I honestly don't think this was the case with Obama. I think he came into the presidency with a perhaps-naive, idealistic idea of bridging the divide and working with the opposing party. But, the Republican Party had decided at the same time as a matter of strategy to take advantage of this desire for collaboration to oppose and undermine him on all fronts. Once Obama saw that collaboration would be impossible, he switched to a more Machiavellian approach, which has born fruit in the executive order on immigration and a host of other things. I don't think there's any cure for it -- I think our government structure incentivizes this behavior. Whoever the next president it is, this will keep going.
christ. the republicans really don't care about standing as one. Unity in the face of others is too important to break jut like that.
"While the letter’s signatories are U.S. senators, that does not mean they have the “authority of the United States” as required by the law since when it comes to conducting foreign policy, the executive branch is the United States, taking into consideration the occasional “Advice and Consent of the Senate” as prescribed by the Constitution. However, this letter is neither advice, nor consent. It’s directly addressed to leaders of a foreign government presently involved in talks with the U.S., and it is designed to thwart those talks. Unless the senators were authorized by the president to address Iran’s leaders in this letter, a case can be made that 47 U.S. senators just violated a federal law that carries a prison term of up to three years." 47 Republicans May Have Just Broken the Law
it's good to be the king <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>WH says if nuke deal is reached with Iran it won't be a treaty subject to Senate ratification.</p>— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) <a href="https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/575004632746967040">March 9, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
You do know that the US Senate does not ratify treaties, don't you? https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display.htm Sure appears the person you are citing doesn't....
Are you claiming Obama will only proceed with ratification if advise and consent has been given by the Senate?
Some good articles on what's going on here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...e_republicans_latest_iran_ploy_is_brazen.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/u...ran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html?_r=0
What a load of crap this post is. The dysfunction in Washington today is exactly what the Republicans (and you) want. Of course you want everything to go through a Republican Congress, that way absolutely nothing would get accomplished which is, again, exactly what the Republicans want. Anyone who is somewhat objective and has an IQ north of 70 knows which party is primarily responsible for the partisan divide in Washington right now. It seems that the only time when the two parties are capable of working together is when there is a Republican in the Oval Office. That in itself is pretty indicative of which party is capable of governing like adults and which party chooses to govern like 9 year old children who are bitter because their Nintendo got taken away.
First of all, you are welcome. I was very happy to correct both you and Mark Knoller on how treaties are ratified. Second, while the Senate has the ability to provide advise and consent, the President is not required to ratify a treaty that the Senate provides advise and consent to. But by taking this unprecedented act of communicating directly with a foreign leader that the President is currently in discussions in, we may not actually know what President Obama will do. Senator Cotton (who has already admitted publicly that he intended to block any effort the President might make for such a treaty) and the Senators who sent the letter obviously didn't know constitutional law nor their own Senate rules when they included this in the letter: Whoa... seems like Senator Cotton and the GOP senators have some learning to do too.
Executive actions aren't a protocol breach. They're done hundreds of times with any presidency. The crazies just want to focus on Obama when he does them. I remember when the stated goal of congressional leadership wasn't to hold the President to one term. I remember when Congress didn't hold the government hostage to get its way. Your selective amnesia is telling.
Can y'all imagine if a Democratic Congress had done this to a Republican President? Anyway I don't know if any laws have been broken. Senators have the right to write letters even to foreign leaders but this really scews up the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Ironically if this sinks a deal with Iran it will make it more likely than less likely that Iran gets a nuke.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QDfVkQqQ7v4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
"He (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" If the president doesn't have the Advice and Consent of the Senate, meaning a 2/3 vote, even if he enters into a treaty it won't be effective until they get the vote ratifying the treaty. This is really basic stuff people.
Obama has consistently failed to adequately represent the United States' interests in conflicts involving Muslim countries. Syria, Iran, Libya, the list goes on and on. There is a reluctance to get tough with these countries, and when things don't go our way, this Administration basically drops it and move on to a new issue. This, overlaid against the disastrous relations with Israel really make you pause and ask "s Obama conflicted in dealing with these nations? Obama's father was raised a Muslim, and Obama himself was a citizen of Kenya as a child. Obama's most important and trusted political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, was born in Iran. Are these considerations clouding his judgment? Probably. Is it enough to make the GOP and Israel quite apprehensive about any deal that Obama strikes with Iran? Absolutely it would. And the fact that Obama has already proven himself to be a terrible negotiator (Beau Bergdahl, deserter, traded for 5 known terrorists), only adds fuel to the fire. Congress is right to step in and demand to be involved in this negotiation, as they have been involved in the last 20 of these. It is Obama who is breaching protocol, all because he is incapable of working across party lines.
Obama is such a terrible negotiator that Republicans won't negotiate with him for fear that they'll get everything they want. His childhood citizenship and the Muslim father he never knew have conflicted Obana into assuring Iran the nuclear capability to destroy Israel. It's all part of his master plan.
