<table class="uiGrid _51mz _5f0n" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Congress will not follow the Constitution about Treaty Ratification. WHY?
If anyone is curious why the Iran “treaty” deal is not being handled by the Republican Congress appropriately – this should be all you will need.
All the following information provide that the Iran agreement fully meets the definition of a treaty and Cornell Law School discusses the validity of the Senate authority to provide advice and consent on all treaties with two thirds of the Senate voting in the affirmative. There is no doubt that this document is a treaty requiring full two thirds approval of Senators present and should not be handled in a manner giving the President the unconstitutional ability to veto, yet that is what is happening and from a Republican Congress.
John Kerry in a Congressional hearing was asked why this is not being handled under Article II, Section 2 and his answer was – (paraphrased) We don’t do treaties anymore because they are too hard to get through the Senate. The follow-up by the Congressman questioner was (paraphrased) I understand. What is both sad and alarming, no one asked Kerry when 38 states ratified a change to the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2, allowing him and the President to wing it.
I have tried to get answers to the bypass of Article 2, Section 2 from both Senator McCain’s and Senator Flake’s D.C. offices, but was told to ask the question and we will respond in writing, most likely with a generic letter. I called Senator Flakes Phoenix office and after asking the question was placed on hold and left there until I hung up.
I have posted this as a means of waking people up to the bigger problem, not whether it passes and is vetoed, but when we are following the Constitution on something this serious. I write in the hopes that we can wake people up to what is happening. The vote of the Senators is important, but the manner in which this is being handled by Congress is more important and alarming. I have sent tweets and emails on this to news organizations, upon deaf ears as it seems.
One might ask why I am becoming apoplectic over this. It is because we are giving the world’s foremost terrorist state the ability to build a nuclear bomb, ICBM’s to deliver the bomb outside of Europe – across the Atlantic to our shores, and giving them $150B to buy conventional weapons and maybe ICBM’s to wage nuclear war and more terrorism. Kerry and Obama say that without this we will go to war. I remind all parties that Neville Chamberlain, to avoid war, gave Hitler’s Germany European states as territory to appease and to avoid war. Seems that did not work, because WWII got in the way. His actions actually brought on war and did nothing to stop war. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
Now for supporting documentation!
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He (Obama) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; (there is no veto power of the president here)and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Cornell Law School on the Treaty Power
Legal definition of a treaty. The definition meets this Iran deal.
Essentially they find no challenge to the Senate’s two thirds advice and consent in the Constitution, but do challenge the use of a treaty to make law, and bypass the tenth amendment, as well as bypass the federal government’s constitutional limits on protections of the states by using international courts and that should include the U.N. They also provide a legal definition of a treaty and this Iran deal meets that as well:
The U.N. has established what an international treaty is.
The definition of a treaty that meets the Iran deal can be found in this document:
Simple Standard Definition:
[ ˈtrētē ]
noun: treaty · plural noun: treaties
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
synonyms: agreement · settlement · pact · deal · entente · concordat · accord · protocol · convention · contract · covenant · bargain · pledge · concord · compact
Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press
YOU ALSO NEED TO FIND OUT WHY YOUR SENATOR IS IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION.