Traitors Or Patriots? Media Vs. Constitution *Open Thread*


Oh, boy. The crap is sure hitting the fan this week over a letter 47 Republicans sent to Iran regarding this deal Obama and Sec. Kerry are working so hard to effect with Iran. You know, Iran, the country that has held Americans hostage, killed Americans, wants Israel to be annihilated, AND supports terrorism. THAT Iran.

Just this morning, the NY Daily News had this cover to make clear where THEY stand:

NY Daily News

Yeah, they land on the “TRAITORS!” side. Those seem like some mighty strong words considering what certain Presidents have been doing to unsecure our borders, unsecure our nation, dismantle our military, routinely govern by Fiat, and tax the bejeezus out of those who are working to pay for those who are not. But hey, I guess being a “traitor” is in the eye of the beholder, huh?

Just what is this brouhaha about, you might ask? Here is Sen. Tom Cotton discussing the letter and its intent Monday morning (h/t Western Journalism for the video):

See, to me, that seems pretty clear. I know what the Constitution says about the Separation of Powers. You would think those who went to Law School, who take the oath of office to protect the Constitution, would have a clue, too, but it seems all one has to do is redefine words to skirt the intent and declaration of this foundational document.

Take for instance this AP article by Alan Fram:

[…] In an open letter to Iranian leaders, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and 46 other Republicans said that without congressional approval, any deal between Iran and the U.S. would be merely an agreement between President Barack Obama and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they wrote, “and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Though the letter is addressed to leaders in Tehran, it seems as much aimed at delivering a message to Obama.

Republicans and some Democrats want Congress to vote on any agreement. The pact the bargainers are working on does not require congressional approval because it is not a treaty, which would require a two-thirds majority Senate vote to be ratified. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, see? It’s a “PACT,” not a “treaty,” ergo, no need for the Congress to worry its silly little head about this negotiation with his most dangerous of nations.

Perhaps Mr. Fram might want to actually look at a THESAURUS sometime. He will see that “treaty” is right there as a SYNONYM for “PACT.”

Oh, and if you want to know more about this author, Alan Fram, do a little search on him and see how often the word “bias” crops up. It is telling indeed and seems to indicate how routinely his ideological bias comes into play.

So, that is how some in the media are portraying this whole letter by the Republican Senators. How about those who actually know something about the Constitution? Take this piece by Stephen L. Carter, a Bloomberg contributor, but more importantly, a Yale Law School professor, which appeared in my local paper, Meddling in Iran Talks Is Congress’s Job. Now, the headline does seem to give you an indication, but let’s look at what Professor Carter has to say:

Put aside the overheated spat about the wisdom of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress this week. The deeper constitutional issue involves the insistence by President Barack Obama that the House and Senate have no business floating sanctions bills that might upset the administration’s negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The truth is that there’s nothing remotely unusual going on. Congress has pressured presidents to change their approaches to foreign policy for as long as the country has existed. This sort of interplay among the branches is exactly what the Framers expected.

[Professor Carter gives three examples over the past four decades. Click here to read them all.]

This unambiguous history makes it all the more remarkable that members of the Obama administration continue to insist that there is something constitutionally troubling about, for example, the proposed Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015, which would require the president to submit for congressional approval whatever agreement he reaches with Tehran. “I don’t think there ought to be a formal approval process,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in congressional testimony last month. “I believe this falls squarely within the executive power of the president of the United States in the execution of American foreign policy.”

The authors of the Constitution would have disagreed. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, defended against skeptics the Senate’s role in approving or disapproving any agreement that would bind the nation abroad: “The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

To be sure, the nation hasn’t always abided by the wisdom of the Founders, and presidents have often undertaken to bind the U.S. without seeking a formal vote. The fact that Congress has too frequently acquiesced in such efforts doesn’t mean that the legislative branch lacks the authority to put up a fight when it chooses.

We can argue long and hard over the proper contours of the final deal with Tehran. But it’s wrong to suggest that Congress is misbehaving when it insists on protecting its prerogatives. Battles between the executive and legislative branches over foreign policy are as old as the republic. If the outcome of the current fight is a restriction on the freedom of this or a future president to go his own way, that’s a feature, not a bug. (Click here to read the rest.)

