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:

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: Constitution, Iran, Israel, Obama, Sec. Kerry, Terrorism