"Conservatives", who say they love the Constitution with religious intensity, hate what the Constitution established, democracy and the presidency. When someone figures this out, please contact me and let me know the formula.
One moment, the right is calling Obama a weak and ineffective leader. The next moment, they say he has overstepped his powers and is dictatorial. Which is it, Senator Cotton? Is he a weak, ineffective dictator? (No such thing exists.)
The Republicans are working overtime trying to create a nation that cannot be governed by any means. Then, if they accomplish this goal, they can use it as "proof' that the federal government is itself ineffective.
No one should blame the Democrats if they use these exact low blow tactics against the next Republican in the White House. There are no gains from this galloping stupidity except those who get a momentary thrill from public attention, no matter its source.
http://terryreport.com
One moment, the right is calling Obama a weak and ineffective leader. The next moment, they say he has overstepped his powers and is dictatorial. Which is it, Senator Cotton? Is he a weak, ineffective dictator? (No such thing exists.)
The Republicans are working overtime trying to create a nation that cannot be governed by any means. Then, if they accomplish this goal, they can use it as "proof' that the federal government is itself ineffective.
No one should blame the Democrats if they use these exact low blow tactics against the next Republican in the White House. There are no gains from this galloping stupidity except those who get a momentary thrill from public attention, no matter its source.
http://terryreport.com
25
For those expressing concerns about treaty vs non-treaty and who is or isn't overstepping their authority, It's all covered pretty extensively in 11 FAM 700 on the State Department's website:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/11fam
If you actually go through it, it's not hard to see that given the stage of the negotiations, why the Secretary of State and the White House are fuming.
Congress might also want to consider the implications for the US sanctions against Iran if the UN Security councils ends UN Sanctions against Iran, which are the legal basis for our current sanctions. By messing this agreement up, they might have really shot themselves in the foot.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/11fam
If you actually go through it, it's not hard to see that given the stage of the negotiations, why the Secretary of State and the White House are fuming.
Congress might also want to consider the implications for the US sanctions against Iran if the UN Security councils ends UN Sanctions against Iran, which are the legal basis for our current sanctions. By messing this agreement up, they might have really shot themselves in the foot.
10
Did John Kerry meet with enemies of the USA (at the request of Kennedy hoping to limit Reagan to one term) when Reagan was President?
Did Nancy Pelosi meet with an enemy of the USA when GWB was President?
The answer to both is yes. Read your history.
Did Nancy Pelosi meet with an enemy of the USA when GWB was President?
The answer to both is yes. Read your history.
10
Are you kidding? The author goes back to the 19th century to make an argument. She does so while ignoring the countless episodes of Democrats conducting their own foreign policy while undermining the sitting president. Their shenanigans go back at least as far as the Vietnam War. None of the outraged liberal posts here acknowledge the simple fact of the repeated interference by Democrats in foreign policy and the unequivocal precedent their nonsense has set. What do we attribute this amnesia to? They all went to shabby, Democrat run public schools? Dishonesty? Hypocrisy? The rotten old double standard or a desperate need to defend the leader of their high school clique? The simple truth is that they are outraged that Obama's and the Democrat Party's tactics are now being applied to Obama. About time.
12
The fact is that the "infamous" letter to Iran signed by 47 Republican senators achieved its objective: It highlighted the major policy differences between the President and Congressional Republicans who have embraced the "no deal, no way" position of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Obama brought this on himself by stating repeatedly that he didn't need Congressional approval for what he was doing or could do in large swathes of the Islamic world. And an executive order can, without doubt, be withdrawn by the next president. Undiplomatic as their action was, the 47 have highlighted a weakness in Obama's strategy and made Iran an issue in the next presidential campaign.
5
Are these 47 worth trying for treason? I doubt it. Hopefully they won't pass on the next election. Hopefully.
6
Thanks for this op-ed. This is a side of U.S. history I would venture many do not know.
6
It is disturbing to see this type of foolishness in this day and age. Perhaps we'd understand that a rabid, freshman senator could do something this brash. What is hard to understand is the other 46 signatures by veteran senators on an error filled document that is wrong on the law, wrong on the facts and wrong in principle. The Iranian leader said that it's “a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within.”. Maybe he's right.
19
The underlying problem is an arguably unacceptable expansion of the powers of the executive branch.
Obama is "going rogue" with his executive orders and attempts to disenfranchise the historical and constitutional roles of the legislature to bypass their "advice" and "consent." Maybe people would feel they do not have to resort to such measures if Obama was more inclusive and built a consensus instead of further expanding the unilateral powers of the executive branch.
Anyone who was appalled at the expansion of the presidential powers from the Bush administration but approves of the even more expanded presidential powers from the Obama administration is a complete partisan hypocrite.
Obama is "going rogue" with his executive orders and attempts to disenfranchise the historical and constitutional roles of the legislature to bypass their "advice" and "consent." Maybe people would feel they do not have to resort to such measures if Obama was more inclusive and built a consensus instead of further expanding the unilateral powers of the executive branch.
Anyone who was appalled at the expansion of the presidential powers from the Bush administration but approves of the even more expanded presidential powers from the Obama administration is a complete partisan hypocrite.
10
Exact wording of Article II of US Constitution:
The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the United States Senate Senate, to make Treaty|Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Odd that Ms. DuVal does not even mention this rather important detail in her Op-Ed piece - at the very least she could argue that the Constitution is an anachronism appropriately and rightly ignored by this administration.
The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the United States Senate Senate, to make Treaty|Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Odd that Ms. DuVal does not even mention this rather important detail in her Op-Ed piece - at the very least she could argue that the Constitution is an anachronism appropriately and rightly ignored by this administration.
8
The hatred of the Republicans for President Obama is so extreme that their only agenda is to destroy him completely on every issue large or small. If the traitor issue has only a tiny change of being implemented, I still feel that the Democrats should go forth with it as the constitution clearly states. The issue of possible congressional approval or not, is a separate one and does not erase the fact that the Republicans violated the constitution ,period. If the roles were reversed that is what the "haters" would do. The Democrats just don't know how to confront enemies be it ISIS, Iraq, Iran or the Republican party.
8
In addition to possibly meeting the definition of treason, the letter is deliberately condescending to the Iranian negotiators, many of whom have degrees from American universities. I am sure the Iranians remember Mossadegh and do not wish to see a situation in which similar interference is possible. Can we blame them?
8
I read that this is a first for a Congressional body to behave this way. So in what world would they or anyone consider this "conservative"? They need to describe themselves differently.
8
The actions by the 47 Senate Republicans is actually be helpful. Their rhetoric and the behavior of the George W. Bush administration in Iraq should help remind the Iranians that we are an erratic and dangerous people in possession of a large and powerful conventional military and a world destroying nuclear arsenal.
Say and do as you wish, but in the end you are playing with the most dangerous nuts on the block....
Say and do as you wish, but in the end you are playing with the most dangerous nuts on the block....
4
Senator Tom Cotton's (R - AK) letter was an freshman prank -- not even sophomoric! -- to get noticed by his ooky, pimple-faced peers. Like Joe Wilson (R - SC) shouting "Liar" at the President, this kind of stunt gets you credibility with the gang. That so many senior Senators jumped into the prank with both feet, however, is deeply embarrassing for every American. America isn't "awesome" right now. It looks stupid, and the current crop of Republicans on Capitol Hill is 100% responsible. If not criminally prosecuted, I hope at least they never live this shameful subversion down.
20
Ms. Duval,
How do you characterize the offense of these 47 senators - impeachable offense, confusing action, untrustworthy move, or just naivety on one individual (tea party) who wanted to have media hype without any consequence or love for the rest of Americans. Is there any course now for us to take for saving us from such future humiliation?
How do you characterize the offense of these 47 senators - impeachable offense, confusing action, untrustworthy move, or just naivety on one individual (tea party) who wanted to have media hype without any consequence or love for the rest of Americans. Is there any course now for us to take for saving us from such future humiliation?
4
The Mutinous 47....in my view should be thrown out of Congress for
undermining our Executive Branch...sic. The Logan Act.
No ???..\
Well if you say not...then you would be wrong...and SCOTUS should decide.
in spite of John Roberts.
undermining our Executive Branch...sic. The Logan Act.
No ???..\
Well if you say not...then you would be wrong...and SCOTUS should decide.
in spite of John Roberts.
4
"The history of random Americans negotiating with foreign powers. It didn’t work."
The description of this OP-ED on the front page of the newspaper points to two facts: Republicans in Congress are "random," and their ploy didn't work.
Maybe they should focus on their job of governing. It might elevate their position above "random."
The description of this OP-ED on the front page of the newspaper points to two facts: Republicans in Congress are "random," and their ploy didn't work.
Maybe they should focus on their job of governing. It might elevate their position above "random."
7
Great article that is full of facts that I never learned in school-including college. This is a strong argument for the teaching of American history- all of it- and abandoning the dumbed down PC versions.
6
“It became quickly clear that, as a new nation, America needed one voice in negotiations with both Indian nations and European empires in matters of war, peace and trade.”
Ms. DuVal’s sweet voice of reason might be lost on our “tempest in a Tea Party” dominated Republican Congress that seems to exaggerate the adverse reactions of any deals that the president might be contemplating? The British managed to colonize the world because they followed a simple dictum, “divide and conquer.” So whether it was India in the east or the United States in the west, the British Empire prospered by constantly pitting local groups against one another.
Fast forward to the 21st century and that cardinal lesson is true even today in matters of state – united we stand, divided we fall – so let’s hope that that rogue 47% of senators do not “take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness.” Country first!
Ms. DuVal’s sweet voice of reason might be lost on our “tempest in a Tea Party” dominated Republican Congress that seems to exaggerate the adverse reactions of any deals that the president might be contemplating? The British managed to colonize the world because they followed a simple dictum, “divide and conquer.” So whether it was India in the east or the United States in the west, the British Empire prospered by constantly pitting local groups against one another.
Fast forward to the 21st century and that cardinal lesson is true even today in matters of state – united we stand, divided we fall – so let’s hope that that rogue 47% of senators do not “take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness.” Country first!
3
They don't need a history lesson...they are intentionally disregarding, disputing, denigrating and insulting our president because he is black. My son and I had a debate when Mr. Obama, The President of the United States of America was first elected...we reasoned that white racists would "lose their minds" and act out in a number of deplorable mannerism. However, what we didn't figure on is that the majority of the American public of all ethnicities, would stand by silently and let him and their vote be trashed. This newspaper is as guilty at the wayward senators by your careful selection of words not giving our president his full respect. Your headlines and stories speak of decisions made by "the Obama administration" distinctly separated from the fact that decisions were made by the president of the United States on behalf of the people who elected him. There is no separate "Obama administration" from America...the administration IS America and he speaks for the majority of the American people who elected him...and even for those who didn't. And for those commentators and bloggers, et al, who keep skirting the real issue of racism with any number of obfuscations, get with the real program.
10
Based on many comments on this subject in the NYT, Pelosi should have been tried, convicted and serving a long prison sentence in a Federal Prison or be on death row right now. On the MSNBC website (aka the liberal bible) in 2008 ran an article about brave Nancy Pelosi. The article describes how Pelosi, in direct contravention to what the White House at the time wanted (you know the evil Bush and Cheney) went to negotiate with Assad of Syria (sound familiar?) on foreign policy issues which was characterized by Republicans in the article as "undermining American efforts" in the region. Bush tried to criticize the move as "counterproductive" to his foreign policy efforts in the region. Pelosi responded according to the article by.." Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market." The article goes on to say that " Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war." By the hyperventilating standards of many commenters this morning (many of whom quoted the definition of treason under the United States code) looks like Pelosi is guilty here, right? No, i don't expect you to admit I am right either. However, you might reflect for just a minute about how what is good for the liberal goose is apparently treason to the Republican gander.
11
There seems to be a common thread here with the secessionists you point out, they are all Southern. The yahoo who wrote this letter is, for all intents and purposes, Southern. Furthermore, by doing the bidding of a foreign government, Israel, in attempting to sabotage the negations with Iran, these Senators have worked against the interests of the United States. These 47 have, in fact, committed treason.
6
The notion that Junior Senator still struggling to find the Senate Men's room thinks he can throw a monkey wrench into delicate negotiations not just the US but France, Germany, UK, China and Russia is appalling and 46 other lemmings following him is equally disappointing. If the talks fail all the sanctions will not hold up particularly Russia and China limited sanctions by a few nations will not deter Iran in a nuclear program. The next stop Israeli military action dragging us in the quagmire...nice
2
Democrats don't like this for the same reason that Republicans don't like Obama's Executive Actions as a way to circumvent the legislative process, Unfortunately, Professor DuVal doesn't have the academic credentials to comment on that point of the argument.
Conservatives relish the end of our democracy. Why else would they dare write a letter as they did. When democracy ends and chaos in the form of the ultimate expressions of individual rights is the law of the land, will conservatives then rally for more restrictive government? They are disruptures without a goal. Our country is now suffering lightweights like Cruz, Cotton, Rubio, Paul and friends. And Clinton is creaking with old timey secracy.....the political future does not look bright.
4
We are in to 6th years of Obama presidency, I saw things done against him or his policies and some of them has only one motivation behind it, RACISM.
Some white folks clearly can not bear a black president. period.
I am wondering how they are going to behave when a woman in White House.
How do I know that?
I am white and male. I clearly recognize the racist and sexist.
Some white folks clearly can not bear a black president. period.
I am wondering how they are going to behave when a woman in White House.
How do I know that?
I am white and male. I clearly recognize the racist and sexist.
5
What a few politicians determined to overturn "obamacare" did to US foreign policy is beyond description. I just cannot imagine how future global environmental negotiations are going to look like.
4
Yes, we do have a President for a reason. Sadly, we have legislators who have sold their souls and their votes to the Evangelical and AIPAC lobbiests. The United States must break free of the Israeli grip. Israeli foreign policies are not just a threat to Israel, they have become a threat to the U.S. as well. SHAME!!!
10
Yes, they should not have contacted Iran directly by themselves. But negotiating a nuclear treaty with a terrorist state behind Congress's back and without their approval is considered treason - where is the outrage over that?
7
Senator Cotton did the right thing. I recognize in all of this a true leader willing to point out the dangers of our rather weak negotiating stance with Iran, and in so doing, greatly protecting U.S. interests in a way that the current administration simply isn't.
When I read of Cotton's actions, I thought of John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage. Surely, in Senator Cotton, we have a profile in courage.
When I read of Cotton's actions, I thought of John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage. Surely, in Senator Cotton, we have a profile in courage.
8
Consider the Logan Act-the letter could rise to that level. Clearly something young Senator Cotton is unaware of-no surprise there.
4
Ignorance of history and the Constitution abound. A history lesson well served. There are 54 Republican senators, all with deep malice toward the president and put politics and ideology above the public interest, the good news is that only 27 of them are deeply ignorant, totally reckless and clear to the public at large, guilty of treachery against the security of the United States.
3
What happened to the tradition that Freshmen in the House and Senate don't speak out until they gain a measure of seniority in their chambers?
Senator Cotton's action was inappropriate, shameful and possibly illegal.
Senator Cotton's action was inappropriate, shameful and possibly illegal.
3
Time to revisit term limits.
Seems the Senators (and we often hear this) are more concerned with their own personal needs and desires than reading, critical thinking or analyzing anything that is put in front of them, including things that have long lasting and profound even negative consequences for everyone.
Apparently McCain' said "they all just signed it in a hurry without thinking it through so they could get out of town ahead of a snow storm…
If their job of helping run this country is so unimportant and secondary to their personal lives and comfort - then quit. Many seem way too comfortable with their position of power to the point of carelessness. In any other job they would have been fired a very long time ago. Maybe term limits is the only way to make them more responsible to the job at hand the USA not their party. And that goes for both.
Seems the Senators (and we often hear this) are more concerned with their own personal needs and desires than reading, critical thinking or analyzing anything that is put in front of them, including things that have long lasting and profound even negative consequences for everyone.
Apparently McCain' said "they all just signed it in a hurry without thinking it through so they could get out of town ahead of a snow storm…
If their job of helping run this country is so unimportant and secondary to their personal lives and comfort - then quit. Many seem way too comfortable with their position of power to the point of carelessness. In any other job they would have been fired a very long time ago. Maybe term limits is the only way to make them more responsible to the job at hand the USA not their party. And that goes for both.
7
Sad to say this, but the Right's hatred of Obama knows no bounds or limits. They hate Obama so much that they will do all sorts of unwise things.
Why all this hatred, I ask?
Why all this hatred, I ask?
4
It was easy for the senators to send a letter. It is much harder for them to put their money where their pens are. Last year, when President Obama was going to ask Congress to approve his original plan of attacking ISIS, Congress ran for the hills and forced him to withdraw his proposal. Now, those same scurrying rats are saying that the President's current ISIS strategy does not do enough and are clamoring for boots (not their boots, mind you) on the ground.
5
To those 47 senators, Benjamin Netanyahu is our president.
7
Adults need such a lesson after they have been elected to Congress (more than once sometimes). How sad!
2
I think we are forgetting the Cleveland steamer party had a huge influence on these decisions.
One cannot look at the recent action by Congress without considering the body's attitude toward President Obama since his first inauguration. Republican lawmakers have consistently held little regard for the opinions and guidance of the President. The meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel is nothing more than their collective thumbing their nose at him and his party. Theirs is a futile and juvenile act. I hope the majority of Americans see this action for what it is and remember it at the next election.
5
Apparently not everyone has learned that a free agent slash decentralized slash end run form of foreign relations not only doesn't work but adds further risk and uncertainty in an already risky and uncertain world.
4
Are elected members of Congress implied to be "random Americans?"
Thank you for this great article. This is why I am such a fan of NY Times. It also struck me that this is why we have so many Americans who consider it their obligation to stand aside from the government, and act as though they have sovereignty. It seems there's a long history of opposition to the central government. I suppose it seems romantic to stand up to authority, as during the revolutionary war, except most Republicans don't get that US has had far more success speaking with one voice.
4
This "do nothing" congress, who can not legislate out of a paper bag, all of a sudden becomes a foreign policy force. These hypocrites of american pride all of a sudden go around the president of the united states. I do not care who is the president, what you think of him or anything. Have they never heard of the concept of the "common good". I give Obama a solid C as a president. But this does not matter in this instance. This was wrong and i am embarrassed as an american. I am very much a cynic about our bought and paid for political system but this move shocked me.
wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong
5
I wonder how well giving nuclear capabilities to a country that calls us "The Great Satan", has sworn to obliterate us and our allies and just hates us is going to work?
I know the people wanting to give them the capabilities to create a nuke saying "I'm sorry, I made a mistake" or, "What difference does it make..." is not going to work too well after Israel is turned into a wasteland by Iran.
I know the people wanting to give them the capabilities to create a nuke saying "I'm sorry, I made a mistake" or, "What difference does it make..." is not going to work too well after Israel is turned into a wasteland by Iran.
3
Israel's exaggerated security concerns are none of our concern.
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
George Washington's Farewell Address
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
George Washington's Farewell Address
3
Yes, what the 47 senators did was treasonous.
7
This article points out that in washington's time, "Increasingly, Americans began to see alternative negotiating as treason."
It still is. it still is.
It still is. it still is.
7
Two of Duval's examples, (1793 and 1797), occurred after the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.
This event will be remembered by historians as the occasion when these Republicans proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what utter clowns they are.
6
After a small amount of research, it is clear that there are severs, ways to interpret whether the proposed agreement with Iran constitutes a treaty or not. What is also clear is that the GOP majority would not approve any agreement as their minds are shut. Additionally, I am confident, based on incendiary comments and scare tactics, in the form of one already running television hit job on the agreement (before being agreed upon or understood, more to follow), that GOP politicians and groups allied with them and Israel, will lie and distort any agreement to frighten Americans into being against any agreement?
It is then understandable that the Administration, who does have legal grounds to stand on, would be wary of advice and consent in this climate. It is not so much advise and consent as it is advise and distort. What Americans need to understand is that, should an agreement be reached between the U.S. and other nations with Iran, those other nations will not agree to more sanctions or likely even to keep the currents sanctions in place. That increases the probability of war with Iran. Our sole ally would be Israel. I don't like the odds of that action being successful. The letter from 47 Senators threatens the agreement obviously and supports war, encourages it actually. Only crazy people could believe more war in the Middle East is a viable option. There are plenty of crazy people in the U.S., Iran and Israel unfortunately.
It is then understandable that the Administration, who does have legal grounds to stand on, would be wary of advice and consent in this climate. It is not so much advise and consent as it is advise and distort. What Americans need to understand is that, should an agreement be reached between the U.S. and other nations with Iran, those other nations will not agree to more sanctions or likely even to keep the currents sanctions in place. That increases the probability of war with Iran. Our sole ally would be Israel. I don't like the odds of that action being successful. The letter from 47 Senators threatens the agreement obviously and supports war, encourages it actually. Only crazy people could believe more war in the Middle East is a viable option. There are plenty of crazy people in the U.S., Iran and Israel unfortunately.
6
@ JC
You seem to forget that the ongoing deliberations with Iran involve four other world leaders, and are in no way going to be a 'treaty' but a multilateral agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran to come to a peaceful solution of Iran not developing a nuclear weapon.
Treaties sometimes take years to develop or never even come to fruition. Germany was not allowed to be member of the UN until the 1960s, later became a NATO ally and still doesn't had a peace treaty with the countries that fought against Nazi Germany in WWll.
As to the letter by the 47 Republican Senators, German Chancellor Angela Merkel - Germany being the +1 of the UN Security Council - and the leader of the center right CDU, just came out yesterday with a very forceful statement of condemning these 47 senators of trying to torpedo the highly complicated talks before they even know what the final agreement would entail.
You seem to forget that the ongoing deliberations with Iran involve four other world leaders, and are in no way going to be a 'treaty' but a multilateral agreement between the P5 + 1 and Iran to come to a peaceful solution of Iran not developing a nuclear weapon.
Treaties sometimes take years to develop or never even come to fruition. Germany was not allowed to be member of the UN until the 1960s, later became a NATO ally and still doesn't had a peace treaty with the countries that fought against Nazi Germany in WWll.
As to the letter by the 47 Republican Senators, German Chancellor Angela Merkel - Germany being the +1 of the UN Security Council - and the leader of the center right CDU, just came out yesterday with a very forceful statement of condemning these 47 senators of trying to torpedo the highly complicated talks before they even know what the final agreement would entail.
11
' for seven years Obama has...'
Obama was elected once. He was such a bad president that he was elected twice. All of this notwithstanding; this letter and the invite to the Israel prime minister and the shutting down of government and , and , and. I am curious to see the actions of Congress to the next president. Anyone willing to bet this behaviour will cease? Will the next president be white? Racism is alive and well in the United States.
Obama was elected once. He was such a bad president that he was elected twice. All of this notwithstanding; this letter and the invite to the Israel prime minister and the shutting down of government and , and , and. I am curious to see the actions of Congress to the next president. Anyone willing to bet this behaviour will cease? Will the next president be white? Racism is alive and well in the United States.
3
I guess 47 Republicans think Throwback Thursday is a good idea when it comes to foreign relations . . . at least when the President is President Obama.
I remain outraged at every Senator who signed that subversive and renegade letter. I hope they are hounded by this cheap partisan escapade from now on.
I remain outraged at every Senator who signed that subversive and renegade letter. I hope they are hounded by this cheap partisan escapade from now on.
6
Thank you for this reminder that our history is not up for reinvention by today's GOP.
Mr. Cotton's ideological self-importance and deep contempt for the executive branch is big red flag. You cannot disregard 2 elections to suddenly appoint yourself the "spokesperson" for "the people" with no vetting by the American people. His connection to deluded cheerleader for the Iraq War - William Kristol- should be shown as part of the back story of this story, along with his connection to defense contractors.
An undergraduate congressperson of color who wrote a foreign government to "preach" would be considered out of their mind. Tom Cotton seems tragically naive to me. He has a provincial and ideologically religious point of view, AND he is not president.
Sorry, that is not good enough. He should be censured.
The fact that members of the Senate were completely cavalier about signing this shows their real and deep contempt for the person we elected as President. Mr. "I sign a lot of stuff" McCain is a sad example.
Mr. Cotton's ideological self-importance and deep contempt for the executive branch is big red flag. You cannot disregard 2 elections to suddenly appoint yourself the "spokesperson" for "the people" with no vetting by the American people. His connection to deluded cheerleader for the Iraq War - William Kristol- should be shown as part of the back story of this story, along with his connection to defense contractors.
An undergraduate congressperson of color who wrote a foreign government to "preach" would be considered out of their mind. Tom Cotton seems tragically naive to me. He has a provincial and ideologically religious point of view, AND he is not president.
Sorry, that is not good enough. He should be censured.
The fact that members of the Senate were completely cavalier about signing this shows their real and deep contempt for the person we elected as President. Mr. "I sign a lot of stuff" McCain is a sad example.
11
This dispute has nothing to do with the senate negotiating directly with Iran (they are not). This is not about whether or not Iran gets the bomb (they can make one very quickly anytime they want - agreement or no agreement - and bombing their nuclear facilities can't alter that fact.
Domestically this is about separation of powers and just plain politics. Internationally it is how we deal with Iran's push for hegemony in the region.
Dealing with Iran has never been straightforward or simple. At times we have secretly armed Iran (eg during Iran's war with Iraq) and now we have de facto cooperation against ISIS. With the sanctions we have the ability to slow down Iranian expansionism; giving up these sanctions without having a practical effect on Iran's nuclear program is dubious at best unless there is a secret agenda at work here.
The problem is not the dubious claim that the 47 senators are engaging in direct diplomacy but that no one trusts Obama.
Domestically this is about separation of powers and just plain politics. Internationally it is how we deal with Iran's push for hegemony in the region.
Dealing with Iran has never been straightforward or simple. At times we have secretly armed Iran (eg during Iran's war with Iraq) and now we have de facto cooperation against ISIS. With the sanctions we have the ability to slow down Iranian expansionism; giving up these sanctions without having a practical effect on Iran's nuclear program is dubious at best unless there is a secret agenda at work here.
The problem is not the dubious claim that the 47 senators are engaging in direct diplomacy but that no one trusts Obama.
Nice column, but one problem. An "open" letter such as that publicly released by the Senate Republicans this week does not constitute negotiations.
3
This is all pretty crazy. Congress is unable to negotiate, as they well know, since 535 voices do not a conversation make. They can derail a negotiation, as we have seen, so they can hurt but not help. Clearly there was another point here which appears to be simply political and personal for the 47 signatories--they get something for this they can take to the political bank and they just don't care about the country. Interesting situation, perhaps we will shortly have the 'states rights' people arguing that each state can have its own Iran treaty.
1
I could not be more disgusted with the Republican senators who signed this letter to Iran. They have already brought weakness to America. Just look at what Iran said in response!
I thought the likes of McCain and McConnell knew better! They let their hate for Obama cloud their judgement perhaps, or was it really their fear of snow as claimed by McCain?
Their collusion to undermine our president was a horrible act and I agree that as it gives comfort to the enemy should be considered treasonous. All who signed this letter with the express intent of claiming to the world that America is not to be trusted, should resign.
I am also sick of these men claiming they "speak for the American people." I am sorry YOU DO NOT! Obama was elected TWICE by the majority of Americans. John McCain you were NOT! did you not notice? These senators as individuals represent only their states, NOT "the American People."
I am an American, and I speak for myself, and I vote. The GOP can count on never seeing my vote for any member of their destructive club.
I thought the likes of McCain and McConnell knew better! They let their hate for Obama cloud their judgement perhaps, or was it really their fear of snow as claimed by McCain?
Their collusion to undermine our president was a horrible act and I agree that as it gives comfort to the enemy should be considered treasonous. All who signed this letter with the express intent of claiming to the world that America is not to be trusted, should resign.
I am also sick of these men claiming they "speak for the American people." I am sorry YOU DO NOT! Obama was elected TWICE by the majority of Americans. John McCain you were NOT! did you not notice? These senators as individuals represent only their states, NOT "the American People."
I am an American, and I speak for myself, and I vote. The GOP can count on never seeing my vote for any member of their destructive club.
9
Switch the parties in this story and we wouldn't be reading it in the Times.
1
I think the key word in this fine history lesson is "treason."
5
One hopes the Republicans who thought that letters to foreign powers are like tweets have realized just how much they have destroyed America's moral authority in the world, but let's not hold our breaths.
Many have noted how this misguided political theater plays in the REAL world.
I am deeply ashamed of our Congress, and the Majority Party, though I have supported them in the past.
Many have noted how this misguided political theater plays in the REAL world.
I am deeply ashamed of our Congress, and the Majority Party, though I have supported them in the past.
4
The article fails to mention that Nancy Pelosi visited Syria in 2007 to have a private meeting with President Bashar al-Assad, a move roundly criticized by the Bush Administration at the time. I don't condone the Republicans sending the letter to Iran- it was unnecessary to tell Iran what everybody knows, to wit that there is divided opinion within Congress for the impending nuclear arms deal with Iran.
1
Not commenting on the politics here. Just remarking on how fascinating is the history of the early days of our republic. The more you learn about it, the more interesting it is, and the more you wonder, "What if ...?" Thanks for this timely contribution.
2
I have not been a fan of the Presidents management style or what I consider his poor leadership skills. It has been a lrge part of his problem dealing with the congress. That said, the actions of the Senators in writing this silly letter makes this country and it's legislators look like a 4th rate country.
Let the President and Sec State negotiate an agreement --if possible-- then debate it, ratify it or turn it down--but this "rump" process of interference, and complete disrespect for well established treaty process is disgusting.
That should all rescind the letter or resign.....(lol --not likely)
Let the President and Sec State negotiate an agreement --if possible-- then debate it, ratify it or turn it down--but this "rump" process of interference, and complete disrespect for well established treaty process is disgusting.
That should all rescind the letter or resign.....(lol --not likely)
3
In the last few days over 270,000 people have signed a petition to the white house to bring charges against these senators under the Logan Act.
You might not know that though, as the Times has avoided mentioning it, and frankly, I wonder why?
You might not know that though, as the Times has avoided mentioning it, and frankly, I wonder why?
8
They weren't negotiating. They were just informing the Iranian dictator who refers to us as Satan, as to what the constitution says and that the end around that Obama was trying to pull was not going to hold water.
3
The story of Tom Cotton's letter to the Iranian leadership is so bigger than emailgate.
Please, NY Times, keep it front and center.
We the People need to be able to continue to express our outrage about this egregious example of a gerrymandered Christian Conservative minority controlling this nation's foreign and domestic policies.
Please, NY Times, keep it front and center.
We the People need to be able to continue to express our outrage about this egregious example of a gerrymandered Christian Conservative minority controlling this nation's foreign and domestic policies.
7
i'd have liked this editorial even better if it had gone into the history of Congressional stupidity, to which this letter belongs.
whatever the Cinstitutional issues, this was a stupid thing to do. Among other things, it gives Iran a perfect explanation of why negotiations failed, and perfect cover for going ahead with uranium enrichment.
And into the bargain, it helps make it that much harder to maintain sanctions.
Tasty pick, boneheads.
whatever the Cinstitutional issues, this was a stupid thing to do. Among other things, it gives Iran a perfect explanation of why negotiations failed, and perfect cover for going ahead with uranium enrichment.
And into the bargain, it helps make it that much harder to maintain sanctions.
Tasty pick, boneheads.
4
Though what these 47 disloyal Senators have done may not (technically) rise to the level of treason, it is most certainly an act of sedition, and the junior Senator from Arkansas should be prosecuted for it and removed from office. The remaining 46 should be censured and fined. The entire lot of them are a disgrace to their country.
12
President Clinton was impeached due to a dalliance. What will be the price to pay for the 47 acts of treason by our duly elected senators whose Constitutional mandate is to advise and consent?
8
I have a suggestion: Let's apply the same standards to both an agreement with Iran and to trade agreements negotiated by the President. Either Congress has a role in both or neither. You choose.
1
i have a siggest, too: let's stop trying to pretend that anybody's arguing Congresshas no role in either.
The question's what that role is. i don't believe it's trying to undercut an agreement that they haven't seen, as well as the President's right to try and make any agreements at all.
The question's what that role is. i don't believe it's trying to undercut an agreement that they haven't seen, as well as the President's right to try and make any agreements at all.
1
This has nothing to do with the treaty per se, it's just another idiotic attempt to be a thorn in Obama's side. Some people of a certain persuasion use Ferguson police like tactics, others chant obnoxious songs with their fraternity brothers. Republican politicians can't do that kind of thing, except off the record, so they rack their brains to come up with all manner of other ludicrous activities.
3
We have a Congress for a reason too. Or have you forgotten that and all of the Democrats forays into foreign policy undermining presidents going back to at least the Vietnam War?
2
How about some more recent and relevant examples, such as John Kerry and the House leadership negotiating with the Sandinistas and Nancy Pelosi meeting with Bashar Assad in Syria?
1
And Dennis Rodman went to North Korea.
1
We do indeed have a president for a reason. Unfortunately, someone neglected to tell Barack Obama what that reason is. It is by no means to excuse Congress - quite the opposite, in fact - that politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Obama's cool, cerebral, and somewhat distant manner often degenerates into Hamletic inaction, dithering, and, if not actual uncertainty, the perception of it. He often seems to be purely reacting ad hoc, like a tennis player fending off a rapid-fire barrage from an automatic server gone berserk, and I often get the feeling he's either not in charge or doesn't really know what's going on if he is. Sometimes things work out (his backing Putin into a corner on chemical weapons in Syria, which was either masterful manipulation or dumb luck, I'm not sure which); other times, not so much (where DO we stand on Israel? Does anyone really know?). One wishes the commander in chief were more commanding, and our policy a bit more coherent. As it is, it's not so much that others are seizing the authority as that Obama lets it drop and inevitably someone picks it up.
1
The image of "an automatic server gone berserk" perfectly captures the lunacy of the 47 to me, i.e., Just jump around and say stuff, then do stuff, and then say more stuff.
No wonder Obama seems inactive to you- he is capable of thinking before shooting his mouth off. Lincoln would have been considered outrageously slow by your standards.
No wonder Obama seems inactive to you- he is capable of thinking before shooting his mouth off. Lincoln would have been considered outrageously slow by your standards.
2
Perhaps the NYT would remind us of the times Kerry, Pelosi, etc personally met with enemies of the USA when Reagan and Bush were President? Perhaps they would also remind us of the letter former President Carter wrote the UN opposing George Bush/US foreign policy?
Perhaps people would look at these situations themselves since there is much about them. Nancy Pelosi coordinated with the White House and the State Department, had a Republican representative on the fact finding trip, and at the actual meeting had a State Department representative there as well. There were no negotiations taking place at that time. All protocols were followed, and there were various visits by Republicans with Assad as well. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/12/the-differences-between-the-47-g...
The Kerry Ortega parallel is just as flimsy if that is what you mean.
I realize that these are the kinds of parallels that sites like Breitbart are drawing, but the Senate Historian has said that there is no precedent for what the 47 Republican senators just did, jeopardizing serious multinational negotiations to reduce nuclear threats. No precedent.
The Logan Act has been violated, and the senators should face impeachment.
The Kerry Ortega parallel is just as flimsy if that is what you mean.
I realize that these are the kinds of parallels that sites like Breitbart are drawing, but the Senate Historian has said that there is no precedent for what the 47 Republican senators just did, jeopardizing serious multinational negotiations to reduce nuclear threats. No precedent.
The Logan Act has been violated, and the senators should face impeachment.
1
Perhaps you would remind us of why Jimmy Carter didn't have the right to say whatever he pleased after he'd left office, and why you don't seem to know that members of Congress meet with members of foreign governments all the time?
What they DON'T do is attack our own President.
What they DON'T do is attack our own President.
1
why do so many republicans ostensibly hate the whole of America --- most recently with the actions of these 47 US Senators?
obstruct obstruct obstruct
whenever and wherever
the primary objective of the legislative branch is to construct
at present, the majority of the members of the 114th Congress now in session are in contempt of the American citizens.
obstruct obstruct obstruct
whenever and wherever
the primary objective of the legislative branch is to construct
at present, the majority of the members of the 114th Congress now in session are in contempt of the American citizens.
6
While I think that Senator Cotton's letter was ill-advised, it is no more outrageous than the refusal of a president to submit a compact with a foreign power — particularly a hostile nation like Iran — for Senate ratification.
Hubris by one branch will simply embolden reckless hearts in the other.
Hubris by one branch will simply embolden reckless hearts in the other.
2
It could have something to do with the minor technical detail that there isn't yet any "compact," to submit.
2
This letter could be considered treasonous if it wasn't so stupid. Both of my senators signed it, what does that say about them? I hope there is some repercussions from this, hopefully there are still a few regular old republicans who love their country who think this is over the top and might wake up to where their party has gone. Good thing the Iranians understand our constitution better than these clowns.
7
'merica is a free-for-all slugfest. The game is all about winning and doing "whatever it takes" to win. The last thing on the to-do list of a winner (anyone that matters to the people of 'merica) is governing a country.
History dosen't matter any more. Among the other things that don't matter any more are the consequences of actions. When a mistake is made there is rarely any responsibility taken and usually there isn't anyone held accountable--unless of course someone decides to "take one for the team."
I feel like I never left high school. I've lived in "Groundhog Day" for the last forty years.
History dosen't matter any more. Among the other things that don't matter any more are the consequences of actions. When a mistake is made there is rarely any responsibility taken and usually there isn't anyone held accountable--unless of course someone decides to "take one for the team."
I feel like I never left high school. I've lived in "Groundhog Day" for the last forty years.
I think there are 47 Senators who should go back to their high schools or wherever they were ostensibly taught American history and demand a refund. The teachers apparently skipped the parts about the Constitution and the separation of powers. Who knows what else they missed in other courses, such as science?
4
It seems the "birther" controversy has come to life once again in the group of 47.
3
These two popularly-elected branches of government serve different masters. That they can each claim legitimacy due to success in the elections that placed them in power may be considered but one of the flaws or difficulties we are burdened with in our governmental system.
In the Congress, the majority powers seem to have consolidated in such a manner as to focus on serving the oil and gas industry, whose business interests are adverse not only to conservation but also to peace and demilitarization. Remarkably, this anti-environmental, anti-peace attitude is one of the few places where today's Republicans can unite their forces.
As oil prices have continued to remain low, the industry has refused to adjust its production levels, apparently believing that global energy demands SHOULD be increased, and asserting its demands upon its governmental representatives in respect of international as well as domestic policy.
Today, the International Energy Agency warned that a global oil glut was building and the United States may soon run out of empty tanks to store its crude.
In the Congress, the majority powers seem to have consolidated in such a manner as to focus on serving the oil and gas industry, whose business interests are adverse not only to conservation but also to peace and demilitarization. Remarkably, this anti-environmental, anti-peace attitude is one of the few places where today's Republicans can unite their forces.
As oil prices have continued to remain low, the industry has refused to adjust its production levels, apparently believing that global energy demands SHOULD be increased, and asserting its demands upon its governmental representatives in respect of international as well as domestic policy.
Today, the International Energy Agency warned that a global oil glut was building and the United States may soon run out of empty tanks to store its crude.
2
Assuredly, Iran's negotiators understand the functioning of American diplomacy and the limitations of agreements reached with a current administration. So for Iran, this Senator so-and-so ginned up a political punch for domestic, (U.S.) consumption and inadvertently, due to a lack of experience and blinded by his ideology, Senator so-and so assisted Iran's diplomats in the negotiation. So this would not be treason, if the Senator so-and-so didn't knowingly assist a foreign government.
4
No, the Iranians do not understand our country. In fact, that was one of the reasons for the terrorist attacks of 9-11, 2001, the general ignorance in the middle east about America. They have been fed, and fed themselves, so much propaganda over the decades that they believe what they have made up, not facts. What the 47 senators did was to show massive disrespect for the institution of the presidency and for this president.
People in other nations tend to create a mental model of us that mirrors their own country. "They are like us, only different in important, evil ways." If they are totalitarian, they assume we are also, only with a pretend democracy in front of government. They don't generally understand democracy and established procedures whereby people openly disagree, but continue to work together for "the common good". They tend to see everything in black and white, win or lose, no in between. The most likely interpretation in Iran would be, "See, the American president is weak and does not control his own Congress."
People in other nations tend to create a mental model of us that mirrors their own country. "They are like us, only different in important, evil ways." If they are totalitarian, they assume we are also, only with a pretend democracy in front of government. They don't generally understand democracy and established procedures whereby people openly disagree, but continue to work together for "the common good". They tend to see everything in black and white, win or lose, no in between. The most likely interpretation in Iran would be, "See, the American president is weak and does not control his own Congress."
Stop mischaracterising the Cotton letter. It is not a negotiation with Iran. It was nothing more than the unequivocal truth that any agreement with this president which is not ratified by the Senate will not have the force of law and can be abrogated by any future president.
The Iranian reaction proves that they know they're getting over on the USA, that the deal they are negotiating with this weak president is the best they will ever be offered, and they don't want anything to scuttle it.
The Iranian reaction proves that they know they're getting over on the USA, that the deal they are negotiating with this weak president is the best they will ever be offered, and they don't want anything to scuttle it.
1
Your post is disingenuous at best. Iran is well aware of how the U.S. government works. It does not need a letter from any member(s) of Congress to instruct them on this.
1
why do so many republicans ostensibly hate the whole of America --- most recently with the actions of these 47 US Senators?
obstruct obstruct obstruct
whenever and wherever
the primary objective of the legislative branch is to construct and repair where necessary
at present, the majority of the members of the 114th Congress now in session are in contempt of the American citizens.
0705pdt
obstruct obstruct obstruct
whenever and wherever
the primary objective of the legislative branch is to construct and repair where necessary
at present, the majority of the members of the 114th Congress now in session are in contempt of the American citizens.
0705pdt
3
It is rather odd that Kathleen DuVal should try to connect pre-constitutional free-booting to an attempt by a group of Senators to publicly remind the Supreme Theocrat of Iran that our constitution allows the president to conclude treaties only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Here it is the president himself, in his imagining of himself as Global Citizen, who is seeking to bypass the constitution.
Ms. DuVal might have mentioned, but did not, more recent examples of secret, back channel negotiations with foreign nations such as those by Sen. Ted Kennedy and ex-president Jimmy Carter, both of which were intended to torpedo the foreign policy of a sitting administration.
Ms. DuVal might have mentioned, but did not, more recent examples of secret, back channel negotiations with foreign nations such as those by Sen. Ted Kennedy and ex-president Jimmy Carter, both of which were intended to torpedo the foreign policy of a sitting administration.
2
47 Shades of Cotton
The newbie Senator Cotton appears to have an ego so large that it has overtaken his ability to make coherent decisions. Unfortunately, 46 other members of the Senate have so much Obama vitriol that they too signed on to Cotton's foreign policy expedition of discontent.
It is a painful sight to behold. A trifecta of contempt: defund the Department of Homeland Security , Bibi in the Rotunda criticizing our government, and a letter from 47 delusional Senators of State.
Dear 47, Park your egos outside the Senate chamber, take a strong antibiotic to hopefully cure your Obama vitriol overdose, and start working for the American people including the many/majority of whom voted for President Obama. ASAP.
The newbie Senator Cotton appears to have an ego so large that it has overtaken his ability to make coherent decisions. Unfortunately, 46 other members of the Senate have so much Obama vitriol that they too signed on to Cotton's foreign policy expedition of discontent.
It is a painful sight to behold. A trifecta of contempt: defund the Department of Homeland Security , Bibi in the Rotunda criticizing our government, and a letter from 47 delusional Senators of State.
Dear 47, Park your egos outside the Senate chamber, take a strong antibiotic to hopefully cure your Obama vitriol overdose, and start working for the American people including the many/majority of whom voted for President Obama. ASAP.
9
The Senate approves treaties. Would the President rather confer and discuss with the Senate the content of the treaties beforehand and include them in the process, or would the President rather have his treaty crash and burn when the Senate votes on it?
This last action of the far right should prove to everyone what their level of thought is. Is there anyone out there who still believes that Cotton, Cruz, Paul and the other traitors who signed this letter care about ANYTHING more than their own careers?? Does anyone anywhere think that ANY of these Senators care one whit about the future of America, or have any respect at all for what America is supposed to be?? It was an act of unbelievable selfishness to attempt to undermine OUR president in his attempts to reach any agreement with any foreign power, let alone one as crucial as a deal with Iran may prove to be. They are, in a word, despicable.
11
The Republican slant on the letter now appears to be - "We had to sign the letter to find out what was in it"... pathetic.
7
The "government is the problem" crowd, i.e. the Republican party, intentionally makes Washington look like bumbling fools on a daily basis, much of this sticks to the Dem's and the President, then they go home at reelection time on run on the dis-function in DC platform. They (at least lately) have been successful using this strategy and have created a self fulfilling prophecy of govt is bad, if there is any doubt, watch how I and my colleagues "govern".
12
The administration does a wonderful job , all by itself, of looking like bumbling fools. The last election and the polls suggest many Americans agree. The one thing at which the president excels is putting politics above everything.
2
The last election 67% of registered voters abstained. That is how these yahoo got elected.
2
And of course, the Republican goal is to shrink government to the point that they can fet rid of government of, by, and for "We the People".
"Rebublicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops: it's easier to get away with muder."
- James Carville
"Rebublicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops: it's easier to get away with muder."
- James Carville
2
There are two even more disturbing recent incidents of politicians successfully derailing peace negotiations.
In 1968, candidate Richard Nixon managed to scuttle the peace negotiations between the US and Vietnam to ensure the War could remain a campaign issue for him. The war continued another seven years.
In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan interfered in President Carter's negotiations with Iran to obtain the release of the American embassy hostages. Again, the candidate wanted the crisis to continue for his own political gain. You'll recall the hostages were held additional months and then released on Reagan's inauguration day. Iran got a secret weapons deal in exchange.
In 1968, candidate Richard Nixon managed to scuttle the peace negotiations between the US and Vietnam to ensure the War could remain a campaign issue for him. The war continued another seven years.
In 1980, candidate Ronald Reagan interfered in President Carter's negotiations with Iran to obtain the release of the American embassy hostages. Again, the candidate wanted the crisis to continue for his own political gain. You'll recall the hostages were held additional months and then released on Reagan's inauguration day. Iran got a secret weapons deal in exchange.
13
Let's not forget that 11 years ago, we had the chance to negotiate a good deal with the Iranians, with European help. Bush scuttled the agreement and entered Iran in that infamous "axis of evil" speech. The world would be completely different if W had never been allowed to sit in the Oval office. I believe the Europeans and China are prepared to walk away from sanctions and allow Iran to rejoin the community of nations. This letter shows a total lack of awareness to the changes going through a planet tired of American warmongering. The 47 senators disqualified our country as a sincere, serious and trusted negotiator. I wish we could march them to jail for the damage they have caused to America's reputation.
2
The premise of this "lesson" is flawed. The 47 Senators are not "random" Americans. They are members of an institution, which has certain constitutional preogatives - namely, advise and consent for treaties. The Executive, for matters of convenience, is usurping this power. He deserves to be cut out at the knees, if he won't abide by our Constitution. It's unseemly, but what else would the Senators do?
It's the classic canard of the progressives: Congress is broken, so we have to take matters into our own hands. Congress actually isn't broken. Those 47 Senators were legitimately elected, and they represent legitimate concerns within the polity.
It's the classic canard of the progressives: Congress is broken, so we have to take matters into our own hands. Congress actually isn't broken. Those 47 Senators were legitimately elected, and they represent legitimate concerns within the polity.
3
It's easy to fall into partisan thinking, the Democratic President is right and the Republican Senators are wrong; or the reverse. But there is a real issue here. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the Senate advise and consent to treaties. But the Presidency over many administrations, Democrat and Republican, has assumed more and more power. Every once in a while , like after Nixon, the Congress pushes back. Who is the government of the United States, the President or Congress? Do we really want an unchecked President?
2
The relations between Congressional Republicans and the President reminds me of a sports team that is wracked by dissension. No one communicates, believes or trusts the other. The players become insolent and selfish; and the coach becomes dictatorial and isolated.
They all bear responsibility for the breakdown, but this President fails the leadership test to end the dysfunction.
They all bear responsibility for the breakdown, but this President fails the leadership test to end the dysfunction.
The United States Senate is hardly a bunch of random negotiators as they have the duty to consider and approve or reject any treaty concluded by the President. Since two thirds of the Senate must approve a treaty, when 47% of the Senate have concerns about the direction of a current negotiation, the people doing the negotiating should be informed of that fact.
2
"as they have the duty to consider and approve or reject any treaty concluded by the President. "
That's fine, but they don't know what's in the agreement yet, and contacting Iranians about this is the wrong way to go about their role.
That's fine, but they don't know what's in the agreement yet, and contacting Iranians about this is the wrong way to go about their role.
2
Frankly, I would not be surprised if these 47 were rounded up and arrested. Their behavior shows a complete lack of undersanding of the scope of their office, and a complete ignorance of what U.S. Law says as well as International Law. As Secretary of State Kerry said, they have no right to change treaties which are established on the basis of International law. And, as the Iranian ambassador said yesterday, they need to read the U.S. Constitution. Any breach of a treaty would be a violation of International law, and threatening to do so is in effect negotiating in bad faith, which clouds the President's attempts to create a strong negotiating position. Consequently, I feel that they should be disbarred and prohibited from ever holding public office again.
13
I suggest you study the law. An executive agreement is not a treaty because it has not been approved by the Senate. A treaty is the law of the land but an executive agreement is not binding on successive presidents. Of course if you had read the letter from the 47 senators you would have understood this as it is inconstroversally true.
1
I'm not sure why anyone is confused about the reasons republicans do the things they do. It is clear to me that they have one goal and one goal only: to undermine, dismantle, smear, tear down and undo everything President Obama and the democrats do. It is clear to me that they just won't tolerate a black man as president. Their hatred of Obama is irrational and racist. I believe they would behave in exactly the same way if we had a woman president. Republicans want a white, male, conservative president who believes in God and Corporations. They will work cooperatively with no one else. What they are doing now is attempting to take over the US government in a bloodless coup. We the People -- democrats, liberals and progressives must wake up and vote republicans and conservatives out of office before it is too late and we are living in a country that is no longer free, no longer a democracy and no longer a land of opportunity.
14
I believe that should have read "corporations and God"!
1
What is needed in America right now are two revivals; the revival of teaching civics in school and the revival of our moribund 4th Estate.
I would bet that there are more Americans who do not understand our system and our traditions than Americans who do understand. It does not help when our newspapers and anchors devote themselves to the horse races and the personality contests of current events rather than on the events and the consequences to the nation of those events.
I would bet that there are more Americans who do not understand our system and our traditions than Americans who do understand. It does not help when our newspapers and anchors devote themselves to the horse races and the personality contests of current events rather than on the events and the consequences to the nation of those events.
13
Congress has every right to interfere every events domestic or international. period.
The problem is not they interfere, the main issue is their interference is for benefit of US and constructive!
In this particular case these 47 senator and house republicans are really doing the right thing?
The answer is no?
Their interference can be call meddling, malfeasance, malarkey, obstruction, harassment of sitting president, racism, plain ideological terrorism against the democratic president.
No body constitutionally says that Congress doesn't have right to do this type of things, They have every right to do but the essence is what gives their action all about. we know that They are not doing the right thing. period.
The problem is not they interfere, the main issue is their interference is for benefit of US and constructive!
In this particular case these 47 senator and house republicans are really doing the right thing?
The answer is no?
Their interference can be call meddling, malfeasance, malarkey, obstruction, harassment of sitting president, racism, plain ideological terrorism against the democratic president.
No body constitutionally says that Congress doesn't have right to do this type of things, They have every right to do but the essence is what gives their action all about. we know that They are not doing the right thing. period.
1
Unfortunately Obama has changed the game in terms of exceeding the authority of the executive at the expense of Congress. He has also seen fit to denigrate the other co-equal branch of the federal government in the Set of the Union address because he disagreed with one of its decisions.
I do not think that fighting fire with fire is a sound principle in general, but when a President grossly distorts the boundaries, anything goes.
I do not think that fighting fire with fire is a sound principle in general, but when a President grossly distorts the boundaries, anything goes.
jld: the only reason President Obama took the executive action he did on immigration is because the Republicans in Congress refused to do anything at all to solve the problem, and would not allow a vote in the House, even though the Senate had passed a bipartisan bill. Do you think it's OK for one part of one branch of government to hijack the nation's agenda? So Obama did the only thing he could. From what I've read, negotiating an agreement with a foreign power is within his scope. Republicans simply want to have everything their way, no compromise, and if they don't get it they will use guerrilla tactics to try to impose their will or to sabotage anything that differs with their agenda. That's not governance. That's arrogance.
3
Oh gee, the President disagreed with a Supreme Court decision.
Boo hoo! How can Republicans' feelings ever be mended.
Boo hoo! How can Republicans' feelings ever be mended.
At the root of all of this I see greed and selfishness.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have been robbing the country blind, with the great culmination in the crash of 2008.
The election of Obama put an end to that, at least for the moment.
The Republicans sorely want power back to continue looting the country.
The Republicans certainly have many reasons to hate Obama, and working for average Americans instead of the rich and the "trickle down" scam is another. And keep in mind that war can be very profitable.
The Republican Party is a business. They are only interested in profit, no matter the cost.
Since Reagan, the Republicans have been robbing the country blind, with the great culmination in the crash of 2008.
The election of Obama put an end to that, at least for the moment.
The Republicans sorely want power back to continue looting the country.
The Republicans certainly have many reasons to hate Obama, and working for average Americans instead of the rich and the "trickle down" scam is another. And keep in mind that war can be very profitable.
The Republican Party is a business. They are only interested in profit, no matter the cost.
15
I don't see how reminding Iran about the difference between an executive agreement and a treaty, under US law, rises to the level of negotiating with a foreign power? Anyone believe the Iranians didn't know our laws or the fact the proposed agreement would be in grave political trouble come next election? From the Iranian point of view this agreement isn't a ten year hold on their nuclear program, this is a lift the sanctions agreement. The administration just doesn't like this farce exposed to public scrutiny.
11
The intent of the letter is to create a chilling effect on negotiations presently underway, telling the Iranians that any agreement achieved may not be worth the paper it is written on. As they are acting to derail an existing negotiation process, they have injected themselves into the process of negotiations with a foreign power.
30
The letter said that presidents are elected and the legislature must approve foreign agreements. (It's wrong on the last point). The Iranians very well know those things. The Iranian Secretary of State moved to the US at 17 and went to college and grad school here. He has two master's degrees in International Relations from US universities.
The Iranians also know those two key points because they are the same in Iran. It's a democracy. Any agreement that the US makes with the current president will see its completion with the next. They're elected for a four year term, maximum of two terms. The elected legislature there also has the power to approve certain (but not all) foreign agreements.
I wonder how many of the 47 people who signed that letter know those facts about Iran.
To me, what is worst about the letter is that it reveals an arrogant cluelessness about Iran and its Constitution. The first rule of negotiating is to know the other side, and the GOP is so far behind it's truly sad.
The Iranians also know those two key points because they are the same in Iran. It's a democracy. Any agreement that the US makes with the current president will see its completion with the next. They're elected for a four year term, maximum of two terms. The elected legislature there also has the power to approve certain (but not all) foreign agreements.
I wonder how many of the 47 people who signed that letter know those facts about Iran.
To me, what is worst about the letter is that it reveals an arrogant cluelessness about Iran and its Constitution. The first rule of negotiating is to know the other side, and the GOP is so far behind it's truly sad.
4
It is the content of the letter that was inappropriate, which undermines both the U.S. Negotiating strategy, and shows that the Senators involved are trying to create the impression that the United States is negotiating in bad faith. This is wrong on two counts; 1.) It is not the role of Senators to negotiate with foreign powers 2) They have undermined the credibility of the United States in multilateral negotiations. It is equivalent to trying to sabotage the negotiations in progress.
3
Perhaps, then, there are two branches of government that need to learn some history as well as respect the Constitution. The letter by the Republican Senators was the wrong way to go about things, but it was remarkable that push-back of this sort has been so long in coming. We have an imperial president who frequently shows contempt for the separation of powers and makes laws on his own -- witness immigration as the most blatant example of abuse. Having been voted down by Congress, the President established DACA by diktat. The same is the case with his unlawful and unconstitutional grant of amnesty to 4-5 million illegal aliens. He did this my memorandum, being careful to see that Congress did not exercise its proper role. In the United States it is Congress that makes the law. Not the President. And, yes, it is the President who negotiates with foreign powers -- but the fruit of that -- a potential treaty -- must still come before Congress, and he and his spokespersons have already been signaling they don't intend to do that. One imbalance provokes another, and the system goes out of control. Under Obama's regime, we have lived with a vertiginous combination of anarchy and tyranny. Surely this was not what the Framers had in mind.
6
The open letter to Iranian leaders was is meddling but it is not negotiation. It contains no bargaining positions or treaty proposals. It merely points out that treaties negotiated by the U.S. president are non-binding until they are approved by Congress. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the final say on foreign policy. Although open letters are addressed to individuals or groups of individuals, they target a much audience. Open letters have a long tradition in the United States, beginning with Ralph Waldo Emerson's widely published "Letter to Martin Van Buren" in 1838, in which Emerson expressed his disapproval of President Andrew Jackson's signing of the Indian Removal Act, which set the Cherokee Nation on the "Trail of Tears."
4
Apparently the addressee on this one was the Iranian government. especially its religious crazies.
Ok, Harvard's business school was just dropped from first place in one national ranking ( Is this a canary in the coal mine of excellence in education?) Does anyone else wonder what it is about Harvard Law school that both Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton were admitted and then allowed to get degrees without understanding basic Constitutional Law? Or worse yet, they were allowed to believe it was ethical to deceive voters about the meaning of the foundational documents of the US? Either their ethics or their understanding must be flawed. And I think it is time to blame Harvard for becoming a bastion of conservative radicalism. To paraphrase a NJ email, time for some donor congestion.
36
And when Mitt Romney took business law at Harvard, he came away with the understanding that corporations are people.
11
After struggling to make sense of such bizarre action by the republicans I suggest the following explanation. Clearly they do not intend to provide any support or help to Iran. I suppose they are comfortable with insulting the President but, that's not it either. The big prize and I believe the the focus of this action is the 2016 Presidential election. The repubs have begun to attempt to move the national discussion away from the economy (for obvious reasons) and towards foreign affairs; and here Iran is the biggest of prizes. They have often self-proclaimed themselves as the party who knows how to keep America strong and safe (and somehow lots of people have bought this). A no-deal with Iran heightens confrontation (if not outright resulting in war) and in this fog of fear, it is easy to hear the voices now: the Dems have weakened our military and our country and in this critical time of existential threat we need a strong leader who will ensure our defense and security! Jeb is our man!
17
Let's remember that the turmoil in the Middle East, including Iran, stems from the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz invasion of Iraq and actualizing a right-wing delusion of democratizing a tribal people who have little notion of individual rights.
Repubs are the party that knows how to keep American strong and safe? Every Repub administration has brought on a recession...
Repubs are the party that knows how to keep American strong and safe? Every Repub administration has brought on a recession...
2
What does Prof DuVal make of the Constitutional requirements that treaties only be made "by and with" Senate "advice and consent" process and that for ratification any treaty needs ⅔ of the Senate to approve it, or of the fact that the power to Declare War is vested exclusively in the Legislature? These facts may be unhelpful to a view that the Executive run the foreign policy show. But the deserve adumbration in any serious discussion.
2
"...the power to Declare War is vested exclusively in the Legislature..."
The Constitution vests the power of Commander in Chief in the President. Congress's war declaration power was a downgrade made by the Founders, who had initially proposed giving Congress the actual power "to make war".
The US Constitution's division of war-related powers requires nothing more than Executive and Legislative communication, but deliberately falls short of requiring any sequence of events or of establishing a prerequisite of prior agreement on military action -- something that would render the Commander in Chief power meaningless.
The Constitution vests the power of Commander in Chief in the President. Congress's war declaration power was a downgrade made by the Founders, who had initially proposed giving Congress the actual power "to make war".
The US Constitution's division of war-related powers requires nothing more than Executive and Legislative communication, but deliberately falls short of requiring any sequence of events or of establishing a prerequisite of prior agreement on military action -- something that would render the Commander in Chief power meaningless.
It is not a treaty that is being negotiated.
1
Please explain how one ratifies an agreement that doesn't exist yet, and where the House was when the President asked for votes aithorizing air strikes in Syria and after.
2
The problem comes when the president has lost the respect of Congress and is suspected of unconstitutional actions via executive orders which are designed to bring about massive changes in the society. When this happens it is only natural that the office of the President comes in to disrepute. This aura of distrust which currently hangs over the office, is what brings about letters that were written to Iran. I can certainly understand and sympathize with the writers, I personally do not trust this president to negotiate with Iran without Congressional oversight and approval of the final documents. I fear it will end up like the CLinton negotiations with N. Korea - they will get the Bomb
3
And just where has that "distrust" come from?
Perhaps it is those who charge that the President has exceeded his powers with his executive orders on immigration, despite the fact that his predecessors, many of them Republicans, including Reagan, did just the same thing.
Perhaps it is those who charge that he has driven the nation into massive debt even as the national debt continues to shrink.
Perhaps it is those who claim he has used imperial powers to create a health care system that will bankrupt the nation, even as that system demonstrates a steady growth in satisfied subscribers and a faster-than-anticipated reduction in federal health care costs.
Perhaps it is those who argue he is a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, a Kenyan, not one of us.
I've lost respect....for those whose continual lies have created a climate of "distrust" that is slowly killing our democracy.
Perhaps it is those who charge that the President has exceeded his powers with his executive orders on immigration, despite the fact that his predecessors, many of them Republicans, including Reagan, did just the same thing.
Perhaps it is those who charge that he has driven the nation into massive debt even as the national debt continues to shrink.
Perhaps it is those who claim he has used imperial powers to create a health care system that will bankrupt the nation, even as that system demonstrates a steady growth in satisfied subscribers and a faster-than-anticipated reduction in federal health care costs.
Perhaps it is those who argue he is a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, a Kenyan, not one of us.
I've lost respect....for those whose continual lies have created a climate of "distrust" that is slowly killing our democracy.
9
In this case, respect for the office of the President should have prevented such a letter from every being sent until negotiations were complete. These elected Senators need to realize that by negotiating directly with foreign powers, they were undermining the credibility of the United States of America, and not the credibility of the President. It is the credibility of the nation that they have undermined, as these are multilateral negotiations not governed by U.S. law. They in effect said, "You can't trust us as a nation."
7
hmmm...'thou doth protest too much, me thinks'. It was in 2006 when N. Korea made its first 'underground nuclear test'. King George had as much to do with it as Clinton. It is a practical, real life example of negotiating with a non-nuclear power. From Wikipedia,
"North Korea had been suspected of maintaining a clandestine nuclear weapons development program since the early 1980s when it constructed a plutonium-producing Magnox nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Various diplomatic means had been used by the international community to attempt to limit North Korea's nuclear program to peaceful power generation and to encourage North Korea to participate in international treaties."
"North Korea had been suspected of maintaining a clandestine nuclear weapons development program since the early 1980s when it constructed a plutonium-producing Magnox nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Various diplomatic means had been used by the international community to attempt to limit North Korea's nuclear program to peaceful power generation and to encourage North Korea to participate in international treaties."
The Senate and the public probably need a tutorial to distinguish what rises to the level of treaty, requiring 2/3 of senators to approve, from the "thousands of executive agreements" in effect that Secretary Kerry mentioned in testimony this week. Is there statutory definition and authority for the scope of those agreements, or have presidents been improvising?
9
There is no statutory definition of when a treaty or executive agreement holds. This is an area where Presidential power has increased (particularly since WWII) and Congressional power lessened. In general if the agreement impinges on Congress' control of taxation and spending, President's have opted for 2/3 Senate approval due to the principle of separation of powers. If the matter is international relations, President's have more often than not used executive agreement.
10
They certainly need a tutorial, but probably one on the rules of Civil Procedure, because it is clearly not their job to represent the United States in negotiations with foreign powers. They are like bullies who try to storm a negotiating table in order to undermine the results of the negotiations.
4
This US State Dept. document discusses all that in detail:
11 FAM 700 TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/11fam/700/index.htm
11 FAM 700 TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/11fam/700/index.htm
2
I don't see the problem here. This is the oath each senator must take before taking office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Shouldn't these individuals simply be impeached, a process the GOP loves so much, as they cleary failed "true faith and allegiance"?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Shouldn't these individuals simply be impeached, a process the GOP loves so much, as they cleary failed "true faith and allegiance"?
49
I think the impeach of the President should come first. He took an oath to uphold our laws and is not doing that in many cases.
Obama takes the same oath. When will he be impeached.
Oh and the constitution says "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." So there is that.
Oh and the constitution says "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." So there is that.
It moght be hard to get the votes to impeach in the House, let alone remove them from office by the Senate.
The Constitution states that 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." It seems many commenters seem unaware of this basic Constitutional reality. The Senate has final authority. Senators signed the open letter to Iranian leaders because they think President Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran without seeking their advice and consent. The results is likely to be an agreement that the Senate will not approve by a two-thirds majority.
5
The advice and consent comes in a ratification process after the treaty has been negotiated. Nothing has been submitted to them to ratify. Instead, they are interfering in the negotiation process. To frustrate it.
22
The proper way for the Senators to respond would have been to wait for a treaty to be negotiated, and then to vote it down in open debate in the senate. The letter was clearly improper because it attempts to sabotage multilateral negotiations to which the United States is merely one of several parties.
4
The constitutional passage you quoted continues, "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..." Why then, did these Senators not think that negotiations were the constitutional responsibility of Ambassadors, and of the Secretary of State, when that is their primary task? There is a reason that we don't let freshmen Senators speak for the country on the International stage; they haven't the experience or judgment to represent the country well, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that.
4
What is the definition of Treason in the United States?
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." 18 US. Code 2381 - Treason
Looks to me that all 47 signatories to the letter just committed treason. They are adhering to the hardline Iranian religious faction and giving them the comfort that they need not negotiate.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." 18 US. Code 2381 - Treason
Looks to me that all 47 signatories to the letter just committed treason. They are adhering to the hardline Iranian religious faction and giving them the comfort that they need not negotiate.
89
J Barksdale: Obvious you don't know what is going on. However, if you and your other Democrat followers think that the 47 GOP Senators who posted the open letter to Iran are guilty of treason, get Obama and Holder to prosecute.
So you believe the Iranians are our enemies but yet you want to make a treaty with them allowing them to get nuclear weapons. The hardline religious faction in Iran is the government, all of the government.
I was waiting for a John Bircher to show up. Shake it off "None Dare Call it Treason" dude. The guy that is supposed to run foreign policy is so serious about stopping the nuclear ambition of Iran he booked a bit appearance on Jimmy Kimil. I'm serious I mean ya can't make this up. If he went completely nutters and rand down pennsylvannia ave in a pin tutu I would not be surprised. He is all by himself creating a new genre of entertainment; the "high farce" and it will be his only legacy. In the meantime don't fret at present only Chrisitians gays and minorities are being beheaded. Sheep in sheeps clothing are well down the list (for now)
This is a good piece. I like learning fun stuff about the history of states. As to how the antidotes are instructive to a Senate which has been marginalized for six years I found no cogent argument much less a compelling one.
She noted that the constitution vests extraordinary powers (in some areas) in the executive in the person of the president and that it has born fruit. This is true but it is analgous to law relying on custom. We have laws against murder because society assumes they will rarely be necessary. The less opaque version is we have immigration laws that say illegal border crossing is just that. Untill 1980 it worked well because it assumed their would be no mass border crossing. We were wrong and it has failed ever since because we can not change our conception of nationhood to one that deports millions of would be citizens who have for the most part broken one law once.
It was never anticipated that the executive would use the latitude implicit in the constitution to among other things make de facto treaties and wage war. LBJ did the latter Obama is doing the former. The origins of the middle east Gordian knot of a policy is attributable to the Presidents abuse of power. Is the prestige of the office really denuded by a letter of warning to a bizzare anti gay/semitic theocracy that executes thousands of people per annum?. As for the world stage anyone that matters is just waiting the man out because he is quite simply right round the bend with this.
She noted that the constitution vests extraordinary powers (in some areas) in the executive in the person of the president and that it has born fruit. This is true but it is analgous to law relying on custom. We have laws against murder because society assumes they will rarely be necessary. The less opaque version is we have immigration laws that say illegal border crossing is just that. Untill 1980 it worked well because it assumed their would be no mass border crossing. We were wrong and it has failed ever since because we can not change our conception of nationhood to one that deports millions of would be citizens who have for the most part broken one law once.
It was never anticipated that the executive would use the latitude implicit in the constitution to among other things make de facto treaties and wage war. LBJ did the latter Obama is doing the former. The origins of the middle east Gordian knot of a policy is attributable to the Presidents abuse of power. Is the prestige of the office really denuded by a letter of warning to a bizzare anti gay/semitic theocracy that executes thousands of people per annum?. As for the world stage anyone that matters is just waiting the man out because he is quite simply right round the bend with this.
2
"We have laws against murder because society assumes they will rarely be necessary. "
You are confusing statutory law with constitutional law. The latter is contained in the Constitution, and gets its specific applications from case law promulgated by the Judiciary Branch. It cannot be amended by the former, hence Congress' inability to assume powers assigned to the Executive Branch.
This isn't custom. It is the highest form of American law, and the Law of the Land.
You are confusing statutory law with constitutional law. The latter is contained in the Constitution, and gets its specific applications from case law promulgated by the Judiciary Branch. It cannot be amended by the former, hence Congress' inability to assume powers assigned to the Executive Branch.
This isn't custom. It is the highest form of American law, and the Law of the Land.
Imagine how hard it would be for the United States to do business on the international stage if every agreement had to be made with Senate approval. Such has not been the case for many many years, and since the Senate has not been particularly effective in passing legislation recently, it would lead to a foreign policy disaster if multilateral negotiations needed to involve the Senate. Apparently these 47 Senators neither understand the separation of powers within the U.S. government, nor do they understand that it is not their role to negotiate with foreign powers directly, because we have other branches of government that are appointed to do that (such as the State Department.) Their lack of understanding of these matters will probably remain a blot on their political carreers for the rest of their lives.
2
The difference between the article and this screed is this: the article has facts in it, and doesn't rely on throwing a cusations at the wall.
1
This article makes a fair point, and historical reference is always useful in evaluating present policies and processes. But missing is any acknowledgment of the significant change in the formulation of foreign policy beginning in the early 20th Century and ramping up with the Cold War: namely, the increasing disconnection of foreign policymaking from congressional oversight and input.
As the article (and Constitution) states, Presidents are empowered to enter into treaties ... with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." As a practical matter, what does that mean -- is the role of the Senate either to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on a treaty ... and that's it? Particularly post-WWII, Presidents have avoided treaty-making altogether and simply fashioned foreign policies under other rubrics, thereby slipping the noose of even this most minimalist yea/nay congressional input. (All that is really left to Congress is to hold hearings on foreign policy issues, but query how much of a role this truly plays in actual policymaking.)
The senators' letter to Iran may have been improper, but it is best to consider it in a broader context: after all, given the post-WWII trend in foreign policymaking, it is unlikely that any agreement with Iran will _ever_ be submitted to the Senate for "Advice and Consent." These senators may have acted improperly, but there is a real issue here: the role of the Senate in "advising and consenting to" significant foreign policy decisions.
As the article (and Constitution) states, Presidents are empowered to enter into treaties ... with "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." As a practical matter, what does that mean -- is the role of the Senate either to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on a treaty ... and that's it? Particularly post-WWII, Presidents have avoided treaty-making altogether and simply fashioned foreign policies under other rubrics, thereby slipping the noose of even this most minimalist yea/nay congressional input. (All that is really left to Congress is to hold hearings on foreign policy issues, but query how much of a role this truly plays in actual policymaking.)
The senators' letter to Iran may have been improper, but it is best to consider it in a broader context: after all, given the post-WWII trend in foreign policymaking, it is unlikely that any agreement with Iran will _ever_ be submitted to the Senate for "Advice and Consent." These senators may have acted improperly, but there is a real issue here: the role of the Senate in "advising and consenting to" significant foreign policy decisions.
12
These Senators MAY have acted improperly"?
Is there anyone who believes the present Senate would consent to anything the president might present to them?
Is there anyone who believes the present Senate would consent to anything the president might present to them?
2
That's to reasoned an approach for the NYT obamacons chanting "treason!" Perhaps if the president would be willing to work with congress things would be different.
It may be difficult for some to determine whether this letter was a clumsy good faith effort to raise the constitutional legal question of advice and consent. But given the modern history (the last 75 years) on the question, it was unarguably an unilateral extension of domestic politics into the sphere of foreign policy. And once again the American people are caught in the gyre of governmental unraveling in which predictability is impossible. How much more of this can or will we allow? That's the only question.
2
The issue really is what should the representatives of the people in Congress do when the President is as incompetent and naive as this one. Obama and Kerry are the last people on this planet who I would want negotiating an agreement with a nuclear threat as dangerous as Iran. The best course of action would be to strangle Iran's economy with additional sanctions until we can elect a competent president.
3
We have strangled Iran's economy--under Obama (and 5 other countries), we've imposed more sanctions than any other president in recent history (that goes for W, who did little to curb Iran's nuclear advance).
Look at North Korea: this country has decimated its population in the process of acquiring nukes. Unless we want to go to war with Iran, we will not stop their march forward. It. won't. happen. We can slow it, monitor it and manage it--with enough triggers to decide on war if need be.
A war with Iran will be massive and deadly and uncontainable.
Obama's approach is correct. It's more nuanced that most of us can tolerate, but it's the best of all the bad alternatives. Obama is not naïve, nor is he incompetent.
Look at North Korea: this country has decimated its population in the process of acquiring nukes. Unless we want to go to war with Iran, we will not stop their march forward. It. won't. happen. We can slow it, monitor it and manage it--with enough triggers to decide on war if need be.
A war with Iran will be massive and deadly and uncontainable.
Obama's approach is correct. It's more nuanced that most of us can tolerate, but it's the best of all the bad alternatives. Obama is not naïve, nor is he incompetent.
4
Gosh, a majority of Americans voted for this president, both times. Just because you didn't, and don't like him, doesn't mean he's incompetent and naive. The last one, now he was incompetent and naive, to the extreme, and look what that got us. Now we have what amounts to an impending third world war on our hands, because the man in charge had absolutely no understanding of history or the law. Oh, and who also claimed to be clairvoyant, claiming to see into the soul of Putin, a so-called leader who is now proving to be the world's most dangerous dictator.
As for incompetence and naivete, let's not forget the Congress, full of naifs and bumbling idiots, who could not negotiate in good faith if their lives depended on it. In fact, one party has staked a position on not negotiating, not talking, not listening, not bending, not compromising.
At least someone with a brain, armed with patience and deliberation, is minding the store.
As for incompetence and naivete, let's not forget the Congress, full of naifs and bumbling idiots, who could not negotiate in good faith if their lives depended on it. In fact, one party has staked a position on not negotiating, not talking, not listening, not bending, not compromising.
At least someone with a brain, armed with patience and deliberation, is minding the store.
6
The U.S. is not a dominating piece of the world. Iran, with the help of Russia, China, and Western Europe can get along very well without us. So an Iranian bomb may very well be on the way without this negotiation. I'm not convinced that we have any choice but to negotiate. This is not an issue between the U.S. and Iran only. Moreover, both our allies and enemies are not fools. If this president has no power, why should they assume the next will have any? This is at least as much about the office, and unity, as it is about the man.
1
George Washington faced this almost as soon as he became President, and like so much else he defined the office by his conduct.
In 1793, France had just started what became its 20-year war with Britain. France sent its Ambassador, not to the President, but to the region of the US where the French cause was most popular. He paraded on up the coast to raptuous cheers, attempting to pull the US into France's war with Britain. He was making real progress.
Geo. Washington put an abrupt end to that. He sent him packing. Washington made it clear there was one President, he was it, and this was his job. Politics stops at the water's edge, so that foreign interests can't play at domestic American political divisions, as France tried to do in 1793.
That's the answer. The Republicans in Congress are no better than those who paraded the French Ambassador to challenge Geo. Washington's control of foreign policy, war and peace in the vast wars then starting.
In 1793, France had just started what became its 20-year war with Britain. France sent its Ambassador, not to the President, but to the region of the US where the French cause was most popular. He paraded on up the coast to raptuous cheers, attempting to pull the US into France's war with Britain. He was making real progress.
Geo. Washington put an abrupt end to that. He sent him packing. Washington made it clear there was one President, he was it, and this was his job. Politics stops at the water's edge, so that foreign interests can't play at domestic American political divisions, as France tried to do in 1793.
That's the answer. The Republicans in Congress are no better than those who paraded the French Ambassador to challenge Geo. Washington's control of foreign policy, war and peace in the vast wars then starting.
43
Thank you for the great reminder of why we have a national government governed by our particular Constitution.
I don't know what Senator Orrin Hatch's excuse is for not knowing American history, he has certainly been around a long time, but the younger Republicans must be the product of a public educational system that too often fails to teach critical thinking and American history at a level that makes competent citizens.
I don't know what Senator Orrin Hatch's excuse is for not knowing American history, he has certainly been around a long time, but the younger Republicans must be the product of a public educational system that too often fails to teach critical thinking and American history at a level that makes competent citizens.
93
I would dig deeper into your hypothesis. IF one accepts that it is the fault of the school system, whose fault is that the schools have declined and failed to teach critical thinking? The very people who don't have it are likely the ones who are proponents of eliminating it from teaching (back to basics, testing, etc) and the ones denigrating the education system.
On the other hand, I might also propose a different hypothesis: willful ignorance, combined with unmitigated arrogance (possibly narcissism) and a degree of hatred for President Obama.
On the other hand, I might also propose a different hypothesis: willful ignorance, combined with unmitigated arrogance (possibly narcissism) and a degree of hatred for President Obama.
1
Don't blame the teachers. It's a lame argument. If in fact it were to hold true, then those older politicians should have more sense as they were educated during the time of the space race when America was supposedly at its peak intellectually. It's not about the education. It's about the arrogance.
2
Sen. Tom Cotton went to Harvard.
"As long as congressmen, state officials and private individuals presumed they had the right to negotiate with foreigners, no foreign government could trust that anyone claiming to speak for the United States actually did." Herein lies the rub.
The 47 have presumed they have the "right" but I wonder how much of their actions are purely conceived to hamper and cloud the President's efforts. Is their action little different than a shouted "You lie!."
The 47 have presumed they have the "right" but I wonder how much of their actions are purely conceived to hamper and cloud the President's efforts. Is their action little different than a shouted "You lie!."
123
...and we can only imagine if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016 and have control of everything once again, with the group of hard-liner hawks now present in congress, how soon we would see more wars...
It is wholly unfair for only 1% of our population to be the ones who fight for/protect us. If the powers that be want more wars, there should be a return to the draft -- I'll bet the congress and their constituents would not then be quite so 'gung ho' (vernacular necessary here).
It is wholly unfair for only 1% of our population to be the ones who fight for/protect us. If the powers that be want more wars, there should be a return to the draft -- I'll bet the congress and their constituents would not then be quite so 'gung ho' (vernacular necessary here).
We are all assuming that these senators represent the United Sates; how do you know their campaign contributions did not come from foreign sources ?
How confident are you that your senator does not represent a foreign power ?
How confident are you that your senator does not represent a foreign power ?
86
Where do Obama and Hillary Clinton get their money? Does Obama represent anyone but he far left, hedge fund operators and the big banks?
9
Since you asked the question, I will answer it: I am not one of "he far left, hedge fund operators and the big banks," but I know that President Obama represents me. Especially in matters between the other countries of this world, the President represents the United States, which includes both of us.
175
Didn't the Saudis help bankroll the Bush Family for DECADES?
30
Let's be clear, as much as we have a reason for a president, we also have a reason for a congress. The article focuses on how the congress usurps the power of the president but the reverse is also true. This president is obligated to discuss his negotiations with the congress but he does not. So the congress has an obligation to remind the parties that the president does not have the power to create treaties on his own and he is neglecting his obligations to include the congress. All previous presidents as much to their regret have worked with congress and kept the leaders informed.
13
Not at all. The intent of founding fathers when they wrote "advice and consent" was for the Senate to give advice (and ultimately consent) to the President, not to our adversaries. That distinction seems to have been lost on the Republicans.
4
The president has the authority to negotiate treaties, but Congress has the final power to approve or disapprove them before they become binding. That's not the same as, God forbid, having all of Congress participate in the negotiations, for reasons well presented in the article. This Congress was clearly well aware of the content of the discussions and had absolutely no right to attempt to undermine them by letters to the enemy.
7
Yes, let's be clear. Individual Senators are not the Congress when they act apart from the constitutionally sanctioned limits of the Congress. The group of 47 did not represent Congress with their letter, which does not qualify as an act of Congress without a vote. These individuals didn't even represent the Republican voting bloc of the Senate. They represented only themselves. The President is not creating a treaty. He is negotiating an initial agreement in partnership with 5 other nations that may give the western nations time to get Iran to sign on to an existing non-proliferation treaty. Would you rather skip over all that and just launch the war right now?
11
I can't help but feel there should be some consequences for those senators that were signatories to the letter. It truly frightens me to think of these people making decisions that affect the welfare of this nation. They are childish, reactionary, emotional, and vindictive, none of which makes for good leadership. Sadly, they seem to be getting worse. Inviting Netanyahu was bad enough, but sending a letter just takes the cake. Do they have a clue just how dangerous and stupid they really are. Is this really the kind of people we elect. I can't help but think it says something about us.
231
Prison would be a good start. Isn't the penalty for violating the Logan Act three years and a substantial fine?
2
No. They have no clue.
Full stop.
Full stop.
These are the kind of yahoos we get when 67% of registered voters abstain from voting.
1
I've never such hostility and disrespect directed towards a president in my lifetime. Those 47 signatories should be sanctioned and lose their pay for six months. Perhaps then they would think twice about acting so foolishly.
176
Then you must be less than 7 year old. The abuse heaped on Bush by the left and by this very newspaper was just as bad or worse than anything Obama has gotten.
Obama brings it on himself, by this outrages executive actions. He has only himself to blame.
It is truly amazing the way the modern democrat party is literally tossing our democratic traditions into the wastebin. They are more than happy to sideline congress and create an autocrat in the presidency simply because they agree politically with the office's current occupant.
We have a Congress for a reason too.
Congress is, under the Constitution, a separate, co-equal branch of government in no way subservient to the President. We are given very selective history lessons when Obama is subject to the same derisive tactics that he has employed for seven years against Congress. The author of this tripe ignores actions by Democrats in recent times to conduct their own foreign policy including Teddy Kennedy trying to enlist the leaders of the Soviet Union in an attempt to "stop Reagan" on his way to winning the Cold War. The author does not mention Jim Wrights independent foreign policy with the Soviets and El Salvador, Pelosi and Kerry's trips to schmooze murderous dictators against the Presidents wishes or the shenanigans of Bagdad Jim McDermott. The author does not mention the administration's testimony in Congress that no Cuba deal would be made without Congress while a secret deal was underway.
For seven years Obama has circumvented the Constitution, the rule of law, our traditions, an open free press and Congress. Liberal Democrats are ok with that but don't you dare treat their prince the same way. Obama made his bed let him sleep in it.
Congress is, under the Constitution, a separate, co-equal branch of government in no way subservient to the President. We are given very selective history lessons when Obama is subject to the same derisive tactics that he has employed for seven years against Congress. The author of this tripe ignores actions by Democrats in recent times to conduct their own foreign policy including Teddy Kennedy trying to enlist the leaders of the Soviet Union in an attempt to "stop Reagan" on his way to winning the Cold War. The author does not mention Jim Wrights independent foreign policy with the Soviets and El Salvador, Pelosi and Kerry's trips to schmooze murderous dictators against the Presidents wishes or the shenanigans of Bagdad Jim McDermott. The author does not mention the administration's testimony in Congress that no Cuba deal would be made without Congress while a secret deal was underway.
For seven years Obama has circumvented the Constitution, the rule of law, our traditions, an open free press and Congress. Liberal Democrats are ok with that but don't you dare treat their prince the same way. Obama made his bed let him sleep in it.
16
obama has stayed within the law and tradition as far as his use of executive power. the senate has not - negotiating with foreign powers the sole prerogative of the president.
110
Maxine, I get it. You hate President Obama. Nothing he does is OK with you. But your response to the notorious letter -- others have done it, too -- is a childish response. As the author of the op-ed states, no member of Congress is to negotiate with foreign leaders, and she gives the historical reasons why the Constitution is as it is. She did not give a pass to "Liberal Democrats."
62
Minority leader Pelosi's trip to Syria was arranged by the Bush State department. It included at least one Republican congressman and was followed the next day by a visit from another Republican congressman. It is important to get facts correct.
You might look at the conduct of the Reagan administration in selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the Contras despite the specific prohibition of Congress for both activities. This is in fact a real example of a President exceeding his authority. Fortunately for President Reagan, his dementia protected him from facing up to consequences other presidents would have faced; when he said he couldn't remember the facts, he was believed.
Diplomacy (as an alternative to invading another country) is generally conducted by the executive branch. Many agreements with other countries do not rise to the level of "treaties" which must be approved by the Senate. Many important international agreements are done with the full authority of the executive branch alone.
The right-wing mania for accusing President Obama of "circumventing the Constitution" etc. is an amazing escape from reality. For the past seven years the US has made remarkable progress in ending the Bush II wars and the Bush II recession. If that is the "bed" President Obama made, we should all be grateful he does sleep in it.
You might look at the conduct of the Reagan administration in selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the Contras despite the specific prohibition of Congress for both activities. This is in fact a real example of a President exceeding his authority. Fortunately for President Reagan, his dementia protected him from facing up to consequences other presidents would have faced; when he said he couldn't remember the facts, he was believed.
Diplomacy (as an alternative to invading another country) is generally conducted by the executive branch. Many agreements with other countries do not rise to the level of "treaties" which must be approved by the Senate. Many important international agreements are done with the full authority of the executive branch alone.
The right-wing mania for accusing President Obama of "circumventing the Constitution" etc. is an amazing escape from reality. For the past seven years the US has made remarkable progress in ending the Bush II wars and the Bush II recession. If that is the "bed" President Obama made, we should all be grateful he does sleep in it.
205
In recent memory, we have not seen the undermining of the president's authority to represent the country...until now. Coincidence that Obama is a black president? You be the judge. A pernicious measure, if we ever saw one.
78
Then you have not been paying attention. The Democrats did not attempt to undermine the foreign policy of Reagan and the two Bush's?
9
Calling people who disagree with the president, as a class, "racist" in the absence of any presented evidence may make some people feel better but it doesn't reflect well on their argumentative abilities. Now what do we sometimes call people who denigrate a whole class of people without reason?
10
Stubbs, I agree with your premise. I have assiduously absented myself from even thinking racism was at play, let alone labeling people as such. However, at this point, 8 years into his Presidency, I am finding it increasingly difficult to find another explanation for some of the behavior that has occurred. Of course none of these people think they are racist- and by definition they probably aren't, but somewhere there is some deep-seeded hatred that has nothing to do with President Obama's policies or ideals that must be causing them to behave in such a repugnant manner and so insidiously undermine as well as overtly insult him.
8
The latter 47 Senators wrote to Iranian Ayatolaha is the reflection of the the Republican party's view of 2012 election - they are trying to deny the legitimacy of an elected President. It is clear sign of undermining the Presidency of the country - a new strategy of the Republican Party. In the first term of Obama the strategy of the Republican Party is to limit the Obama Presidency to single term. That did not work. In the second term, the strategy of the Republican Party is to make Obama presidency illegitimate. The actions of Speaker and Senators are clear sign of this. I hope Obama administration took notice of this fact and act as Imperial President. That will be fitting response to these mean minded politicians.
47
This is not a "new strategy." It started with Clinton, and will continue ith the next Democratic president. The Republicans have consistently and clearly outlined their goal of destroying government.
Again - the cotton letter communicated nothing beyond the simple truth that any agreement that is not submitted to the Senate for approval is not legally binding upon the next president. This is inarguable! Obama and his buddies in Tehran don't want this fact leaking out because they are together in wanting this agreement.
How perversely fitting that the Senator behind this travesty should bear the name of Cotton considering the insidious influence that the commodity of the same name has had on this nation since colonial times. The "47" should also read the recent book by Edward E. Baptist, "The Half Has Never Been Told," to get a better understanding of the destructive nature of partisan politics when carried to the extremes that they seem to be leading us.
38
Unfortunately, facts do not matter to this ilk.
1
One of the key moments of John F. Kennedy's all-too-brief presidency was the ways in which he handled negotiations with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that time, as the President, he acted as the sole voice of American foreign and military policy, and rightly so. That we were able to avoid a hostile confrontation with the Soviets is due to his masterful decision-making and public declarations at that critical moment.
Imagine a group of 47 U.S. senators sending a letter to Nikita Krushchev telling him not to make any deals with President Kennedy about Cuba, and that the next President could easily negate ay deal that Kennedy and Krushchev had agreed to. The calls for their heads would have been for them to be impeached and brought up on charges of treason against the United States, and rightly so.
Given the struggles over nuclear weapons proliferation, and the dangers that undermining ongoing negotiations with Iran may pose, does this "Gang of 47" stand any less revealed for their treasonous behavior. To paraphrase the late attorney Joseph Welsh speaking to the equally heinous Senator Joseph McCarthy, "At long last, sirs, have you no shame?"
Imagine a group of 47 U.S. senators sending a letter to Nikita Krushchev telling him not to make any deals with President Kennedy about Cuba, and that the next President could easily negate ay deal that Kennedy and Krushchev had agreed to. The calls for their heads would have been for them to be impeached and brought up on charges of treason against the United States, and rightly so.
Given the struggles over nuclear weapons proliferation, and the dangers that undermining ongoing negotiations with Iran may pose, does this "Gang of 47" stand any less revealed for their treasonous behavior. To paraphrase the late attorney Joseph Welsh speaking to the equally heinous Senator Joseph McCarthy, "At long last, sirs, have you no shame?"
136
Perhaps the country would have been better off if members of congress more strongly fought against Kennedy's increasing America's involvement in Viet Nam.
And how did that Bay of Pigs thing work out for Kennedy? Not an act of war? And he kept Congress clueless, but in retrospect, so was Kennedy.
And how did that Bay of Pigs thing work out for Kennedy? Not an act of war? And he kept Congress clueless, but in retrospect, so was Kennedy.
JFK nearly got us into a nuclear war with Russia. What are you talking about?
IS THERE AN ADULT IN THE HOUSE?
The usurpation of Presidential authority to negotiate foreign policy is a symptom of what is wrong with the attitude of Republicans who would be signatories to an open letter to the President of Iran. The symptom is egocentric, infantile behavior. Governance by tantrums is their currency. Typically of infantile people, they are powerfully motivated to take things apart, but incapable of putting them back together again. Infantile behaviors are fine for infants and small children. But they are disastrous in elected officials of the most powerful nation in the world.
While Obama and other negotiating partners have won compromise from Iran, their historic achievement is being undermined by the infantile behavior of those who do not trouble themselves to learn the facts. That same attitude is what got us into Iraq. That and lying by the then-president. Look at the chaos in the Middle East. We have presidential lies to thank, in no small portion, for making the world a far more dangerous place for America. And they would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by sabotaging the negotiations toward an agreement with Iran.
The usurpation of Presidential authority to negotiate foreign policy is a symptom of what is wrong with the attitude of Republicans who would be signatories to an open letter to the President of Iran. The symptom is egocentric, infantile behavior. Governance by tantrums is their currency. Typically of infantile people, they are powerfully motivated to take things apart, but incapable of putting them back together again. Infantile behaviors are fine for infants and small children. But they are disastrous in elected officials of the most powerful nation in the world.
While Obama and other negotiating partners have won compromise from Iran, their historic achievement is being undermined by the infantile behavior of those who do not trouble themselves to learn the facts. That same attitude is what got us into Iraq. That and lying by the then-president. Look at the chaos in the Middle East. We have presidential lies to thank, in no small portion, for making the world a far more dangerous place for America. And they would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by sabotaging the negotiations toward an agreement with Iran.
75
Contrary to the thoughts of the author of this piece, I think it's perfectly normal for the current crop of Republicans to wish to "return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness". These are, after all, the people who swear an oath to Grover Norquist, the man whose stated aim is to make our government so weak it "can be drowned like a baby in a bathtub".
Let's face it - the barbarians are not at the gates, they're in the Senate.
Let's face it - the barbarians are not at the gates, they're in the Senate.
141
you stole my thunder. "Cacophony and weakness" has been the goal of the "government is the problem" party for the past 35 years. Case in point, I attended a Tea Party Congressman's town hall years ago where one of his detractors said (rightly) that the Congressman was "acting like a 5 year old." A Tea Party supporter later stood up in the meeting and announced he wanted to "thank the Congressman for acting like a 5 year old." The childish letter that the 47 Senators sent is the stuff their voters want. This time, though, it could lead our country into war with Iran.
58
What an excellent job of cherry picking factoids of early, pre-constitution US history to illustrate a point!
However, I seem to recall some other little facts from that same time. Wasn't there something from our early history about a creation of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches?
I remember a wonderful little clause you could have mentioned too. Something about the president having the ability to make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Do two thirds of the senate concur with the proposed treaty with Iran?
We also, having broken away of a system of royals, peerage, privilege and class, decided we not longer wanted a king, czar, chief, emir or shah as our leader.
Perhaps our senate are simply giving a sixth grade US civics lesson to the Iranians and to our constitutional law professor, King Barack I.
However, I seem to recall some other little facts from that same time. Wasn't there something from our early history about a creation of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches?
I remember a wonderful little clause you could have mentioned too. Something about the president having the ability to make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". Do two thirds of the senate concur with the proposed treaty with Iran?
We also, having broken away of a system of royals, peerage, privilege and class, decided we not longer wanted a king, czar, chief, emir or shah as our leader.
Perhaps our senate are simply giving a sixth grade US civics lesson to the Iranians and to our constitutional law professor, King Barack I.
13
"Do two thirds of the senate concur with the proposed treaty with Iran?" No, but did two-thirds of the Senate support this letter? Also no, so your rationale does not stand.
29
executive agreements with foreign powers do not need to be ratified by congress. 96% of our dealings with other countries fall in this category.
61
Constitutional checks and balances are institutional in nature, not individual. You cannot act as the Senate without acting as the entire Senate. At best this was a rump group of Senators, expressing an opinion. At worst, it was a treasonous, rump declaration of war against Iran since that is the only alternative to a negotiated settlement.
35
One need only ask themselves what would Republicans do had a group of 47 Democratic Senators done something similar?
The 24/7 Right-Wing Echo chamber would be bursting at the seams with calls of "Traitors" and demands that they be punished.
Hopefully, this irresponsible and reckless act at least makes more thoughtful individuals take pause before falling for the false equivalency, "both sides do it" rubbish peddled by so many mainstream corporatist media outlets.
The 24/7 Right-Wing Echo chamber would be bursting at the seams with calls of "Traitors" and demands that they be punished.
Hopefully, this irresponsible and reckless act at least makes more thoughtful individuals take pause before falling for the false equivalency, "both sides do it" rubbish peddled by so many mainstream corporatist media outlets.
40
But Democrats have done similar things in recent times. Sorry, for intruding any facts into the discussion.
11
Actually, the so-called "facts" are not in evidence when you closely read the actual facts about the contacts.
4
Maxine of Chicago says, "...Democrats have done similar things in recent times." Examples and sources, please.
4
The interesting thing is that young Senator Cotton then proceeded to meet (again?) with the military-industrial complex. Rather than worry about Hillary's emails because that is truly history, Senator Cotton, what were the details of your discussion because that may be our future.
I'm old enough to remember that there was a distinguished Republican President (and a battle-tested General) who warned us all to beware of the military-industrial complex that finds war a very good business. His name was Eisenhower.
I'm old enough to remember that there was a distinguished Republican President (and a battle-tested General) who warned us all to beware of the military-industrial complex that finds war a very good business. His name was Eisenhower.
70
Seriously. They demand to see Hillary's emails to her dry cleaner but the substance of the Senator's meeting with defense secret will be secret. I suppose he had to swing by to pick up the bags of cash.
2
Wait, at least I suspect there were records of those meetings instead of Hillary's
Thank you for calling out those 47 individuals who would rather destroy our country's credibility worldwide just because they want to destroy our president. They should be forever banned from public service as they know not what they do. Their crassness and lack of political diplomacy amazes and shocks me. How did we, the voting public, not see their stupidity prior to voting for them?
Oh, that's right they are really good at lying.......
Oh, that's right they are really good at lying.......
34
These Senators are ignorant of the Constitution. It is mind boggling.
1
The world is becoming more dangerous each day and our goverment is increasingly dysfunctional. There has been absolutely zero respect for President Obama and the Republicans have been rewarded with control of both branches of Congress after all their consistent and disgusting stand on women rights, voting rights and support of the 1% at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
It is sad that I am not surprised that they would usurp the President's right to negotiate with Iran or invite the Israeli prime minister to address Congress without consulting the White House. We have become an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, an empire in decline guided by self serving greedy and many times deluded fools that are at the service of the highest bidder with the uncoditional support of the Supreme Court and their decisions on Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act.
I fear for the future that awaits my children and grandchildren and feel powerless and defeated,
It is sad that I am not surprised that they would usurp the President's right to negotiate with Iran or invite the Israeli prime minister to address Congress without consulting the White House. We have become an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, an empire in decline guided by self serving greedy and many times deluded fools that are at the service of the highest bidder with the uncoditional support of the Supreme Court and their decisions on Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act.
I fear for the future that awaits my children and grandchildren and feel powerless and defeated,
58
wait til the electorate hands them the whitehouse again just in time to start another war and "re-break" our economy.
I can relate, Lily. I am 68 and am now ashamed to be an American. It is frightening.
1
Love the headline "We Have a President for a Reason". So it's come to this, that we have to be reminded that the President actually has duties to fulfill, and his job isn't simply to be disrespected, disregarded, and denied legitimacy despite two election victories.
Oh, but I forgot: he's a muslim traitor who stole the election. So by all means let's ignore him.
Oh, but I forgot: he's a muslim traitor who stole the election. So by all means let's ignore him.
30
Apparently his job is to disrespect Congress, the Constitution, the rule of law, our traditions, the American people and our intelligence. Is that right?
5
Congress must stay within its legal realm as must the Senate. I don't know of any law that Mr. Obama has broken, please inform me. It seems to me that he celebrates our traditions more fully than any other person I know. I never wish a catholic Happy Lint, or a Hindi Happy Rama Navami, and I have yet to congratulate a Mormon for acquiring their Temple Recommend. It seems to me that the USA is a large groups of diverse people with just as many diverse beliefs and therefore a President who also sees and understands that is going to make an effort to include everyone, respectfully. I have not heard that this President has spoken ill of the American people, either as a whole or a single person, which Bush and Reagan both did.
2
Dear Maxine - Please give specifics. When, exactly, did the president disrespect congress, the rule of law, our traditions, the American people and our intelligence?? Yes, he has used "executive orders" just like presidents before him. Of course, he has had FEWER of them than any recent president. I saw him on TV, a number of times, practically begging congress to do their job and bring an immigration bill up for a vote. But they refused. I, for one, was very glad to seem him take action on a critical problem that the Congress REFUSES to deal with.
It seems it is Congress who is disrespecting the President (remember the "You lie" insult during the State of the Union Address?), the Constitution (they refuse to carry out their duties), the rule of law (they are in violation of the Logan Act), our traditions (traditionally, our differences stopped at "the waters edge" - but no more), the American people (by refusing to govern) and our intelligence (by thinking we won't notice that they vowed, on the day of the presidents inaugural, to obstruct EVERYTHING he wanted to do).
It seems it is Congress who is disrespecting the President (remember the "You lie" insult during the State of the Union Address?), the Constitution (they refuse to carry out their duties), the rule of law (they are in violation of the Logan Act), our traditions (traditionally, our differences stopped at "the waters edge" - but no more), the American people (by refusing to govern) and our intelligence (by thinking we won't notice that they vowed, on the day of the presidents inaugural, to obstruct EVERYTHING he wanted to do).
2
Perhaps those who signed the letter to Iran should be required to show competency in 2 subjects: the Constitution and American History. For even if they posess college and/or law degrees, these were apparently not their strongest subjects.
In the unlikely event any of the 47 passed the competency tests the first time around, perhaps we could then flag them for what thry truly are: pandering,fawning base grade politicians. How much credibility should we then accord them?
In the unlikely event any of the 47 passed the competency tests the first time around, perhaps we could then flag them for what thry truly are: pandering,fawning base grade politicians. How much credibility should we then accord them?
27
Absolutely. How can anyone "defend the Constitution" when ignorant of it?
1
This is nothing new for the Republicans. The Reagan administration "negotiated" with Iran while a Democrat was still in the White House, before there actually was a "Reagan administration".
34
and the nixon team went to the paris to kill the peace talks. It only cost an additional 30,000 american lives to pay for nixon's victory
3
So now we want consensus politics. After all the talk about the President ruling by executive order, why wouldn't the Republicans respond in kind? The Tea Party is convinced that the country is at the point of no return, and has nothing to lose by burning the house down. These are but the initial tremors. Continued strong-arming raises the potential for politics by other means: violence. Here the conflict is grotesquely asymmetrical: Red America has both most of the guns, and the military: the officer corp and the grunts are disproportionately evangelical. These people feel abandoned and held in contempt by the elites who seem to take delight in taking the wrecking ball to traditional America. The poison has now seeped into the courts: Judge Moore. When the pillars are seen to uphold false gods, a Sampson is duty bound to hurl his weight against the pillars. The Tea Party understands the restorative agenda of Putin, and the suicidal valor of ISIS. People backed in a corner do desperate things, and get away with it because they know they have less to lose than their opponents. The men of the letter show themselves to be men of action in a stifling world, and that plays well with men who feel victimized by the tyranny of federal judges.
2
From UNC website: "Kathleen DuVal’s research focuses on early America, particularly cross-cultural relations on North American borderlands...from the sixteenth through early nineteenth centuries." What exactly does she know about current foreign policy?
Do we need to go that far back for a history lesson? What about WAY back in 2008 when then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a message to Iran encouraging them not to sign a deal with Bush, that they were getting the short end of the stick, and a better deal (for Iran) would be possible once Bush was out of office?
Do we need to go that far back for a history lesson? What about WAY back in 2008 when then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a message to Iran encouraging them not to sign a deal with Bush, that they were getting the short end of the stick, and a better deal (for Iran) would be possible once Bush was out of office?
4
could you flesh out that "fact" - not sure what you're referring to.
2
Righto, cleighto, why would anyone want to learn from history?! What a silly idea, reading books and listening to a historian who has studied the nation's founding! What does she know?!
But thanks for reminding us all of that open letter sent to Iran by Barack Obama and 46 other Senators in 2008 seeking to undermine ongoing negotiations between Iran and the G-5+1. I had completely forgot about that! (Geesh.)
But thanks for reminding us all of that open letter sent to Iran by Barack Obama and 46 other Senators in 2008 seeking to undermine ongoing negotiations between Iran and the G-5+1. I had completely forgot about that! (Geesh.)
1
Is it possible for you to provide some context to Senator Obama's message...? For example, was this during a public debate, between candidates for the Presidency, about Foreign policy, or as a senator, during his time to speak before the Senate, did he propose this idea? Or perhaps it was more like Richard Nixon during the election campaign of 1968 when his campaign manager sent a secret deal to the ruler of Vietnam encouraging him to hold out on a negotiated peace with President Johnson and The United States that would have ended the Vietnam War...promising Him and his wife a better deal if Nixon was elected.
3
A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD.
The President has power to make treaties, but O-N-L-Y "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," and provided that two-thirds of the Senators concur. The president MUST obtain the Advice and Consent of the Senate in order to make a treaty.
What about that does the president not GET?
Okay, he wants to call this an "agreement" that is not a treaty? Well, if that's not the height of stupidity, then I don't know what is. I looked up the definition of "treaty," and guess what? It means an agreement!
So the president wants to enter into an agreement that is not a treaty? Well, that would surely mean that it is not binding, wouldn't it--not binding on anyone, in fact. So, the president could purport to enter into this agreement with Iran and then change his mind. Why would any sane leader of any nation do this? The answer is, he wouldn't, unless he had a ulterior motive. The motive in this case lies in Rudy Giuliani's observation about the president -- but in fact, it's worse. The president hates the United States, and he hates it more and more as he stays in office, because the people of the United States do not like him.
The President has power to make treaties, but O-N-L-Y "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," and provided that two-thirds of the Senators concur. The president MUST obtain the Advice and Consent of the Senate in order to make a treaty.
What about that does the president not GET?
Okay, he wants to call this an "agreement" that is not a treaty? Well, if that's not the height of stupidity, then I don't know what is. I looked up the definition of "treaty," and guess what? It means an agreement!
So the president wants to enter into an agreement that is not a treaty? Well, that would surely mean that it is not binding, wouldn't it--not binding on anyone, in fact. So, the president could purport to enter into this agreement with Iran and then change his mind. Why would any sane leader of any nation do this? The answer is, he wouldn't, unless he had a ulterior motive. The motive in this case lies in Rudy Giuliani's observation about the president -- but in fact, it's worse. The president hates the United States, and he hates it more and more as he stays in office, because the people of the United States do not like him.
6
To those people saying the Senate ratifies treaties - no, they don't. The president ratifies with consent of the Senate. If the Senate says no, then he has the option of the executive agreement. Much like executive orders, our word is our bond - the president agree to it, and the US upholds it. To do otherwise would betray the trust of anyone that has treaties or agreements with the United States. Again, the president (and only the president) negotiates, then turns over the potential treaty to the Senate for review, the senate returns a yes or no, and the president does or does not sign it.
8
Every president since George Washington has used executive agreements for most agreements with foreign powers. Obama did not invent this. If it's stupid for him to think an executive agreement is not a treat, every previous president has been equally stupid. Under international law, these agreements are binding. In addition, any agreement that may be signed would be co-signed by a few of our friends (UK, France, German) and some other not-so-friendly players (China, Russia). So from every historical and legal perspective such an agreement would be binding - as were the many executive agreements signed by Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Johnson .....
12
Right - the people of the United States hate him sooooo much, they elected him TWICE!
2
Let's go ahead and call these men what they are: neoconfederates. They preside over states with the same sort of backwards policies on labor, with the same deep-rooted bigotry, and the same inherent distrust of the other. The have adorable notions about the legal structures of the country derived from a delusional, romantic understanding of its history.
But, most of all, they have a contempt for the idea of a group of states united despite their differences. So let's drop the pretenses and call things by their proper names. This letter was signed and delivered by the leaders of the neoconfederacy.
But, most of all, they have a contempt for the idea of a group of states united despite their differences. So let's drop the pretenses and call things by their proper names. This letter was signed and delivered by the leaders of the neoconfederacy.
41
The letter signed by "47" Senators being deemed as conducting foreign policy, is really just them openly defying the President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for continuing to drag their feet on this issue.
The link below indicates other acts of Congress defying Presidents in the past on matters such as the Treaty of Versailles
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/congress-us-foreign-policy/p29871
The link below indicates other acts of Congress defying Presidents in the past on matters such as the Treaty of Versailles
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/congress-us-foreign-policy/p29871
3
the last treaty you mentioned was not ratified, the congress did not get involved in trying to sink the on going negotiations. In fact nothing in your piece suggests anything other than that the 47 are traitors
It's time for the American people to sue Congress-in particular, the Republicans and now, traitors in that body. What a waste of our tax dollars and such a subversive bunch of zealots intent on undermining our President and his office. Our tax dollars need to go toward things like infrastructure improvements etc. and not these crazy antics for which they are taking up our time and money.
19
The only people less educated about the Congress, American history and civics than the Congress itself is the electorate. Sure, Republicans are great at raising money from a few donors withvery single minded issues that benefit them directly but they have no idea what it actually means to govern and zero respect for our government.
Of course, it doesn't matter when a lot of people in this country can't even name the branches of government or their own senators (THERE'S ONLY TWO) never mind their state representative. We are starting to look like the B team at best to the rest of the world.
Apparently, these 47 didn't consider what complete buffoons we look like to the other countries (mostly allies) involved in the same negotiations and how they will view negotiations with the US on their own parts. So now Old Sheldon gave a big gift to Bibi complements of a very trained few puppies in Congress.
Of course, it doesn't matter when a lot of people in this country can't even name the branches of government or their own senators (THERE'S ONLY TWO) never mind their state representative. We are starting to look like the B team at best to the rest of the world.
Apparently, these 47 didn't consider what complete buffoons we look like to the other countries (mostly allies) involved in the same negotiations and how they will view negotiations with the US on their own parts. So now Old Sheldon gave a big gift to Bibi complements of a very trained few puppies in Congress.
18
David Brooks says HRC must rise above the current political mess to achieve bipartisanship. How could that happen in the face of politics where activities such as the letter to Iran is acceptable and politically beneficial?
9
President Obama has pulled off a great diplomatic coup. A nuclear Iran will force Israel to cede land for a Palestinian State which will immediately bring peace to the middle east. A strong Iran will force all radical groups to lay down their arms and live in peace and tranquility. Pres Obama is using Iran to do the heavy lifting and Pres Obama will get credit for creating Palestine and bringing peace to the middle east.
2
You see no difference between a theocratic, state sponsor of terrorism that has threatened genocide against Israel and our destruction and Israel, the USA, UK, France or Japan let's say?
3
Hmmm, remind me, Maxine, how many of our congressmen, presidents, and supreme court justices are not of the Judeo-Christian ilk? And you're right: we should be contemptuous of Iran for they only threaten genocide. Real countries don't threaten.