Exactly, it’s a “FEATURE” of the Constitution. It’s wrong for so many, from media lapdogs to Democrats themselves to act as if the Republicans are out of line for wanting, nay, DEMANDING, to do their Constitutional duty.

But if that doesn’t convince you, perhaps this little lesson from Greta van Susteren, also an attorney and former law professor, might (h/t Facebook friend):

Preach it, Greta – Presidents of the United States are not dictators or kings. The Media, Democrats, and Obama himself, would do well to remember that.

This is an Open Thread.


Tags: , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Traitors Or Patriots? Media Vs. Constitution *Open Thread*”

  1. foxyladi14 Says:

    Iran did not like the letter we sent. 🙂

  2. foxyladi14 Says:

    Hillary splains things. 🙂

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Yeah, they are apoplectic on The Five abt this press conference, how planted some of the questions, and what a TERRIBLE job Clinton did. And THAT came from the Dem on the panel, Julie Roginsky.

      That people continue to give her a pass is just astonishing.

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        Clinton caught in a lie – not very newsworthy since it is far from the first time. The news is that some lefty outlets are actually reporting it.

        Caught in a Lie

        During a press conference on Tuesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to the podium to answer questions about her use of a private email account (using a private server from her family home) to conduct official State business. At the conclusion of the press conference, however, many reporters, pundits, and citizens alike walked away having even more questions for the presumptive Democratic presidential frontrunner than they did before it began.

        It also seems one of the Clintons has been caught in a lie.

        • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

          That it does, Marge – thanks for this and the funny photo! I’ll have something more on this issue later, but yeah – Trey Gowdy said last night he has more questions than answers now…

  3. foxyladi14 Says:

    Kinda bassackwards there. 👿

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      I was STUNNED when Obama claimed Reps were in cahoots were Iranian hardliners. That is BEYOND offensive for him to say. And the media said, “Baaaaaaaa, Baaaaa…”

  4. foxyladi14 Says:

    Go Joe!!! 🙂

  5. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    A friend shared this link of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s response to Hillary’s press conference:

  6. kenoshamarge Says:

    I thought this was a good, strong, VDH piece. I don’t always agree with him but in this case I do.

    Israel, Jews and the Obama Administration

    by Victor Davis Hanson

  7. kenoshamarge Says:

    Doncha just love Jonah Goldberg?

    Carefully Scripted Hillary Knocked Out of Comfort Zone

    In the wake of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fairly disastrous press conference at the United Nations on Tuesday, there’s only one conclusion shared by all parties: This was not how it was supposed to go.

    This was supposed to be the month Clinton led with her chief selling point: her gender. She had put together a whole “I Am Woman, Hear Me Bore” speaking tour in which women’s issues — particularly the women’s issues that poll well among women who care a lot about women’s issues — would be the main subject.

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      He is awesome! Yrah, I do want a woman president some day, but I want one who is worthy or the office, one who cares abt the country, not the party, one who is scrupulous, ethical, and above reproach. Hillary that ain’t.

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        Those who are silly enough to just want a woman to be president, without much caring who or what she is remind us of what you get when you look only for gender or race. We have had our first “black” president and he has been an ethical, incompetent, dishonest, arrogant mess.

        Like you Rev, I want to see a woman in the White House. But I don’t want that woman to be a woman like Hillary Clinton. She had proved herself unfit many times over.

        There was a time when I did not believe all that was said about her dishonesty – that time is past. We don’t need another president who lies without compunction. It would be like giving the lying POS in the White House another term. Albeit in a pantsuit.

  8. HELENK3 Says:

    for being only 7 years old, this kid got a lot of government office holders all wee weeed up didn’t he

    • kenoshamarge Says:

      Wow, takes a really big man to “fire back” at a 7 year old. Shame on the kid for telling the truth – can’t have that can we?

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        No kidding, huh? Wow, what is wrong with these people? They’ll go after little kids if it affects their ideology? Wow…

  9. HELENK3 Says:

    America’s ex-wife

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: