Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power by Two Crooks , New Yorks Times Op Ed

[Mr. Sparkle]

January 5, 2009
Op-Ed Contributors
Restore the Senate’s Treaty Power
By JOHN R. BOLTON and JOHN YOO

THE Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.

Like past presidents, Mr. Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a Congressional-executive agreement).

Executive agreements have an acknowledged but limited place in our foreign affairs. Congressional-executive agreements are far more troubling. They have evoked scathing attacks by constitutional experts and have been strongly resisted in the Senate, at least so far.

The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful, mature decision-making.

Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05bolton.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Who says the New York Times don't do Humour. This should have been posted in the Sunday's funnies section.

[bluestateguy]

1. It's not patriotic to criticize the president

I'm just using their rhetoric against them.

[Idealism]

2. John Yoo should not be allowed to preach his ideology to the masses

He has done much damage to this country and our standing in the world.

[jaxx]

3. Pretty f'd up aren't they?

How those two who helped to rape the constitution have the insanity to now come along and demand Obama do anything! They're so used to dealing with the base they think we're all stupid.

[Still Sensible]

4. Anything under a byline that says

"By JOHN R. BOLTON and JOHN YOO" is pure horse shit and should be completely dismissed.

They just don't want our new president to have the same flexibility as his predecessors. Obama might do something Bolton and Yoo won't like.

I say good... blow it out your ass. Now get off the stage.

[caraher]

5. Hey Bolton and Yoo...

STFU!

You had your chance to implement your morally and intellectually bankrupt policies, with predictable results. You should get down on your knees every morning and thank whatever ghoulish God you pray to for every day you continue evade justice for your crimes against humanity.