In their effort to undermine not only the President, but also the Constitution, forty seven Republican senators have written an open letter they pretend was addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." It is insulting and condescending, and its clear purpose is to interfere with President Obama's negotiations with Iran over nuclear weapons development.
I provide a link to the letter here (or click on the small version below). Go read it. I'll wait.
The message of this letter is clear: It doesn't matter what you agree to with this President. We Republican senators will never approve any agreement he negotiates with you. And the next president can therefore nullify any unratified agreement with a wave of his pen. So don't bother.
Second, the Constitution gives the President the power to negotiate treaties and other international agreements. For the Senate to interfere in that process as these senators are trying to do violates the basic principles of the separation of powers. Their lecturing on the Constitution is thus self-negating.
Third, late last year, Republicans tried to make a stink about the President writing letters to the leader of Iran, encouraging him to help fight ISIL. Now here they are, writing a letter to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," as if they hadn't previously criticized doing exactly that.
The worst dishonesty though is in who the audience of this letter really is. Yes, Republicans are trying to scuttle an international agreement that would stop Iranian nuclear weapons research, because such an agreement would make war with Iran less likely. An agreement would also mean yet another foreign policy victory for this President, once again undermining the Republican meme of President Obama somehow being inept at his job (Republicans are still trying to live down the embarrassment of Bush 2). Yes, Republicans are very much afraid an agreement is in sight -- they brought out Bibi in their attempt to stop it, and now they're doing this. That's all true, but these are all secondary considerations.
There's a reason this was an "open letter" rather than a communication sent through any official channels. It's not really intended to send a message to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." It is intended as fodder for the nutty right-wing base, in an effort to keep them riled up and engaged. The letter isn't really a lecture on the nature of our Constitution meant to educate Iranians -- it is intended to remind the nutty American right about the meme of President Obama trying to ignore the Constitution.
These 47 Morons are not pretending to lecture "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" about the Constitution. They are pretending to lecture the President. When they say, "you may not fully understand our constitutional system," it is the President toward whom they are directing that insult.
Republicans are losing this fight, and they know it. The President is free to negotiate an end to Iranian nuclear hopes, and they can't do anything about it. Mitch McConnell tried to schedule a vote in the Senate to pre-block approval of any such agreement, and was forced to un-schedule the vote. This is a fight Republicans can't win. All they can do is get their crazy base angry at President Obama once more doing something good for America.
ADDENDUM: It turns out, the Republicans who wrote this lecture on the Constitution apparently do not themselves understand the Constitution. They should be embarrassed, but then, Republicans are way beyond the capability to be embarrassed by their stupidity and perfidy.
I cannot recall any previous Congress acting with such childishness. And while this 'open letter' was signed by only 47 members, I find it troublesome. Why did the American populace elect people who behave in so publically foolish a manner?
ReplyDeleteAs expected, the blog format was so DC can write even more toxic diatribes....while I can't post any of my own. Sounds like you guys want to move this way left. I probably won't be able to take much of it. Enjoy.
ReplyDeleteAs regards RG's comment: IS there a way others can upload their own articles?
ReplyDeleteIf someone wants to publish their own articles, please email them to me, and I'll be glad to post them.
ReplyDeleteAnd to RG's comment, I note that he didn't even try to defend the action of the 47 Morons. He's aware there is no defense for that sort of unconstitutional attempt to undermine the President's authority.
DC, on your new blog I wish you would take a less harsh tone. I think you will find it to be more popular that way. Try to to realize that there is often more than one side to an issue. Differing opinions are a good thing. Everyone who disagrees with you is not a moron. If you put forth a good, solid argument, you don't need to insult people with whom you disagree. Civil discord is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteJust my two cents worth.
I assume you meant "civil discourse" is a good thing, not "civil discord", which probably isn't so good.
ReplyDeleteI would be more polite about this topic, but when 47 senators violate the Logan Act, it's hard to present that in a positive light. Sedition is often cause for some less than civil discourse.
