossible to get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on anything - especially with the unconstitutional filibuster rule* in place. Given this impossibility, it's entirely possible that the powers-that-be decided not to involve the Senate. To pretend, at least in this case, that the Senate should not have any role to play in this treaty. Given the power of Israel's lobby, I can see why a lot of senators wouldn't want to go on record as ratifying such a treaty.
This reminds me of how the Obama administration refused to define the military takeover in Egypt as a coup (or even address that issue) which, by law, would have forced a cancelation of US aid to that country. Our position was, unless Obama defines this as a coup, it's not a coup. But...I doubt the language of the statute itself drew that distinction. And who says, the USA is a country of laws, not men?
The Power of the President vs. "shall"
I'm going to quote part of Article II, Section 3, with my highlights in yellow:
QUOTE:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union...he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
:UNQUOTE.
Definition of the word "shall" from thefreedictionary.com:
"b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison."
I had blogged about the part that reads "he shall receive ambassadors...," to which someone took me to task, claiming: "The word 'shall' means that the President has the option of receiving ambassadors, to which I replied: "Does that mean the Commandment 'Thou Shalt not kill' means we have the option of killing?" I never got an answer to that one, since the word "shall," as highlighted four times above, makes clear that there's no choice here - the President must do these things.
The context of my earlier blog challenged the time-honored claim that only the US President has the power to grant or withdraw diplomatic recognition. My position, then and now, is that diplomatic recognition is a category of treaty and must be ratified by the Senate. Of course, that's not the way scholars have, for centuries, interpreted this power. But scholars can be wrong, you know - very wrong.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party - a virtual party
"All our enemies have to do to undermine us is to point to our own Constitution and show (quite easily) how we're not following our own most primary guiding document" - Steven Searle.
FOOT NOTE:
unconstitutional filibuster rule* in: I direct you to this link, in which I (and only I) am claiming (with arguments provided) that the filibuster is indeed unconstitutional:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2013/04/invitation-to-sue-senate-for.html
No comments:
Post a Comment