Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mitch McConnell, the Corker Bill, and the Secret to Trump’s Success — Revealed
Ace of Spades points out a GOP pattern: They construct a compromise with the White House that gives Obama all the power he requests and then pretend to vote against it, so that “they can then they go home to their districts and states and say ‘we did everything we could to stop him, but by jiminy, we just couldn’t manage it.'”
Do you remember how Mitch McConnell schemed to increase the debt limit, while suckering conservatives with a claim that conservatives voted against it?
The scheme worked like this: Congress authorized the president to increase the debt limit on his authority. (Actually, we’re already at the stage of falsehood, because he wouldn’t be raising the debt limit on his own authority, but with the authority Congress had just voted him.)
Now, the deal also granted, supposedly, Congress the power to block the raising of the debt limit, by voting a “resolution of disapproval.”
But here’s the thing: The president can veto that.
Which is what he did, of course.
So the debt limit was raised in this way:
1. Republicans voted to give Obama the power to raise the debt limit. They didn’t take responsibility for this themselves; they just said Obama could do so, if he wanted.
2. But Republicans retain the right to “block” it, supposedly, with a vote of disapproval.
3. But which Obama can veto — which every Republican knows he will do.
4. McConnell, Corker, and all the other other con artists now get to claim they didn’t raise the debt limit. Heck, they even voted a Resolution of Disapproval against it.
What they don’t tell you is that this had been designed from the start to pass the debt limit increase, with a fake Resolution of Disapproval voted on and vetoed, which had been planned from the start, so that they could lie and say they “voted against” the increase in the debt limit.
As Ace points out, Andrew McCarthy describes the same feckless abdication of responsibility in Congress’s Corker Bill strategy:
A nuclear Iran would be a threat that is similarly transformative. To know that, we need only listen to the White House tut-tutting about how “unrealistic” it would be to expect the mullahs to renounce their support for terrorism in exchange for sanctions relief. …
So Beltway Republicans are ready to put up a fight, right? About as much of a fight, it seems, as they were ready to make against mounting debt. Cravenly elevating their own political interest over the national interest, many on the GOP side of the political class calculate that it is more important to avoid blame for frustrating Obama — this time, on his delusional Iran deal — than to succeed in actually frustrating Obama.
But alas, that annoying Constitution is again an obstacle to shirking accountability. It does not empower the president to make binding agreements with foreign countries all on his own — on the theory that the American people should not take on enforceable international obligations or see their sovereignty compromised absent approval by the elected representatives most directly accountable to them.
Thus, the Constitution mandates that no international agreement can be binding unless it achieves either of two forms of congressional endorsement: a) super-majority approval by two-thirds of the Senate (i.e., 67 aye votes), or b) enactment through the normal legislative process, meaning passage by both chambers under their burdensome rules, then signature by the president.
The Corker bill is a ploy to circumvent this constitutional roadblock. That is why our post-sovereign, post-constitutional president has warmed to it. Because it would require the president to submit any Iran deal to Congress, it is drawing plaudits for toughness. But like McConnell’s debt legerdemain, it’s a con job. Once the deal is submitted, Congress would have 60 days (or perhaps as few as 30 days) to act. If within that period both houses of Congress failed to enact a resolution of disapproval, the agreement would be deemed legally binding — meaning that the sanctions the Iranian regime is chafing under would be lifted. …
To summarize, the Constitution puts the onus on the president to find 67 Senate votes to approve an international agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify an ill-advised deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on Congress to muster 67 votes to block an agreement.
Under the Constitution, Obama’s Iran deal would not have a prayer. Under the Corker bill, it would sail through. And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes.
This is not how our system works. Congress is supposed to make the laws we live under. … That a lawless president would undertake to eviscerate these constraints is to be expected. But is he really much worse than an entrenched political class that anxiously forfeits its powers to stop him?
Or, as Jack Nicholson once said about the Ruling Class:
Published in General, Politics
No, the House’s impeachment was studied and careful. The reckless part was the Senate, which refused to do its duty and conduct a trial. Like, with evidence.