And Grog my good friend, you may not have read carefully, but it was the 47 senators I called "morons", not people who simply disagree with me. I bet lots of the people who disagree with me and who didn't sign that letter are actually pretty smart.
ReplyDeleteWow, I did mean "civil discourse", but I suppose discord could be civil as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to more than just the tone you've taken in your article.
++ADDENDUM: It turns out, the Republicans who wrote this lecture on the Constitution apparently do not themselves understand the Constitution. They should be embarrassed, but then, Republicans are way beyond the capability to be embarrassed by their stupidity and perfidy.++
ReplyDeleteSemantics. Ratify vs. resolution to ratify. You're grasping at straws on this one.
"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."
Nothing in the letter is false. I don't know why the left has their panties all in a bunch over this one.
The Iranian Fireign Minister's response to the Open Letter
ReplyDeleteGrog,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is nit-picky. That's called "the law".
As the letter Valjiir linked makes clear, he Iranian foreign minister knows the US Constitution and international law somewhat better than do the 47 Morons.
As for why "panties" are "in a bunch" -- the letters is an unconstitutional attempt to scuttle negotiations meant to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. May I assume you want Republican senators to make common cause with Iranian hardliners who want to destroy Israel?
++"Yes, it is nit-picky. That's called "the law".++
ReplyDeleteThe law says "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."
++ the letters is an unconstitutional attempt to scuttle negotiations meant to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.++
No, it's not. The letter is telling Iran that the deal may not last.
Even Biden knows Congress must give consent before the President can make treaties.
ReplyDelete"Among the Framers it was Alexander Hamilton who, though renowned as the leading advocate of a strong presidency, stressed that it would have been 'utterly unsafe and improper' to entrust the power of making treaties to the president alone."
"The essence of the treaty power is that the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations."
"Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment."
+++ The letter is telling Iran that the deal may not last. +++
ReplyDelete...for the purpose of trying to scuttle negotiations, yes.
The only reason "the deal may not last" is if Republicans make common cause with Iranian hardliners in their attempts to thwart an international treaty that would prevent Iran from making a nuclear bomb. Can you explain why you want that?
What you are arguing is that the letter was completely useless, and nothing more than a propaganda stunt by the 47 Morons. You are arguing that the letter conveyed no information that the Iranian negotiators didn't already know (since most of then are better educated -- in American universities no less -- than are most of the 47 Morons). You may be correct in that argument -- the Iranian foreign minister certainly agrees with that part of your stance.
At any rate, it isn't the place of a minority of US senators to attempt to conduct foreign policy, particularly not a foreign policy in conflict with that of the President, whose constitutional duty it is to conduct foreign policy.
++As the letter Valjiir linked makes clear, he Iranian foreign minister knows the US Constitution and international law somewhat better than do the 47 Morons.++
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't. A President can conduct whatever international policy he wishes as long as he stays within the bounds of U.S. law. He cannot bind future Presidents and Congresses without the legislative branch weighing in. Do you think Bush could have made an agreement with the Prime Minister of Iraq in 2008 promising to keep 250,000 troops in his country for the next 25 years no matter what any future president or Congress had to say about it? Of course not. It's why we have separation of powers.
The fact that the foreign minister doesn't understand this is all the more reason the 47 Senators should have reminded Iran of how things work.
The foreign minister should also have realized that Obama violated agreements Bush made with Sharon in 2004 regarding geographical expansion.
ReplyDeleteSharon aide Dov Weissglas said, “If decision-makers in Israel discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106878803
The main problem with the Open Letter (as I see it) is the seditious tone. While it is true that Congress would need to "advise and consent" to a negotiated treaty, this letter is almost threatening the Iranian government with a refusal to do so - WITHOUT having seen what the treaty contains. In other words, these Senators are attempting to preemptively interfere with the constitutionally mandated role of the Executive branch. And that, my friends, sounds like sedition to me.