A country run by non-Arab Shiites will forces countries run by Arab Sunnis to lay down their arms and live in peace and tranquility? What are you smoking?
Now, if you're really trying to argue that Obama will use Iran to help quash the ISIS threat, at the expense of increasing Iran's power in the middle east, then you have a good point.
If Iran honors the agreement with the US and other nations, they will have nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. If you're really trying to argue that Iran won't abide by the agreement, then you raise an interesting point.
Now, if you're really trying to argue that Obama will use Iran to help quash the ISIS threat, at the expense of increasing Iran's power in the middle east, then you have a good point.
If Iran honors the agreement with the US and other nations, they will have nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. If you're really trying to argue that Iran won't abide by the agreement, then you raise an interesting point.
Is there any point in trying to inject reason into these comments? There is a gap in the thinking processes of both parties so large that it cannot be bridged with words. If either or both parties in Washington decide to do away with words and take independent action the citizens of this nation will be the losers. The forty seven senators took a giant step in that direction by sending that letter to a potential enemy. The only reason the action of those senators is not being called treason is that no person in this nation knows how to, perish the thought, discipline the forty seven elected and seated senators who stepped outside of the boundaries of our constitution to act on their own. By looking to history for precedent the writer and others are looking for an excuse to pardon the actions of the senators. The thought of forty seven senators sitting in a docket under charges of treason while lawmaking in our country unravels is unimaginable.
10
They are the jury who would rule in an impeachment trial of the president too.
4
I can imagine it. It would be wonderful. As a country, we have allowed the GOP to become increasingly destructive to our country, our people, and our world. This must stop! They are not reasonable adults and only fools would treat them as if they were. They are overgrown children who need to be taught the lesson of appropriate boundaries. The sooner, the better.
19
Somebody had to stand up to the lunacy that was Joe McCarthy. We need a hero.
In the early days of the nascent union of erstwhile colonies it was obvious why "Many then doubted that the United States would hold onto its western settlements and remain a single country."
But this is 2015. I suppose for some, especially the forty-seven who thought they were appointed by heaven, it is still unclear as to whether the experiment to form a union has been successful or not.
But this is 2015. I suppose for some, especially the forty-seven who thought they were appointed by heaven, it is still unclear as to whether the experiment to form a union has been successful or not.
9
Hey, folks, remember, this isn't a treaty. It's supposed to be a negotiated agreement with multiple nations. We're not the only ones negotiating here. It's a US-Euro effort with Iran. I don't see any parliaments from other nations sending stupid, condescending letters to Iran. Just 47 unthinking, condescending U.S. Senators. They can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
39
A well presented and excellent history lesson for all Americans including the untethered Republican Senators who foolishly signed the letter to Iran
17
A very one sided and jaded history. I don't know what she knows - but since it has been in the media the last few days about then Sens. John Kerry's and Joe Biden's and Nancy Pelosi's forays into foreign affairs when their party was out of power, as well as others, it seems just partisan to claim that this is new or the first time. For an historian it is worse. And when the Democrats did it, the Republicans bawled about it too, because there is very little difference between the two parties in tactics and strategies. That's the problem. So many people really believe (and comment) that this side or the other are foolish or stupid or evil, when they both do the same thing all the time, pretending that only the other side does it or, at worst, when they can't deny what they've done - that the other side started it. Like any other argument in the fifth grade.
Besides, all of this is just political drama. We live in the internet age. It is the height of silliness for anyone to claim that this somehow alerted the Iranian representatives to things that they can read in our papers or on twitter or facebook all day. They already know we are divided over them. As Sen. Paul put it the other day, the message was really for the administration. And, of course, it was.
Besides, all of this is just political drama. We live in the internet age. It is the height of silliness for anyone to claim that this somehow alerted the Iranian representatives to things that they can read in our papers or on twitter or facebook all day. They already know we are divided over them. As Sen. Paul put it the other day, the message was really for the administration. And, of course, it was.
2
When you want to "send a message" to someone, the best way to do so is to send that message directly to the person you wish to address. What they have done is to try to humiliate the president and the Secretary of State.
They gave not one minute's thought to how our partners in this endeavor might view their actions. They gave no thought to how other countries might interpret their message. They were childish and imprudent in their self-indulgence and self-important action.
These people do not belong in public office. They are a danger to us all for by their actions they show themselves incapable of thinking dispassionately. This is what comes of allowing oligarchs to run Congress. Their hubris will destroy us.
They gave not one minute's thought to how our partners in this endeavor might view their actions. They gave no thought to how other countries might interpret their message. They were childish and imprudent in their self-indulgence and self-important action.
These people do not belong in public office. They are a danger to us all for by their actions they show themselves incapable of thinking dispassionately. This is what comes of allowing oligarchs to run Congress. Their hubris will destroy us.
25
There are a lot of terrorists running around the planet sending "messages."
In the guise of defending America, these power crazed puppet Senators weakened America by sending a message to Iran to ignore our President. It was beyond hubris.
In the guise of defending America, these power crazed puppet Senators weakened America by sending a message to Iran to ignore our President. It was beyond hubris.
Given a President who ignores separation of powers and governs by executive action, it's small surprise that some in the legislative branch feel empowered to step over the line. Both are wrong.
1
Executive orders by presidents averaged per year in office. Obama has issued the fewest executive orders of recent presidents.
Reagan 48 per year
Bush 42
Clinton 46
Bush 36
Obama 33
The full list is here
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Reagan 48 per year
Bush 42
Clinton 46
Bush 36
Obama 33
The full list is here
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
3
Executive action is accorded the President in the Constitution. Foreign policy is left to the Presidency. In this case the 47 Senators are wrong and subversive.
6
You're talking about Reagan, right?
3
We have a Congress and balance of powers for a reason.
President Obama has done his best to destroy these.
His legacy is an ineffective and dysfunctional Presidency accomplishing almost nothing other than historic divisiveness.
President Obama has done his best to destroy these.
His legacy is an ineffective and dysfunctional Presidency accomplishing almost nothing other than historic divisiveness.
4
His legacy will be about how much he has accomplished in the face of obstructionism and hatred.
2
You'd think this guy, cotton, having been in the military, would understand the concept "chain of command." Does he imagine, as a lower-level officer, he could have gone over the head or behind the back of a general and gone unpunished?
The behavior of cotton and 46 others is so immature and out of line that it crosses the line - into criminality. And mind you, even the Mafia has a chain of command!
The behavior of cotton and 46 others is so immature and out of line that it crosses the line - into criminality. And mind you, even the Mafia has a chain of command!
27
Once you let the genie out of the lamp it is near impossible to put him back. Does anyone think these kind of negotiations go on with people we like? Whatever deal you make or don't make some kind of verification has to be in it. When someone else is in the White House what the immature gang of 47 has done is going to hinder them. Why any country would ever think a deal made with the executive branch is a deal? Where is wisdom when you need it? These guys act like the president is president for life and the party in the White House is the party for life. When things change, for which it will, will they remember they let the Genie out of the lamp?
11
This piece captures the growing pains of a new nation and the realization of an early American generation that there is strength in unity. Today, it seems that strength is found in "tough talk", whether or not we are unified. Republican threats of secession in various states, congressional Republican shutdown of the federal government, the manufactured debt ceiling crisis, opposition to the Affordable Care Act (a fundamentally Republican plan), have all set the stage for this latest foreign policy stunt, which, as Ms. DuVal makes clear, an earlier American electorate would have regarded as treasonous.
The irony is that it is people of the Republican party who often claimed in the run-up to the war in Iraq that even questioning G.W. Bush was at least unpatriotic and maybe even treasonous. There was even a song called "Have You Forgotten", in case you've forgotten, which the singer Darryl Worley later apologized for, but at the time was essentially used to accuse people who opposed the war in Iraq of forgetting about 9/11.
However, it would inappropriate to take pleasure in the thought that the 47 letter cosigners don't have to look further than their bathroom mirror to find a traitor anymore, when the reality is that "we the people" have let it get to this point. I wish I knew how to fix our problem, but I think editorials like this go a long way to helping us see exactly what we've lost so that we may one day get it back.
The irony is that it is people of the Republican party who often claimed in the run-up to the war in Iraq that even questioning G.W. Bush was at least unpatriotic and maybe even treasonous. There was even a song called "Have You Forgotten", in case you've forgotten, which the singer Darryl Worley later apologized for, but at the time was essentially used to accuse people who opposed the war in Iraq of forgetting about 9/11.
However, it would inappropriate to take pleasure in the thought that the 47 letter cosigners don't have to look further than their bathroom mirror to find a traitor anymore, when the reality is that "we the people" have let it get to this point. I wish I knew how to fix our problem, but I think editorials like this go a long way to helping us see exactly what we've lost so that we may one day get it back.
25
If it weren't for the NY Times, I wouldn't
know that the two of the worst sins that anyone can ever ever commit is “disrespecting” the President and writing a letter to the Ayatollah.
Who woulda ever thought it?
know that the two of the worst sins that anyone can ever ever commit is “disrespecting” the President and writing a letter to the Ayatollah.
Who woulda ever thought it?
1
undoing two plus centuries of international and domestic norms and protocols the big deal.
6
For 47 Senators to openly disrespect the Office of the President (as opposed to the man) in the middle of ongoing sensitive negotiations involving our closest allies (Britain, France and Germany) along with Russia and China, is a major breach of diplomatic protocol, constitutional order, and longstanding tradition. It also exposes the U.S. as amateur, dysfunctional, divided, and untrustworthy. People around the world, friends and foes alike, are laughing at us and shaking their heads at our apparent demise as a global leader. The Ayatollah 47 have confirmed what the world has suspected: in the 21st century America is moving backwards, not forward. This is not about the New York Times.
75
If these 47 senators were tried for treason it would send a message to the rest of the other GOP clowns in congress that they cannot run around hog wild doing whatever they want to belittle our President.
20
DuVal: "It would be strange for a group of 21st-century senators to take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness."
Do not think "strange" to be a sufficiently strong enough word. More appropriate would be the the word "treacherous," since Aaron Burr is the apparent model for their conduct.
Do not think "strange" to be a sufficiently strong enough word. More appropriate would be the the word "treacherous," since Aaron Burr is the apparent model for their conduct.
210
I agree. The piece was well-written and interesting, but ended with a thud!
1
The letter from the 47 Senators doesn’t rise to the level of treason or sedition. However, it clearly violates the law.
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ~18 U.S.C. § 953 (Logan Act)
Some suggest that the Senators have immunity of speech and debate. Perhaps collectively, had the letter become part of the Congressional Record. But I would single out Rep Cotton as the individual who, without congressional authority, drafted the letter. Look to the action itself which clearly falls within the plain language of the statute.
We won’t see a Justice Department investigation, but simply reading the Logan Act brings sharp focus to what is an extraordinary event of arrogance, cynicism and bad faith.
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ~18 U.S.C. § 953 (Logan Act)
Some suggest that the Senators have immunity of speech and debate. Perhaps collectively, had the letter become part of the Congressional Record. But I would single out Rep Cotton as the individual who, without congressional authority, drafted the letter. Look to the action itself which clearly falls within the plain language of the statute.
We won’t see a Justice Department investigation, but simply reading the Logan Act brings sharp focus to what is an extraordinary event of arrogance, cynicism and bad faith.
24
To add to his arrogance, he has been an elected official fewer than three months.
9
Ms DuVal's historical account here is useful to all, but her reference to the president as Commander in Chief is no more relevant to the matter at hand than it was earlier in the week when Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton did the same. While it is true that one of the duties of the president is to serve as commander in chief of the US armed forces, it is not true that he is commander in chief of the United States. For all the militarized terminology the American political elite adopts in the Time of Perpetual War, he is an elected official in a democracy, nothing more.
It would appear that it is not only the Iranians who could benefit from instruction in the US Constitution.
It would appear that it is not only the Iranians who could benefit from instruction in the US Constitution.
2
Seems the only qualification for becoming a Senator today is a whack of money, a proclaimed love of America and a stump speech. Gives a whole new relevance to Know Nothingism.
21
Seems the same can be said for the presidency, although apparently, you don't even need to love America or the Constitution to be elected.
Next news flash: "Obama names self Emporer and does away with both houses of the Congress in what he's calling a "cost savings" initiative.
Next news flash: "Obama names self Emporer and does away with both houses of the Congress in what he's calling a "cost savings" initiative.
1
I am saddened to see how our country has declined. The lack of respect that we show to our peers, to our elders, to our traditions, is shameful.
Tom Cotton is put forward as a Harvard educated person and thus we are assume he is smart. But let's all remember that George Bush the younger went to Harvard and had to go the B school because he likely could not be clawed into the law school.
Let's not put pedigree before substance with Senator Cotton.
Tom Cotton is put forward as a Harvard educated person and thus we are assume he is smart. But let's all remember that George Bush the younger went to Harvard and had to go the B school because he likely could not be clawed into the law school.
Let's not put pedigree before substance with Senator Cotton.
16
These newly-elected congressmen and women should be required to study a subject they apparently avoided in their expensive law schools- namely history and how exactly Congress works.
10
Cotton's letter brings the Republican strategy on Iran into sharp focus. They've concluded that there's no point in negotiating, which is why they're undermining the efforts of the President and Secretary of State. They believe that the proper objective should be regime change accomplished by crippling sanctions, with military attack as the backup should sanctions not topple the regime.
The difficulty with this strategy is that Iran has been subject to sanctions for years and their regime is as strong as ever. Sanctions also require the cooperation of the entire rest of humanity.
This act by the #47traitors has compromised the effort to maintain a sanctions regime on Iran. The rest of humanity is not ready to throw in the towel on the possibility of a negotiated settlement, particularly since the recent multilateral talks have been productive. The Republican letter boils down to advertising to the world that the US is not a reliable partner in either negotiations or sanctions.
Of course, the world has no doubts that the US is a reliable partner when it comes to military attack, which perhaps is what the Senators really have in mind.
The difficulty with this strategy is that Iran has been subject to sanctions for years and their regime is as strong as ever. Sanctions also require the cooperation of the entire rest of humanity.
This act by the #47traitors has compromised the effort to maintain a sanctions regime on Iran. The rest of humanity is not ready to throw in the towel on the possibility of a negotiated settlement, particularly since the recent multilateral talks have been productive. The Republican letter boils down to advertising to the world that the US is not a reliable partner in either negotiations or sanctions.
Of course, the world has no doubts that the US is a reliable partner when it comes to military attack, which perhaps is what the Senators really have in mind.
9
I believe the 47 senators that sign that letter are heroes. Here's why:
There are two things we must understand about Pres. Obama:
1. He wishes he had the power of the dictator. He has said as much and, more importantly, through the use of Executive Order, has demonstrated as much.
2. His record on foreign policy – particularly Mideast foreign policy – is abysmal. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran – can anyone honestly say that situations in these countries are better since Mr. Obama became president?
Mr. Obama dismissed ISIS has "the JV". His administration openly lied when they attributed the Benghazi attack on a video. Mr. Obama derisively chided Mitt Romney during the debates when Romney suggested Putin and Russia were threats. I cannot think of a single foreign-policy positive of this administration.
And now we're supposed to sit and watch as Mr. Obama negotiates a nuclear arms deal with a sworn enemy of our country and our ally, Israel? I don't think so.
The real question is not why did 47 senators signed that letter – the real question is why didn't 100 senators signed that letter.
Obama apologists love to throw the word "traitor" at those 47 Republican senators. Nothing could be further from the truth. These principled men and women are heroes. They are trying to protect America from another Obama catastrophe.
There are two things we must understand about Pres. Obama:
1. He wishes he had the power of the dictator. He has said as much and, more importantly, through the use of Executive Order, has demonstrated as much.
2. His record on foreign policy – particularly Mideast foreign policy – is abysmal. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran – can anyone honestly say that situations in these countries are better since Mr. Obama became president?
Mr. Obama dismissed ISIS has "the JV". His administration openly lied when they attributed the Benghazi attack on a video. Mr. Obama derisively chided Mitt Romney during the debates when Romney suggested Putin and Russia were threats. I cannot think of a single foreign-policy positive of this administration.
And now we're supposed to sit and watch as Mr. Obama negotiates a nuclear arms deal with a sworn enemy of our country and our ally, Israel? I don't think so.
The real question is not why did 47 senators signed that letter – the real question is why didn't 100 senators signed that letter.
Obama apologists love to throw the word "traitor" at those 47 Republican senators. Nothing could be further from the truth. These principled men and women are heroes. They are trying to protect America from another Obama catastrophe.
2
there's one thing you need to understand obama is the duly elected president of the united states, and it is his reponsibility alone to chart our foreign policy
2
Matt Williams: Untruths annoy me. You state that President Obama's use of Executive Orders is demonstration of his desire for the powers of a dictator. If that were true, then surely you will agree with me that each of the last 10 Republican Presidents have wanted the same powers, if not more so.
President Obama has used Executive Orders 194 times so far. Number of EOs by the last 10 Republican Presidents:
GW Bush 291
GHW Bush (1 term) 166
Reagan 381
Ford (1/2 term) 169
Nixon (1 1/2 term) 346
Eisenhower 484
Hoover (1 term) 968
Coolidge (1 1/2 term) 1,203
Harding (1/2 term) 522
Taft (1 term) 724
Dictators all around by your definition.
President Obama has used Executive Orders 194 times so far. Number of EOs by the last 10 Republican Presidents:
GW Bush 291
GHW Bush (1 term) 166
Reagan 381
Ford (1/2 term) 169
Nixon (1 1/2 term) 346
Eisenhower 484
Hoover (1 term) 968
Coolidge (1 1/2 term) 1,203
Harding (1/2 term) 522
Taft (1 term) 724
Dictators all around by your definition.
6
Seems to me republicans in Congress are searching for a way to bring about a soft coup. In the meantime important work, required of these same legislators and necessary to the sooth functioning of our republic, goes undone.
A corporation would not such insubordination and dereliction of duty. Shouldn't the Republican Party take a lesson from the business world, a group they which they profess such loyalty, and notice that important negotiations between corporations are never interfered with by those not tasked to do so?
This adolescent nonsense on the part of republican grandstanders is getting very old. Too bad we can't initiate sanctions against THEM!
A corporation would not such insubordination and dereliction of duty. Shouldn't the Republican Party take a lesson from the business world, a group they which they profess such loyalty, and notice that important negotiations between corporations are never interfered with by those not tasked to do so?
This adolescent nonsense on the part of republican grandstanders is getting very old. Too bad we can't initiate sanctions against THEM!
15
Good piece. But I think the author sugarcoats Jefferson's role in the Genet Affair, which was a lot more equivocal and, perhaps, duplicitous. My understanding is that Jefferson sent mixed signals to Genet about the nation's attitude towards the recruitment efforts and privateering.
But then isn't it common for those who draw lessons from the past (as if the past really counts as a lesson) to paint Jefferson in glorious light, slave holder and secessionist and plotter that he was.
But then isn't it common for those who draw lessons from the past (as if the past really counts as a lesson) to paint Jefferson in glorious light, slave holder and secessionist and plotter that he was.
17
Thank you for this piece, Ms. DuVal. Clear and concise enough for anyone to read and understand. It should be sent to every one of the 47 senators and to anyone else who thinks 'that letter' and corresponding behavior is acceptable.
30
This history lesson and the Constitution on the role of the president in foreign affairs should be required reading for all 47 Republican senators and Speaker Boehner. President Obama was twice elected by the majority of all Americans, and was the first president since the 1950s to twice win the popular vote by 51%. He represents the nation.
The 47 senators more or less represent the Neo-Confederacy with relatively small populations and extreme tea party views that are rejected by the majority of Americans.
Americans do not want another war in the Middle East. Candidate McCain who sang his little ditty about "Bomb, bomb, Iran"; and Candidate Romney explicitly wanted "regime change" in Iran and threatened military action. Both were rejected by voters.
Republicans have ignored both the lessons from the disastrous Iraq War, and the cost of that war - both in human terms and in the trillion dollar bill that taxpayers are still paying.
The letter was in violation of the Logan Act, and it was a war mongering action. Sen. Cotton went directly to meet with a defense contractor afterwards, while Republicans have stated that they want no negotiations with Iran. The alternative is military action which is unacceptable to the American people.
Churchill once lamented that the past was so quickly forgotten, that people lived in "the most thoughtless of ages. Every day headlines and short views."
The 47 senators more or less represent the Neo-Confederacy with relatively small populations and extreme tea party views that are rejected by the majority of Americans.
Americans do not want another war in the Middle East. Candidate McCain who sang his little ditty about "Bomb, bomb, Iran"; and Candidate Romney explicitly wanted "regime change" in Iran and threatened military action. Both were rejected by voters.
Republicans have ignored both the lessons from the disastrous Iraq War, and the cost of that war - both in human terms and in the trillion dollar bill that taxpayers are still paying.
The letter was in violation of the Logan Act, and it was a war mongering action. Sen. Cotton went directly to meet with a defense contractor afterwards, while Republicans have stated that they want no negotiations with Iran. The alternative is military action which is unacceptable to the American people.
Churchill once lamented that the past was so quickly forgotten, that people lived in "the most thoughtless of ages. Every day headlines and short views."
41
@SMB, the problem is that the GOP doesn't view the Iraq War as disastrous...because they judge it by one criteria only...were they able to grow their personal businesses and their personal wealth at the expense of the American public and with the blood of the men in women in uniform (increasingly rural, undereducated patriots). The massive Defense Industrial Complex is a huge welfare program for the rich...and they continue to contrive to find ways to justify feeding it. So, from their point of view, it was a huge success...they got richer while everyone else paid the price.
13
We also have a Congress for a reason. When the President tries to go around Congress, Congress acts in kind. Thankfully we have a system where the courts can check both Congress and the President.
1
Can we all agree that taking their complaints to a hostile foreign power was not a good move on the part of the 47 Republican senators? If the real point of the letter was to communicate to the president, as Rand Paul claimed to Secretary Kerry, wouldn't it have been both easier and wiser to have addressed it to him instead of to the Iranian mullahs? The "Ayatollah 47" will go down in history as a low point in American governance. And McCain's "defense" that they all just signed it in a hurry without thinking it through so they could get out of town ahead of a snow storm is one of the most truly pathetic admissions of incompetence and dereliction of duty ever.