This is just sticking your finger in your ears and yelling, “NYAAA, NYAAAA, NYAAAA, I can’t hear you!!”
The administration designed the form and implementation of the deal to skirt the requirements which would constitute a treaty. Had they wanted to get a treaty the deal and it’s mechanisms would look different and be binding beyond the Obama presidency. It’s not a treaty because Obama and Kerry made sure it wasn’t a treaty. That’s what Kerry is saying.
Again, read what John Yoo has to say on this precise point.
Oh come off it. He was explicitly asked, “why isn’t this a treaty?” He gave no legal basis for the distinction between an executive agreement and a treaty, and he provided no explanation for why this should be considered an executive agreement instead of a treaty. His own answer is that they know they couldn’t pass a treaty. He gave no criteria in how the agreement would differ if it were a treaty because there are none. His own answer assumes the agreement would be a treaty if he thought they could pass it.
This is just revisionism. The reason the senate didn’t hold the trial was because they knew they would never secure the votes needed to remove Clinton from office. The facts of Clinton’s misbehavior and perjury were all known to the public. The public didn’t care. Everyone was fat and happy in the afterglow of the defeat of communism and swimming in the returns on their IRAs and 401ks during the dotcom bubble. No one was interested in seeing congress create political turmoil and instability during the most optimistic and happy times the country had enjoyed since the 1950s.
The more republicans pressed the impeachment they found they were losing as much popularity, if not more, as Clinton was. The senate realized rightly that they were out over their skis and that they needed to just end the whole affair.
You are just being a pedant.
Read this, for the love of God, read this.
http://ricochet.com/why-obamas-executive-action-on-iran-does-not-violate-the-law/
No, you come off it. Kerry said treaties are impossible to pass, great. So what?
Answer the question. How is this agreement a treaty and not an executive agreement?
That wasn’t “reckless”, it was principled. They did their duty carefully and soberly. The revisionism is to call the House “reckless” for being willing to do something unpopular.
If impeachment is off the table, and government shutdowns are off the table — because the representatives in our Republic have decided to transform it into a direct democracy — then there are no Constitutional checks on the power of the president. In that case, the Constitution is a dead letter.
Thanks to Max for helping me find something I wrote about McConnell’s debt ceiling stunt years ago.
Republican failures are too consistent to be accidental. They’re not fools. They’re liars.
Now, you’re getting it.
We don’t enjoy the rule of law. We don’t enjoy democracy. We have entered an age of mob rule and cynical manipulation of the populace by the elite.
At which point, the reason not to start shooting is…?
Agreements made by prior Presidents under their executive authority have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers. No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority. If Presidents could make major long-term agreements on their own authority, simply by calling them agreements instead of treaties, that would wholly undermine the Article II, Section 2 process and make a mockery of the framers’ assumption that the Senate supermajority would check ill-advised presidential treatymaking.
I respect Yoo, but I disagree with him. See my response to Klaatu. And neither of you seem to have a problem with Kerry openly saying the only reason this isn’t a treaty is not because there was something fundamental to the character of the agreement that made it an executive agreement instead of a treaty. No, it was solely that they knew they couldn’t pass a treaty and went with their best option of bypassing Congress. Why do neither of you have a problem with this? Why are you defending the administration subverting the rule of law?
This is why I love VDH’s Classicist podcast (which you all listen to, right?)
Trump is Clodius Pulcher – a demagogue from the patrician class who whips up the mob as his personal power base and sets the populares against the optimates to rise in influence and power.
A startling number of objections to Trump as president (not the Republican nominee, which is a whole other story) boil down to the fact that he hasn’t climbed the American cursus honorum which moves from personal success to finance campaigns from local executive or legislative office, to state legislative office, to state executive office or national legislative office, to president.
If Trump had decided to run for governor of New York as a Republican and won, then had fought the legislature, overturned the fracking ban and tried to destroy regulation – all of which seem to me highly likely because they would have played to the “mob” of voters outside of NYC – I think there would probably be fewer objections even though he’d still be as objectionable
The fear of death, really.
An executive agreement, unlike a Treaty, cannot contradict existing Federal Law. Sanctions against Iran could not be permanently lifted without Congressional approval. American Courts have awarded $45 billion in damages to US citizens against Iran. I am not sure that the President by Executive Agreement could disregard the courts and release the frozen assets without satisfying these claims. Finally if some of the reports on the deal are true then there is at least some concern that this deal contradicts the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. Executive Agreements can not contradict existing treaties.
This is not an arms control agreement in the traditional sense as it imposes no limits on our arms capability.
This agreement is not necessarily long term, as an executive agreement it can be rescinded by the president at any time.
The key difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is an executive agreement cannot compel another branch of government to abide by it. Treaties are generally not self-executing, they require legislation to be passed in order to be effective. This agreement requires Congress to do nothing. It does not have to lass any implementing legislation, it does not require it to repeal any legislation, not does it require the allocation of any funds.
Congress gave the president the power to roll back the sanctions back in 2010.
Exactly. The Obama presidency is the perfect storm to accomplish the Left’s aims — the destruction of the American Republic. I think even Alinsky and Cloward would be surprised at their success. Piven is alive to see for herself.
The Republican majority Congress will not stand up to a lawless, capricious executive. The SCOTUS is nearly the same, either because the justices agree with Obama’s transformation agenda, or they’re afraid to besmirch the Court in the eyes of the “public” (Roberts).
Obama can do anything he damn well pleases and everyone knows it. There’s a word for a man with unlimited power — begins with “ty,” ends with “rant.”
Might as well lie back and have a smoke. It’s over.
Congress gave the president the power to waive sanctions. A future president is not bound by his predecessor’s waiver.
I am not sure the courts or the president can disperse frozen funds to satisfy a judgment.
NPT concerns are an issue for whatever body is charged with enforcement, no?
And where better than Colorado?
My sense of deep shame at being “Main Feeded” by editorial mainstreaming of my more inflammatory posting style is overcome by my delight at seeing that Jack Nicholson scene in all its glory.
Veni, vidi, Vichy!
Fair point. Just establishing parameters.
See Conrad Black & Mark Steyn on Milt Rosenberg. The United States has made no effective progress against its profligate spending and debt.
Some of the terms appear to constrain US action in the future. Of course, we’re still not sure what all is in the agreement including various side deals that continue to trickle out. Iran seems to think this is a binding agreement. What additional problems does that cause if the next President unilaterally announces it as rescinded? Do they drop all pretense and proceed to making nuclear weapons (assuming they aren’t still doing this anyway)? All of this could have been avoided by following the Article II treaty standards, but we know they didn’t do that because it wouldn’t have passed. What is the point of Article II if the President can just bypass it by calling it something else? A check on authority that is unenforceable is not a real check.
That power is temporary, for national security purposes and requires constant written re-certification that a compelling national security concern continues to exist that requires the roll back of the sanctions.
I agree, it would have been better for this agreement to be presented as a treaty but my preference hardly equates to a constitutional requirement.
The point of treaty is it is binding on the whole of the U.S. government.
THIS. While I agree with the overall point of this OP regarding the feckless, ineffective and untrustworthy behavior of GOP Congressional leadership, Congress is in this mess with the Iran deal because of its own actions over a period of decades and, more recently, its actions in leaving it with the President to decide when to waive sanctions on Iran, a position consistent with long-time Republican and Conservative approaches to national security which have opposed Congressional interference with Executive powers in foreign affairs (and when GW Bush was originally given authority for some sanctions in 2006, Republicans and Conservative opposed attempts by Democrats in Congress to restrain his power to waive such sanctions). Without the Corker bill, President Obama could lift the sanctions unilaterally. For more read this.
And after you read Goldsmith’s critique of McCarthy, read McCarthy’s response.
Read your Locke. The appeal to heaven is the last resort.
I figure we got maybe 4 more resorts before we get there.