ReplyDelete+++ Do you think Bush could have made an agreement with the Prime Minister of Iraq in 2008 promising to keep 250,000 troops in his country for the next 25 years no matter what any future president or Congress had to say about it? +++
ReplyDeleteBush did make a Status of Forces agreement with the government of Iraq which President Obama honored. Is that the sort of thing to which you are referring?
+++ The foreign minister should also have realized that Obama violated agreements Bush made with Sharon in 2004 regarding geographical expansion. +++
Oh, you mean informal "agreements" that were not set in any formal language and did not involve the other major world powers, as this agreement will with Iran. Bush had a policy, Obama had a slightly different policy. Bush negotiated no formal agreement, This is a red herring and a total false equivalence.
+++ Sharon aide Dov Weissglas said, “If decision-makers in Israel discover, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges.”+++
So, you are advising no foreign power to ever negotiate any agreement or treaty with the United States. Correct?
And here you gave away the dishonesty of your argument. Weissglas referred to a "pledge", which is not a formal negotiated agreement, and did not involve the other World Powers. Apparently Sharon and Bush got drunk one night and pinky swore something-or-other. That doesn't count, and it is hardly the same thing.
This is something my brother wrote. I would encourage him to post it himself, but I think he's trying not to upstage me or something.
ReplyDeleteThis may provide an insight into the conservative mind, and into how modern Republicans actually think, and how and why they get what they believe is information. From this point of view, their actions are rational. They are simply based on false premises.
Granted this is all reading tea leaves… but I'm going to take a serious stab at why this Cotton fiasco happened.
I *think* that we are seeing the result of self-sorting news sources.
Bear with me. Remember in 2012, election night - a lot of prominent conservatives, Rove and Romney most notably, were honestly and fully thrown by the results. They weren't just being partisan advocates denying the reality as a ploy - it was obvious they were shocked. They had been fed partisan, misleading information that they /did not know/ was unreliable.
That means that Fox News isn't just fooling the rubes. Fox, and the conservative media apparatus of which it is the most prominent part, is able to convince extremely well-connected, powerful Republicans of blatant untruths. This shocked me a great deal. The idea that a man almost became president without any access to reliable news and information was terrifying.
But if once you accept that, the rest follows. The rhetoric of Fox News is that Barack Obama is barely making an effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb - that he and his entire administration are being hoodwinked by the treacherous Iraqis, who are about to leverage an agreement with Obama to accelerate their development of a nuclear bomb, at which point they will start a nuclear war by attacking Israel - and that this is not merely the opinion of a few fringe analysts but a mainstream, reasonable conclusion.
If you grant that this is what most Republican Senators honestly believe, that they are fully convinced this is true, then they honestly believe that the situation is critically desperate, and that by attempting to intimidate Iran they are acting as the last possible line of defense against an otherwise-inevitable nuclear war.
It also follows that they are poorly informed about the nature of the Iranian government itself. That they would take it upon themselves to lecture the Iranian foreign minister - condescendingly and incompetently - about the nature of US democracy can only be believable if they are ignorant of the fact that the Iranian foreign minister received his degree in international relations from the University of Colorado, which would presumably include a course on American government.
This is, in many ways, far more terrifying than believing that they are fully informed and attempting some sort of shrewd political ploy to weaken the President, undermine a legitimate negotiation, and force an avoidable war. If I am correct, they do not believe that a war is avoidable at all, and they are therefore desperate to force it to happen sooner, rather than later, before Iran is equipped with nuclear arms. And they are doing so incompetently, because the same source of misinformation about the nature of the negotiations and the nature of the Obama administration is also a source of extreme misinformation about the intelligence level and discernment of the Iranians.
rgb,
ReplyDeleteRemember when the idiots assured us that ISIS was the JV team? Now the idiots expect us to trust them with their nuclear weapon negotiations with a nations that sponsors terrorism.