423
The 47 Republican senators have shown their true mania -- weak, desperate and lacking in backbone. If they were truly dedicated governmental representatives, they would attempt to fix our problems within our borders rather than to flaunt our dirty laundry to the enemy!! Mr. Guiliani, who is UNAMERICAN now? We could list 47!!
10
The president said it best: "it is somewhat ironic to see members of congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran", "it's an unusual coalition".
Yet Republican fundamentalist ideals and Iran's fundamentalist factions; not so different, not so ironic, not so unusual. The president playing softball here.
Yet Republican fundamentalist ideals and Iran's fundamentalist factions; not so different, not so ironic, not so unusual. The president playing softball here.
31
He does temper his language too much. I'd like too hear some passion from the President. Surely he's furious.
1
It's pleasant to continue to think that such anarchic behavior by the 47 senators is merely an aberration. Perhaps it's time that we cut back on the prescription meds and admit that the toddlers are running the nursery.
Psychiatrist and author M. Scott Peck wrote thirty years ago about the difference between freedom and license and asserted that in order to love one must occasionally chide and if necessary punish. Today's Republican Party personifies the child who acts out, and thus far society (and especially the press) has played the part of the indulgent parent.
Even prior to the 1960's, when Richard Hofstadter wrote about the paranoid style in American politics, many politicians have made a good living scaring the daylights out of their constituents, encouraging a worldview that portrays America, a country that supports a military as large as the next ten powers combined, as a sitting duck, and well-off white people as at the mercy of the poor and people of color.
The blacks want your lifestyle, the browns want your jobs, the Muslims want to make you obey silly religious laws (oh the irony), the unions hate workers, any sane gun control is tyranny, white supremacist groups that commit violence are not terrorist groups because they're (duh) white.
And we wonder why the end result includes legislators like Steve Scalise, Sarah Palin, and Tom Cotton.
Maybe if we ignore the children who are trashing the joint they'll stop. Oh, we tried that? How's it working?
Psychiatrist and author M. Scott Peck wrote thirty years ago about the difference between freedom and license and asserted that in order to love one must occasionally chide and if necessary punish. Today's Republican Party personifies the child who acts out, and thus far society (and especially the press) has played the part of the indulgent parent.
Even prior to the 1960's, when Richard Hofstadter wrote about the paranoid style in American politics, many politicians have made a good living scaring the daylights out of their constituents, encouraging a worldview that portrays America, a country that supports a military as large as the next ten powers combined, as a sitting duck, and well-off white people as at the mercy of the poor and people of color.
The blacks want your lifestyle, the browns want your jobs, the Muslims want to make you obey silly religious laws (oh the irony), the unions hate workers, any sane gun control is tyranny, white supremacist groups that commit violence are not terrorist groups because they're (duh) white.
And we wonder why the end result includes legislators like Steve Scalise, Sarah Palin, and Tom Cotton.
Maybe if we ignore the children who are trashing the joint they'll stop. Oh, we tried that? How's it working?
75
Liberty is the power to negotiate the contracts one enters into equitably.
Term limits and end to Citizens United. Plus pass a test on the Constitution.
1
"... the end result includes legislators like Steve Scalise, Sarah Palin, and Tom Cotton."
Sarah Palin has never been a legislator.
Sarah Palin has never been a legislator.
That a militaristic and immature freshman Congressman has commandeered the souls of 47 United States Congresspersons to deliberately undermine their country is scary indeed.
56
He was just the sacrificial lamb that was pushed out in front to protect the real players.
3
The "real players" being Sheldon Adelson and Bibi Netanyahu?
2
"no foreign government could trust that anyone claiming to speak for the United States actually did" brings up the question of how those who are not our enemies deal with a leaderless U.S.
What if the other 5 nations negotiating with Iran decide to just go ahead with negotiations, and with living up to the eventual agreement regardless of the U.S.?
If they drop sanctions, etc. in exchange for restrictions on Iranian nuclear development, and we bail out, might they not just ignore us and continue living up to the agreement?
Which nation would suffer the most from that outcome, Iran or the United States?
What if the other 5 nations negotiating with Iran decide to just go ahead with negotiations, and with living up to the eventual agreement regardless of the U.S.?
If they drop sanctions, etc. in exchange for restrictions on Iranian nuclear development, and we bail out, might they not just ignore us and continue living up to the agreement?
Which nation would suffer the most from that outcome, Iran or the United States?
11
Save us somebody Please! The absurdity of our Government and our Supposed Public Servants gets worse by the day.
What ever happened to "We the People for the People"?
What ever happened to "We the People for the People"?
11
'What ever happened to "We the People for the People"?'
That is not what the Preamble to the US Constitution says, and, anyway, those people are all dead.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
That is not what the Preamble to the US Constitution says, and, anyway, those people are all dead.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
A truly stupid column. The 47 Republicans who sent the letter--leaving aside whether it was a good idea or not--did not purport to be negotiating in the name of the United States, nor did they purport to speak for the United States. They were not usurping the President's role in that regard, and they were doing what Democrats have done in the recent past. In short, what Professor DuVal has written is completely irrelevant to what actually happened. The Republicans could just as easily have published their letter as an op-ed in the New York Times. Perhaps they should have--then at least we would not have had to endure off-the-point lectures like this one.
1
The U. S. Senate Historian's office has found no precedent for the letter of the 47 Republican senators.
11
A letter to the NYT would have been fine. Speaking directly to a foreign government and telling them "We don't care what is negotiated, once this President is gone we will terminate the agreement" doesn't help anyone. Unless of course, you're of the same mind as the hardliners in Teheran that would rather settle this with guns and bombs.
13
They should have sent it to the President, not to our enemy.
10
When I studied civics/government, the president was the one who negotiated treaties and the Senate said yea or nay on it. Seems the Senate got the cart in front of the elephant, err horse on this one.
21
Go back to civics. He makes treaties with the "advice and consent" of the senate, and ALSO not without a 2/3 vote. He has not asked the senate for advice or their consent, and he is not submitting anything on which they can vote. The president intends to make an agreement that Iran will understand is binding for ten years, yet the president has no such power. For it is either binding, and therefore a treaty for which he needs the "advice and consent" of the senate, or it is not a treaty, in which case it is not binding, and the president cannot bind the United States to a non-binding agreement. He can promise to get out of bed or to brush his teeth, or that he will be nice, but his "agreement" with Iran will be no more than that--a mere indication from the president that he intends (at least today) to continue doing something. That is not even an agreement.
So, Jim, go back to school on this one. You're really out there.
So, Jim, go back to school on this one. You're really out there.
1
Treasonous, pure and simple.
52
The President's exclusive power to conduct foreign relations and to reach agreements is one of the few crystal clear elements of American constitutional law.
When the Republican Senate deliberately injected itself into ongoing multilateral negotiations, for the purpose of scuttling them, they broke new ground comparable to the Confederacy's negotiating for recognition and military support from Great Britain.
When the Republican Senate deliberately injected itself into ongoing multilateral negotiations, for the purpose of scuttling them, they broke new ground comparable to the Confederacy's negotiating for recognition and military support from Great Britain.
48
"... comparable to the Confederacy[] ..."
The Confederacy declared itself to be a sovereign nation. The 47 Senators have done no such thing, so your analogy is false.
The Confederacy declared itself to be a sovereign nation. The 47 Senators have done no such thing, so your analogy is false.
We have a constitution that prohibits the president from signing treaties without 2/3 approval of the Senate. If Obama wants to violate the Constitution, he should expect people to object. If he wants to circumvent the constitution by negotiating a treaty but not call it a treaty, then he should suffer the consequences. Besides, Is there anybody in the universe that actually believes Obama and Kerry will negotiate anything that the Iranians will honor?
Did you read the article? The 47 Republican senators violated more than 200 years of historic precedent to return to 18th-century "cacophony and weakness" that had been deliberately eliminated from the Constitution and the government system to the United States when foreign policy making was centralized in the office of the presidency.
15
Yes, there are many such people. They elected him unanimously twice.
9
The deal being negotiated is not a treaty.
13
Thank Dr Duvall for reminding us that half of the senate is firmly entrenched in the 18th century.
36
Boy do I appreciate this bit of education. I understood enough about the Constitution to know that it is the prerogative (and the job) of the president to negotiate foreign affairs but the brief lesson on just how we got there is tremendously helpful. But even without that historical background, and as a Western European and American-by-choice, after more than thirty years of living here I can tell major congressional idiocy that goes beyond the usual fare when I see it. The idiocy of the Republican letter to Iran is a case in point, and the biggest one I have seen in all these years. Whether this technically amounts to treason is up for debate. That it is not only utterly stupid but also a threat to national security is not. Worst of all it displays just how seriously America is in decline. To ignore or deny that fact and to reflexively insist on "American exceptionalism" out of sheer habit is an idiocy of an even greater magnitude and of a more dangerous kind.
45
We are afflicted by GOP'ers who traffic in nonsense about ' creating their own reality ' as Ron Suskind showed us in his 2004 piece on Dubya's White House:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
and a GOP placing no premium on cooperation or teamwork.
Quite the opposite, any cooperation or teamwork is viewed as traitorous by these GOP'ers (sometimes amongst themselves) and endorsing demonization of other Americans who aren't GOP'ers.
This is the true ' other ' that we are dealing with.
GOP'ers demonized Clinton while he was in office, ignoring the budget surpluses and jobs creation in his terms, then trying to wipe all vestiges of him from the books when they took over in 2001 - back then it was called Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Now we call it Obama Derangement Syndrome.
But it's really Democratic Derangement Syndrome, now expressing itself in unprecedented fashion, according to the U.S. Senate Historian's office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/gop-senate-letter-undercu_b...
Democratic Derangement Syndrome kookery has gone way too far when a freshly minted Senator - in the Senate less than 8 weeks on the day the letter was released - leads 46 other Senators down the primrose path telling our negotiating partners England, France, Germany, Russia, and China that no matter what our twice duly-elected POTUS agrees to, GOP'ers might renege at their first chance, since POTUS is a Democrat.
These GOP'ers define dysfunction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
and a GOP placing no premium on cooperation or teamwork.
Quite the opposite, any cooperation or teamwork is viewed as traitorous by these GOP'ers (sometimes amongst themselves) and endorsing demonization of other Americans who aren't GOP'ers.
This is the true ' other ' that we are dealing with.
GOP'ers demonized Clinton while he was in office, ignoring the budget surpluses and jobs creation in his terms, then trying to wipe all vestiges of him from the books when they took over in 2001 - back then it was called Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Now we call it Obama Derangement Syndrome.
But it's really Democratic Derangement Syndrome, now expressing itself in unprecedented fashion, according to the U.S. Senate Historian's office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/gop-senate-letter-undercu_b...
Democratic Derangement Syndrome kookery has gone way too far when a freshly minted Senator - in the Senate less than 8 weeks on the day the letter was released - leads 46 other Senators down the primrose path telling our negotiating partners England, France, Germany, Russia, and China that no matter what our twice duly-elected POTUS agrees to, GOP'ers might renege at their first chance, since POTUS is a Democrat.
These GOP'ers define dysfunction.
201
This is merely yet another attempt by Repubs to embarrass and diminish Obama--this time at the expense of the entire country.
283
That is because it is so easy to do.
THIS time? How about when the frothing mob, led by that great legislator, Michelle Bachman and that other whiz kid, Ted Cruz shut down our government to the tune of $24 billion? That wasn't at our expense?
2
Everything they do is at the expense of the entire country.
3
One must wonder what these 47 senators would do if 47 Democratic senators had proposed a peace treaty with Iraq in the middle of the Iraq war? I continue to shake my head in disbelief over what is happening in Washington. Perhaps the gang of 47 need to take a remedial class in Civics 101?
528
I think the idea of a remedial Civics 101 class for the gang of 47 is a great idea.... as long as it is held in the comfort of a maximum security prison somewhere in the south (with no air conditioning).
4
@Tom: Impeachment is what they need.
3
The number 47 does seem to get them in trouble, doesn't it?
6
Give those tea party people another rallying call. They will declare the constitution void and revert back to the "Articles of Confederation".
Except now it seems it might make it possible to change the constitution as it seems we eliminated the first official governing document "The Articles of Confederation.
Or those wonderful tea party people could just eliminate the role of President entirely by accepting the "Articles of Confederation." Thanks to calling all of this to our attention
Except now it seems it might make it possible to change the constitution as it seems we eliminated the first official governing document "The Articles of Confederation.
Or those wonderful tea party people could just eliminate the role of President entirely by accepting the "Articles of Confederation." Thanks to calling all of this to our attention
16
Civics and history lessons should henceforth be mandatory for anyone who aspires sit in the US senate or house of representatives...
79
Thomas Cotton is a school boy in a suit. He would do well to sit in on Kathleen Duval's class.
132
He should sit down and shut up. He doesn't even realize he was used by his tea party pals.
16
Is Thomas Cotton a member of the SAE fraternity?
6
In my English grammar school a boy who exhibited such delinquency would have been called to the Headmaster's office, caned, and then expelled. Spare the rod, spoil the senator?
1
Republicans are merely mirroring Obama, and the letter to Iran is their version of an executive order, where the consent of a coequal branch of government is seen as an unnecessary nuisance.
Republicans do accept Obama as president, but not as dictator or king. Any deals he cuts with Iran MUST be approved and ratified by congress. The open letter serves as a check on Obama's megalomania as he foolishly stumbles into giving Iran a clear pathway to nuclear weapons.
Republicans do accept Obama as president, but not as dictator or king. Any deals he cuts with Iran MUST be approved and ratified by congress. The open letter serves as a check on Obama's megalomania as he foolishly stumbles into giving Iran a clear pathway to nuclear weapons.
8
It goes without saying that US treaties with foreign nations must be ratified by the Senate to go into effect.
It is left unsaid that the US Senate is a gross insult to the basic prrinciple of equal representation under democracy.
It is left unsaid that the US Senate is a gross insult to the basic prrinciple of equal representation under democracy.
14
Obama's attempts at dictatorial power grabs are coming to an end. The Consititution says 2/3 of the Senate must agree to a treaty. When was he going to present an agreement to the Senate? Ans: NEVER. Obama's imperial narcissism is on display.
3
I would be curious to know if you were equally concerned back when President Reagan signed an executive agreement with the Iranians. If you review history, the use of executive agreements is nothing new - what is new is the all out war by Republicans on our first African-American President. Starting with Mitch McConnell's pledge to undercut President Obama in every way and Joe Wilson's shamefully disrespectful "You lie" during our Chief Executive's speech, the Republicans have shown themselves more interested in damaging President Obama than in helping our nation. The Republican letter falls squarely within the Republican goal to discredit our President at every step, even if it means undercutting negotiations that could limit and deter Iran's nuclear ambitions.
As for the charge that the President is "foolishly" stumbling with respect to Iran, please provide specifics. Given that the negotiations are multi-lateral, with close allies like Great Britain, France, and Germany also working toward this political agreement, do you also believe that they are foolish megalomaniacs? If Western allies should not even try to make steps toward a negotiated solution to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions, then what is the solution? War?
In recent extensive travels overseas, I repeatedly was confronted with questions about our "broken" government at the hands of the Tea Party-led Republicans. The Republican brand is doing serious damage to our nation at home and abroad.
As for the charge that the President is "foolishly" stumbling with respect to Iran, please provide specifics. Given that the negotiations are multi-lateral, with close allies like Great Britain, France, and Germany also working toward this political agreement, do you also believe that they are foolish megalomaniacs? If Western allies should not even try to make steps toward a negotiated solution to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions, then what is the solution? War?
In recent extensive travels overseas, I repeatedly was confronted with questions about our "broken" government at the hands of the Tea Party-led Republicans. The Republican brand is doing serious damage to our nation at home and abroad.
26
As if this is new to either side.
The 47 are just "Reagan Republicans" through and through.
They are following the lead St. Ronnie laid when his running mate (the former CIA director) and his crowd of embittered EX CIA cronies set a deal with the Ayatollah to keep the US hostages until after the election.
As a reward, the US would provide them weapons with which to fight the Iraqis (with whom we were allied).
Then they got another letter offering to sell them arms, so that the President could fund a "revolution" in Nicaragua which the Congress had forbade the President from funding.
This sort of double dealing by the US is absolutely not new from the Iranian perspective.
Why would any Iranian government think anything other than "Those American Republicans are some dirty birds!"
The 47 ought to each be required to write "If I'm not with US then I'm with the terrorists!" 47,000 times on the blackboard.
The 47 are just "Reagan Republicans" through and through.
They are following the lead St. Ronnie laid when his running mate (the former CIA director) and his crowd of embittered EX CIA cronies set a deal with the Ayatollah to keep the US hostages until after the election.
As a reward, the US would provide them weapons with which to fight the Iraqis (with whom we were allied).
Then they got another letter offering to sell them arms, so that the President could fund a "revolution" in Nicaragua which the Congress had forbade the President from funding.
This sort of double dealing by the US is absolutely not new from the Iranian perspective.
Why would any Iranian government think anything other than "Those American Republicans are some dirty birds!"
The 47 ought to each be required to write "If I'm not with US then I'm with the terrorists!" 47,000 times on the blackboard.
90
A mass pardon by Bush 41 covered up the whole matter.
10
If the citizens who live in the states represented by these 47 "senators" don't immediately begin the process of impeaching them, then these states should be required to sign an oath of allegiance to Israel!
55
The type of citizens that voted for the Senators will re-elect them readily.
5
It's nice to read a short and comprehensive history about what we've done in times past with political conflict. But we really don't need it to know what the republicans have done is wrong and damaging to the unity of our country. Most reasonable people on both sides were stunned.
Many republicans I know are posturing that this is no big deal -- it's just a little letter. They're posturing like that with everything, the race issue, the economic disparity issue, union busting, everything. We just have to decide (in voting action) that this stuff really IS a big deal, and that we need to do something about it. Once we collectively decide that, I think we will win.
Many republicans I know are posturing that this is no big deal -- it's just a little letter. They're posturing like that with everything, the race issue, the economic disparity issue, union busting, everything. We just have to decide (in voting action) that this stuff really IS a big deal, and that we need to do something about it. Once we collectively decide that, I think we will win.
90
We have a Republican Congress for no reason that serves the national interest.
62
How?
Claims of violations of protocol at the very least, and the Logan Act at worst, and everything in between notwithstanding, these people have broken the oath they took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same".
71
These folks answer to a higher power for post mortal benefits.
5
These 47 knuckleheads are just part of a larger problem with the Republican party. They seek to advance a partisan advantage to the detriment of our country. Anything that they can do to undermine President Obama is their goal. In this case, they have committed treason and should be prosecuted for such.
158
Their letter is baffling at best.
It demonstrates that America is not the "United States of" in regards to an international presence.
Wouldn't a better strategy have been to let Obama fail and then say, "I told you so," rather than allow Obama to blame any failures on the GOP senators?
It weakens any and all US foreign policy, for whomever is in office.
It weakens congressional power by scuttling any and all diplomatic power they had or thought they had.
It showed how the GOP is an amateur-hour free-for-all for privileged white folk…the letter was written and proposed by a junior senator with no foreign policy cred. what-so-ever! … and senior senators signed up!
The letter also made it much clearer that the GOP's fundamental problem with Obama isn't political, it's racial.
Next thing you know, the story will be "GOP Senators Sing Song on Bus."
It demonstrates that America is not the "United States of" in regards to an international presence.
Wouldn't a better strategy have been to let Obama fail and then say, "I told you so," rather than allow Obama to blame any failures on the GOP senators?
It weakens any and all US foreign policy, for whomever is in office.
It weakens congressional power by scuttling any and all diplomatic power they had or thought they had.
It showed how the GOP is an amateur-hour free-for-all for privileged white folk…the letter was written and proposed by a junior senator with no foreign policy cred. what-so-ever! … and senior senators signed up!
The letter also made it much clearer that the GOP's fundamental problem with Obama isn't political, it's racial.
Next thing you know, the story will be "GOP Senators Sing Song on Bus."
51
"Wouldn't a better strategy have been to let Obama fail and then say, "I told you so," rather than allow Obama to blame any failures on the GOP senators?"
Obama's foreign policy has failed enough already. He claimed during his 2012 election that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government. His lies have come to light and now we have ISIS.
Of course the Democratic chorus can blame all on W.
Poor Obama, he just can't catch a break.
Obama's foreign policy has failed enough already. He claimed during his 2012 election that he ended the war in Iraq and left it with a stable government. His lies have come to light and now we have ISIS.
Of course the Democratic chorus can blame all on W.
Poor Obama, he just can't catch a break.
A country sure tanks fast when it elects a legislature of nay-saying spoiled brats.
60
Amazing thing trying to teach elected Congressional types history and tradition. But, I fear, authoritarianism is here to stay and America is decending into a period of uncertainty and diplomatic inefficiency. By definition, Republicans have baseline support from paranoid voters fearful of everything and everybody. People will need to teach their children to build up economic reserves and to have geopolitical options and alternatives if this trend continues. The Republican's in the Senate want War with Iran which is crazy.
25
This Gang of 47 is going to cost the Republicans dearly. The American public is more upset about this than any of the many outrages thrown at President Obama, because it is a betrayal of country as much as of this President. Even many republicans are upset, more so about the stupidity than the insult. This will resonate and these senators will hear about it at reelection. This unthinking, unknowing, and disloyal party has crossed a Rubicon. Whichever fool billionaire is actually behind it, there is he good news here; we won’t have a President Paul, Rubio, Graham, Perry, Jindal, Walker, Cruz, Bush, or Cotton in our future as a result.
154
I am certain one of the Republican signees must have been Sen. Tom Tillis from Raleigh, another Tea Partier mentality as lacking in historical understanding as can possibly be. We have a great Republic, if the electorate can be smart enough to keep it. While the Republicans continue to try to privatize everything but the presidency, I'm pleased to read an historical viewpoint that demonstrates how CONGRESS should be all about the PUBLIC good, not the PRIVATE.
41
It's time that Americans wake up and realize that the republican senators are republicans first and American senators second.
Their attempt to undermine our country's negotiations with Iran is entirely consistent with their decades long effort to weaken the federal government in favor of regional and state power. This is one of the tenants of republican ideology.
