What’s Wrong With This Picture?-UPDATED

4
269

nuclear explosion

*UPDATE*- This just in: Corker Bill going nowhere. Obama and the Ayatollah Free to Destroy Israel

Full Definition of TREATY

1
: the action of treating and especially of negotiating
2
a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : private treaty (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state
b : a document in which such a contract is set down
Source: Merriam-Webster

In all the hue and cry about Barack Hussein Obama’s negotiations with Iran over their nuclear weapons capability, and all the publicity about Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress, in the midst of all this, up popped a proposal in the form of a bill by Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. This bill, if passed, would presume to give the Congress the opportunity to vote “Yea” or “Nay” on any “deal” Obama and the Iranians come up with.
So what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that a good thing the Republicans are doing, putting their foot down and saying “We’re going to stop you from making a bad deal with Iran, Obama!” On the face of it, it would be a good thing. The problem with it is, as most people who are constitutionally literate know, Obama is already prohibited from unilateral action in regards to making deals with foreign governments. It’s called Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 and it reads:

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;

The Breitbart article linked to above mentions the advice and consent provision in passing. A similar piece by The Wall Street Journal , which has a paywall, apparently doesn’t even know the Constitution exists. It merely talks about how if any Obama veto of the bill is not overridden, Obama can go on his merry way. And Guess What? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 notwithstanding, he will.

The point here is that the very act of submitting this legislation in the first place is a disingenuous act because it is bound to fail and after it fails, the oh-so-patriotic Corker and his Buds in the Beltway will cry great big crocodile tears about how they tried to stop Obama but their valiant efforts failed. But when Barack Hussein Obama concludes the dog-and-pony show he has been setting up with the able assist of his personal aide, the Iranian-born Valeri Jarrett, and announces his “historic” deal, the torn up pieces of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 will litter the streets of Washington, DC and the Republican establishment will NOT pick it up, put it back together and indict, impeach and convict Obama of violating the Constitution of the United States. For they refuse to wave it in his face as we speak, instead preferring to soon confer legitimacy on his act by claiming “the votes just weren’t there.”

And that is what’s wrong with the picture. Bob Corker, and the United States Senate, will be complicit in Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and as God is our witness, complicit in any use Iran makes of that weapon. Barack Obama will be derelict in his duty to submit the treaty for ratification and Congress (unless there is a surprise revolt in the House in some form we are not aware of) will be derelict in its duty to demand that submission.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not recognize “deals”. It only recognizes “treaties”. And it prescribes how they are to be dealt with.

One other interesting sidenote: It has not been made much of, but Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 mentions the ‘advice’ as well as the consent of the Senate. One would presume that, since the Senate operates under it’s own rules, that ‘advice’ would come in the form of a bill containing the President’s recommendations being introduced and referred to the cognizant committee, there to be passed out for final vote or quashed. Unless regular order has been suspended and unbeknownst to the Public there are Senators actively “advising” the President on these negotiations, which are part and parcel of the treaty as the dictionary definition explains, then the Corker bill is not only extra-constitutional, it is hasty. Because there has to be something concrete for the Senate to consider. It only further indicts the Senators in their obvious agreement that when their “bill” fails, the President can do as he pleases, because he is President.

Stop it. Just stop it.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] Crossposted at Unified Patriots […]

trackback

[…] McCarthy penned a piece today about “the Corker bill”. We had brought the subject up some six weeks ago here. Better late than never, Andy. Nobody else has wanted to talk about this throughout the whole hue […]

trackback

[…] McCarthy penned a piece today about “the Corker bill”. We had brought the subject up some six weeks ago here. Better late than never, Andy. Nobody else has wanted to talk about this throughout the whole hue […]

trackback

[…] seems like only yesterday (actually it was a few months back) that it was pointed out that Senator Bob Corker’s widely-hailed (in Congressional circles) gambit in limiting Obama’s ability to cater to the Iranian government as formulated in the […]