This action is undoubtedly the senators' attempt to demonstrate that they are just as snakey as the republicans in the House given their invitation to Netanyahu.
The locus of republican political strength is among the population who believe their allegiance to their state and party is stronger than their allegiance to their country. This was demonstrated most strongly during the civil war (yes, the southerners were democratic, and today's southerners are republicans, but the same culture) and most recently in Rick Perry's not so veiled threats about Texas seceding once again. Imagine him, or a republican like him as president of our country during a time of tension such as the 1850s? or the civil rights movement?
Americans who believe in country and still vote republican really need to understand that the actions of republican political representatives speak also for and about them. At some point, they will realize too late that the person in the political mirror is them.
Their attempt to undermine our country's negotiations with Iran is entirely consistent with their decades long effort to weaken the federal government in favor of regional and state power. This is one of the tenants of republican ideology.
This action is undoubtedly the senators' attempt to demonstrate that they are just as snakey as the republicans in the House given their invitation to Netanyahu.
The locus of republican political strength is among the population who believe their allegiance to their state and party is stronger than their allegiance to their country. This was demonstrated most strongly during the civil war (yes, the southerners were democratic, and today's southerners are republicans, but the same culture) and most recently in Rick Perry's not so veiled threats about Texas seceding once again. Imagine him, or a republican like him as president of our country during a time of tension such as the 1850s? or the civil rights movement?
Americans who believe in country and still vote republican really need to understand that the actions of republican political representatives speak also for and about them. At some point, they will realize too late that the person in the political mirror is them.
50
States are a contrivance invented to sustain the hypocrisy of slavery with unequally protective law.
4
Don't underestimate the power of random citizens and celebrities in accomplishing what presidents and other politicians leaders cannot.
Just look at what David Skylark and Aaron Rappaport accomplished with Kim Jong-un despite the naysayers!
Just look at what David Skylark and Aaron Rappaport accomplished with Kim Jong-un despite the naysayers!
2
Not to mention Dennis Rodman.
4
Yes, yes of course and, in the news now, the man famous for The Thrilla in Manila, none other than Muhammed Ali, negotiating for a prisoner release (just his name will win him some brownie points with his brothers from another Mulla):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2015/03/12/muhammad-ali-urge...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2015/03/12/muhammad-ali-urge...
If only the junior Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, responsible for this small minded letter more reminiscent of playground politiciking than adult diplomacy were a total idiot... but it doesn't seem he is. His father is a Vietnam War Vet and he served in Iraq and Afghanistan and graduated from Harvard where he served on the Harvard Crimson. That means he has been overseas and has a good education. Did he find his Iraqi and Afghan experiences that glorious and eloquent, proof that direct diplomacy would somehow be a waste of time? Iraq at least was the result of avoidance of any form of diplomacy. He is not helping his cause. He is not helping our cause. Something to do with peace. The Iranian leaders are not Nazis and Netanyahou is no Churchill (except for his racist and intolerant side perhaps).
35
Ivy League schools evidently sell credibility for legacies.
6
One can be very well educated and traveled and still be a corporate shill with poor judgment. Look at Mitt Romney. Things have to affect you for you to make sound judgment. If they do not, your worldview remains selfish and narcissistic. But I suspect there is nothing wrong with Mr. Cotton's world view. He wasn't to be a rich white male master of the universe. And he's bound to get it no matter who has to go down for him to do so.
His problem is with cause and effect. Like many Master of the Universe and potential Masters, he doesn't seem to understand he's destroying the very thing he hopes to conquer.
Too many comic books and action films as a young man, perhaps?
His problem is with cause and effect. Like many Master of the Universe and potential Masters, he doesn't seem to understand he's destroying the very thing he hopes to conquer.
Too many comic books and action films as a young man, perhaps?
1
There is an enormous disrespect polarizing Americans today beginning with the words and deeds of many elected officials, particularly those on the right. We hear it from Congress, Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, School Boards, and by many in the media who usurp the microphone and color their disrespect to anyone who will listen.
This disrespect trickles down to Main Street, parroted by the everyday citizen empowered to speak freely without conscience to whom their disrespect is pointed, or in spite of it.
We have a President that has clearly backed-off the Bush Doctrine of “shoot first” to a more agreeable posture of “let’s talk.” Talking breeds trust. Shooting breeds the seeds of disrespect.
When the current President of Iran was elected, the door cracked open with overtures to begin a dialogue. Here we are today, along with five other countries, leading the opportunity to talk to a foreign power previously described as part of an Axis of Evil.
And now we have a newly elected freshman Senator who drafts a fearful, threat-filled sophomoric open letter published by the world press, and for impact, persuades 46 additional disrespecting Senatorial signatures thereby potentially killing the trust for any discussion.
We live in a country whose citizens touch every country in the world. If we cannot show the world by our example that living together respectfully in our own diversity, then the world will also parrot our disarray.
This disrespect trickles down to Main Street, parroted by the everyday citizen empowered to speak freely without conscience to whom their disrespect is pointed, or in spite of it.
We have a President that has clearly backed-off the Bush Doctrine of “shoot first” to a more agreeable posture of “let’s talk.” Talking breeds trust. Shooting breeds the seeds of disrespect.
When the current President of Iran was elected, the door cracked open with overtures to begin a dialogue. Here we are today, along with five other countries, leading the opportunity to talk to a foreign power previously described as part of an Axis of Evil.
And now we have a newly elected freshman Senator who drafts a fearful, threat-filled sophomoric open letter published by the world press, and for impact, persuades 46 additional disrespecting Senatorial signatures thereby potentially killing the trust for any discussion.
We live in a country whose citizens touch every country in the world. If we cannot show the world by our example that living together respectfully in our own diversity, then the world will also parrot our disarray.
697
the real bottom line are the bought illiterates who elect and elect again these unashamedly representatives of far right thinking. Educate them and give this country all 'we' have worked so hard for.
28
note:“the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Did Obama ask for advise or consent? I think not. He is and has been thumbing his nose at congress and has been bragging that what he cannot get past congress he will do via executive decree. The voters rejected his ideas last election but he refuses to listen to the voters.
3
"He is and has been thumbing his nose at congress ."
1) Read the piece above. It's interesting.
2) It references a specific, provable, empirical, documented example of Congress "thumbing its nose" at the president this week while damaging our international reputation.
1) Read the piece above. It's interesting.
2) It references a specific, provable, empirical, documented example of Congress "thumbing its nose" at the president this week while damaging our international reputation.
11
You mean the voters who elected him twice?
22
Well the 36% who bothered to vote [or should I say were permitted to vote, many turned way without the right papers,] were convinced by the very rich that fools like this Cotton person deserved to be in our Congress.
The President was forced to act alone because the GOP congress refused to bring anything up for a vote. They did manage to name a few post offices.
The President was forced to act alone because the GOP congress refused to bring anything up for a vote. They did manage to name a few post offices.
9
Now it makes sense that the 47 Insurrectionists would write to Iran as they love the past so much better than the present. It seems anything done in the past is their sole prescription for the future, no matter how poorly it turned out the last time, such as ME wars, segregation, women not allowed out of the kitchen if wearing shoes, Christianity conglomerated with our government, God invented world in 7 days, climate change can't be real because it snowed, people in authority not using email (which unless you are the CEO you could never get away with in the business world), Jesus was white and wants Americans to be rich....have they claimed the earth is flat again yet?
35
Pressler amendment is one example of legislation shaping a crucial foreign policy. Legislators do have a role to play, and it has to be chalked out as a law making process, not a dialogue.
If P5 + 1 agreement goes through and US withdraws in 2017, it does not imply rest of the world will. The consequences of not fully thought out policy making can be great.
One nation indivisible stance bestows not just trust but also responsibility to work through all those details and this safeguard is worth complying with.
If P5 + 1 agreement goes through and US withdraws in 2017, it does not imply rest of the world will. The consequences of not fully thought out policy making can be great.
One nation indivisible stance bestows not just trust but also responsibility to work through all those details and this safeguard is worth complying with.
1
"The consequences of not fully thought out policy making can be great."
Boy, there's an understatement describing the Republicans--government shut downs, tax cuts in Kansas, Middle East wars without end, bridge closings in New Jersey, climate change denying, it goes on and on.
When you live on philosophy and spite, the real world has a tendency to ignore your hopes.
Boy, there's an understatement describing the Republicans--government shut downs, tax cuts in Kansas, Middle East wars without end, bridge closings in New Jersey, climate change denying, it goes on and on.
When you live on philosophy and spite, the real world has a tendency to ignore your hopes.
8
"One nation indivisible stance ..."
If you are referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, you overlooked its reference to God: "... , one Nation under God, indivisible, ...":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
If you are referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, you overlooked its reference to God: "... , one Nation under God, indivisible, ...":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
1
Thanks Kathleen DuVal for the history lesson and the final sentence: "It would be strange for a group of 21st-century senators to take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness."
More than strange and as sole commenter RM Vermont notes, "How ironic." I second that by noting that almost every OpEd and Editorial on the Iran-USA-Israel triangle provides examples leading to the thought "Isn't it ironic...?"
Yet strange and ironic are just not strong enough in the end. That is why I still would like to see a column by an authority, Linda Greenhouse, telling us if there are grounds for action against the 47, which I see as "sabotage".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
(The VT plate in the ikon is to show that I am American)
More than strange and as sole commenter RM Vermont notes, "How ironic." I second that by noting that almost every OpEd and Editorial on the Iran-USA-Israel triangle provides examples leading to the thought "Isn't it ironic...?"
Yet strange and ironic are just not strong enough in the end. That is why I still would like to see a column by an authority, Linda Greenhouse, telling us if there are grounds for action against the 47, which I see as "sabotage".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
(The VT plate in the ikon is to show that I am American)
15
"That is why I still would like to see a column by an authority, Linda Greenhouse, telling us if there are grounds for action against the 47, which I see as "sabotage"."
The senators accurately pointed out aspects of any presidential agreement. As Obama can tell you, one president my decree there will be no assassinations by US operatives overseas, while a subsequent one may choose to ignore that or change that decree.
The senators accurately pointed out aspects of any presidential agreement. As Obama can tell you, one president my decree there will be no assassinations by US operatives overseas, while a subsequent one may choose to ignore that or change that decree.
Jp I want an authoritative intellectual to tell me, not senators one of whom has trouble even writing a letter. The president is not an authority on the subject before us.
"We Have a President for a Reason."
I see your problem. It's in the headline.
Republicans do not accept President Obama as their president. And they don't want the world to accept him as president either.
I will leave it to you to figure out why that is.
I see your problem. It's in the headline.
Republicans do not accept President Obama as their president. And they don't want the world to accept him as president either.
I will leave it to you to figure out why that is.
233
"We Have a President for a Reason."
I see your problem. It's in the headline.
Republicans do not accept President Obama as their president. And they don't want the world to accept his as president either.
I will leave it to you to figure out why that is.
I see your problem. It's in the headline.
Republicans do not accept President Obama as their president. And they don't want the world to accept his as president either.
I will leave it to you to figure out why that is.
59
I did not want the world to accept George W. Bush as our president, either, but if Democrats in Congress had circumvented him in this way, I would have understood it as treason.
I will leave you to figure out why that is.
I will leave you to figure out why that is.
9
I cna't help thinking that if this were a situation with a Republican President and a Congress dominated by Democrats, the Republicans would be screaming, "treason".
212
Whatever those narcissists do themselves is blessed by the God they worship in their own image.
21
Can't you hear the echoes of Cheney "treason...treason...treason.."
I can and am still revolted.
I can and am still revolted.
The 47 backstabbers who sent that letter could care less if it causes
harm. That was the whole point- to demonize, dehumanize, delegitimize
Mr. Obama. They hate Obama more than anything. It is the glue that
binds them all together.
They want war. These people aren't conservatives, they are
vandals, saboteurs, and subversives. Poor McCain he tried to
justify it by saying he wanted to beat the snowstorm before he
skipped town.
harm. That was the whole point- to demonize, dehumanize, delegitimize
Mr. Obama. They hate Obama more than anything. It is the glue that
binds them all together.
They want war. These people aren't conservatives, they are
vandals, saboteurs, and subversives. Poor McCain he tried to
justify it by saying he wanted to beat the snowstorm before he
skipped town.
353
What's 'strange' is the tolerance shown 47 Senators who have chosen to disregard the law and once again undermine the President's ability to act in accordance with his responsibilities. Their willingness to wreak havoc on Americans knows no bounds.
Constituents should let them know they favor prosecution under the Logan Act.
Constituents should let them know they favor prosecution under the Logan Act.
328
Based on what I've read, the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and never enforced, is considered by legal scholars to be unconstitutional on its face. What I would argue for, instead, is a wholesale abandonment of the Republican Party --- by those who are not total zealots and find themselves increasingly uncomfortable with the results of Republican 'governance.'
What is traitorous about these 47 senators --- and the forces they represent --- is their willingness to debase and destroy the foundations of democracy and civil society in their quest for power.
Every last senator who signed the letter deserves to be turned out of office. Starting with the contemptible Mr. Cotton and including the increasingly loopy Senator McCain, who needs to be retired to the VFW lecture circuit.
What is traitorous about these 47 senators --- and the forces they represent --- is their willingness to debase and destroy the foundations of democracy and civil society in their quest for power.
Every last senator who signed the letter deserves to be turned out of office. Starting with the contemptible Mr. Cotton and including the increasingly loopy Senator McCain, who needs to be retired to the VFW lecture circuit.
19
266K and rising ... petition to file charges for violating Logan Act https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-charges-against-47-us-sen...
11
Interesting historical background regarding negotiating protocols - centuries ago to today. It helps us understand how we we've gotten to this point as a country, and gives us a clearer perspective why John Kerry, as Secretary of State, was furious with "the letter" incident, as he should be.
One of the most important pieces here, it seems, is the trust issue. Think about it. If the United States suddenly received a letter from a group of Iranians or say Russians, explaining their viewpoint of government protocol, insulting to their own country's commander in chief, wouldn't the first thing the US leaders would think is "what do these people have up their sleeves and what is their motive?" This would certainly not be anything the US government and its people could trust!
The 47 United States senators who signed the letter let us down. They sneakily attacked their constituents' trust. They met behind closed doors to plan and proceeded with this infuriating insult to all of us.
Because just as we lose trust in untoward family actions that have betrayed us, it leaves us with that hollow feeling - what next? And that hollow feeling makes us sick at heart that these senators, including John McCain after all these years of being a true public servant, could betray us like this.
Trust is earned - these 47 senators shot themselves in the feet.
They lost trust.
One of the most important pieces here, it seems, is the trust issue. Think about it. If the United States suddenly received a letter from a group of Iranians or say Russians, explaining their viewpoint of government protocol, insulting to their own country's commander in chief, wouldn't the first thing the US leaders would think is "what do these people have up their sleeves and what is their motive?" This would certainly not be anything the US government and its people could trust!
The 47 United States senators who signed the letter let us down. They sneakily attacked their constituents' trust. They met behind closed doors to plan and proceeded with this infuriating insult to all of us.
Because just as we lose trust in untoward family actions that have betrayed us, it leaves us with that hollow feeling - what next? And that hollow feeling makes us sick at heart that these senators, including John McCain after all these years of being a true public servant, could betray us like this.
Trust is earned - these 47 senators shot themselves in the feet.
They lost trust.
238
Just as those 22 republicans who met on Inauguration day to plot against Obama betrayed us all. And they were rewarded with control of the Congress. Americans had better wake up soon to the real danger these demagogues pose to all of us, and the world.
7
"It would be strange for a group of 21st-century senators to take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness."
Unpatriotic and unwise? Yes. Strange? Not anymore. With each new antic, the Republicans demonstrate that they do not care if they bring weakness or disrespect upon the United States; they do not care about the Constitution; they do not care about the office of the Presidency. All they care about is the Republican Party and getting what its rich donors want. They will stop at NOTHING to do the bidding of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers et al., and they are well on the way to ruining this country and all that it stands for.
Unpatriotic and unwise? Yes. Strange? Not anymore. With each new antic, the Republicans demonstrate that they do not care if they bring weakness or disrespect upon the United States; they do not care about the Constitution; they do not care about the office of the Presidency. All they care about is the Republican Party and getting what its rich donors want. They will stop at NOTHING to do the bidding of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers et al., and they are well on the way to ruining this country and all that it stands for.
427
It's mortifying that behind these public servants, are people who elected them and sent them to do these things. And these people look just like you and me!
7
Well said. Having interacted a bit with these types of Americans from the South, who vote for senators like these, I get the sense that they are a panicky lot, convinced that the good ol' USA is no more, and they have to share the space with strange-looking people from all parts of the world who have moved in to their neighborhoods.
7
Republicans continue to act like a bunch of spoiled children who throw a temper tantrum whenever they can't get exactly what they want. They would literally rather commit acts of treason, violate the Logan Act, & endanger our national security than simply allow our President to do the job he was elected to do. As the author correctly points out, it is impossible for the USA to conduct foreign policy if Congress actively undermines the President every step of the way.
This is just more evidence of how low today's GOP has sunk in its petty partisanship. Shame on every one of the 47 Senators who were reckless enough to tell Iran that the American people will not operate in good faith. WERE RECKLESS ENOUGH TO
This is just more evidence of how low today's GOP has sunk in its petty partisanship. Shame on every one of the 47 Senators who were reckless enough to tell Iran that the American people will not operate in good faith. WERE RECKLESS ENOUGH TO
109
"It would be strange for a group of 21st-century senators to take advantage of the negotiations with Iran and return us to an earlier age of cacophony and weakness."
Not strange if you consider that their real objective is the destruction of the Republic, a project which they started in 1861.
Not strange if you consider that their real objective is the destruction of the Republic, a project which they started in 1861.
83
Unless you are saying that these people are not really Republicans, but rather the ideological descendants of the Confederacy, it should be noted that Abraham Lincoln was the Republican president then, and (until they abandoned it in the House of Representatives deal to elect R. B. Hayes in 1876) the Republicans were the party of Reconstruction.
But I understand the sentiment of your post, and the motivations of the 47 are very much worth viewing in those terms.
But I understand the sentiment of your post, and the motivations of the 47 are very much worth viewing in those terms.
5
NICE HISTORY LESSON !!!!.....But, you forgot to mention when "Nutsy Nancy" Pelosi took it upon herself to meet with Syrian President Assad in 2007. When she was criticized for interfering in US policy, HILLARY gave a news conference supporting Pelosi's action !!!.... Now, I don't think the letter should have been sent, BUT the HYPOCRISY needs to be noted !!!!!
6
There's no comparison. Pelosi notified the Bush Administration, was briefed by the administration, and was accompanied by State Dept. officials.
41
Hey Big Jack. Meeting with a foreign dictator is not the same as undermining the presidency and the US Constitution which delegates which branch of government conducts foreign policy.
You are confusing Freedom of speech with treason.
You are confusing Freedom of speech with treason.
24
And Crazy Pants McCain went to Syria last year and met with elements of Al Qeada who were some of "his friends in the Syrian Free Army". We were not at war with Syria when Nancy Pelosi went there. Many Democrats visited Israel before they jumped the shark in Gaza. We have photos of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam Hussein before the Bush II regime said he was now a target instead of a chum. And Bush II HOLDING HANDS with a Saudi Sheik just after Saudis took down the Towers. Historical context is important to interpreting events....now let's get back to 2015!!!!!!!!!
39
This is insightful historical perspective. Today's Republicans, not just in Congress, but in the States as well, appear to be devolving towards the time before we had a strong central government. Whether it be Texans claiming they never joined the union, or rumblings of nullification or directly ignoring federal laws and regulations, or challenging every federal law in court, the question now seems to be not just the legitimacy of our current President and party in power, but the principles of the Constitution itself. The letter to Iran is just another clear signal that a broad swath of Americans and their elected officials no longer believe in the Union.
149
T'was treason then and treason still,
A strong POTUS with a strong will
Is Head of our State
Repubs are irate
A Black President? Bitter pill!
On the Forty Seven there lies shame,
On their heads lies all of the blame,
With futility
Venting hostility
Hist'ry will recoil from their name!
A strong POTUS with a strong will
Is Head of our State
Repubs are irate
A Black President? Bitter pill!
On the Forty Seven there lies shame,
On their heads lies all of the blame,
With futility
Venting hostility
Hist'ry will recoil from their name!
127
Especially the snot nosed brat!
8
"On their heads lies all of the blame,..."
They didn't obliterate all those Obama lines in the sand.
But your thinking ahead of how two explain Obama being shutout when it comes to foreign policy, unless you count killing US citizens using drones.
They didn't obliterate all those Obama lines in the sand.
But your thinking ahead of how two explain Obama being shutout when it comes to foreign policy, unless you count killing US citizens using drones.
1
Hmm. Yes, but which one is the snot nosed brat? I can't tell.
1
How ironic. As the Iranian leadership begins to moderate, the United States Senate slides into the thrall of fanaticism. Those who signed the letter are trying to sabotage the authorized foreign policy negotiations underway. They are doing this to advance the interests of a third nation, namely Israel.
These acts are a plain violation of the Logan Act. The purpose of that Act was to assure that, in negotiations with foreign powers, the United States speaks with one voice. Prosecute them.
These acts are a plain violation of the Logan Act. The purpose of that Act was to assure that, in negotiations with foreign powers, the United States speaks with one voice. Prosecute them.
497
Read William Saletan's 'An Open Letter to 47 Republican Senators of the United States' . . . perfectly makes the point on America's fanaticism.
5
I would line the letter up under freedom of speech. Nothing to see here except a narcissistic president who doesn't like to be called out for selling the US up the river.
1
I've seen no moderation in Iranian government, but rather a calculated response to sanctions.
Still, the senators' actions are regrettable.
Still, the senators' actions are regrettable.
The answer then becomes WAR! Is that really what "We the People" want? I seriously doubt it. Oh we might sign on to some bombing, but if Israel wants to go it alone then their nuclear arsenal is puton the table. Good idea? Possibly it's the worst of all worlds. Iraq was easy. Iran is the polar opposite. They have many more people and the idea that a military solution by us or the Israelis will win is just ludicrous. We need to think long and hard over these scenarios. Fortunately we have a President Obama at a time such as this.