Shredding the Constitution in order to have ‘peace in our time,’ again

The 34 senators who say they will sustain an Obama veto and thus uphold Iran nuke deal.

The headline on the Investor’s Business Daily editorial headline says these senators have blood on their hands. These are the ones who say they will vote to sustain an Obama veto and thus uphold his Iranian nuke deal that assures the rogue nation will acquire nuclear weapons in a few years or less.

Never mind that the Constitution requires two-thirds of senators to approve a treaty. Congress has conceded it is not a treaty, but merely and executive agreement.

If that weren’t bad enough Harry Reid is consorting with the White House in an effort to filibuster any bill opposing the non-treaty treaty, so no one will have to on the record.

IBD concluded:

Why should SALT II and the ABM Treaty be treaties and not a nuclear accord with a terrorist state? According to a telling answer from Kerry in congressional testimony, it’s “because you can’t pass a treaty anymore.”

In other words, when the Constitution becomes a problem you just dispense with it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner should have demanded that this be presented to Congress as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of senators to pass.

So Republicans, in their passivity, may have blood on their hands too.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090215-769400-despite-obama-support-congress-must-fight-iran-deal.htm#ixzz3kghGx6Ff
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Advertisements

29 comments on “Shredding the Constitution in order to have ‘peace in our time,’ again

  1. Anonymous says:

    “blood on their hands.”
    wow — you guys are wacked-out.

  2. Oh, you are right. Ashes on their hands.

  3. With leftist progressive socialists…the Democrat party always comes first! Before national security…before fiscal sanity…before what’s good for America, etc ad nauseam. These are Obama’s party lapdogs…

  4. nyp says:

    Much better.
    BTW – when President Reagan signed more than a thousand executive agreements — including some with Iran – was he too “shredding the constitution”?

  5. Patrick says:

    How much blood (and ashes) will every republican president in the last 35 years (Reagan most particularly) have on their hands for ensuring (by lying under oath every year for most of his two terms in office, that the country most responsible for transferring nuclear technology to Iran, was NOT transferring that technology) that Iran have the nuclear capability in the first place?

    Ronald Wilson Reagan, the lapdog of Iran?

  6. “What Reagan understood about diplomacy that Obama doesn’t”…”Obama’s Iran policy more closely resembles the realpolitik of Nixon with China”…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-limits-of-engagement-with-iran/2015/07/19/bcd61376-2bb7-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

  7. nyp says:

    I agree with “highflyinbrien” that the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy approach is very much in the realist tradition exemplified by Nixon and Kissinger.

  8. Winston Smith says:

    All just globalist machinations, including Nixon, Kissinger and Reagan.

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Treaties are Agreements are Deals

  9. nyp says:

    yeah, that historic opening to China in ’72 was just part of the Rockefeller-Bilderberg-Rothschild-Trilateral Commission conspiracy.

  10. Winston Smith says:

    Gee DARPA, good to see you’re finally figuring out how the fascist/globalist banksters function. 🙂

    https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19711218&id=_eQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=apoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4039,5624813&hl=en

  11. Patrick says:

    I guess a question for the “fascist/globalist bankster” believers is why? Why, since clearly the fascist/globalist banksters have been in control for eternity (or was it the Bilderberger/Rothchild/Knights of Malta/Masons/Illuminatti/et al) why was it necessary for globalist machinations to involve Nixon, Kissinger and/or Reagan to begin with? I mean, if “they” were in charge for a millennia, what gives?

  12. “President Obama is really the President that Richard Nixon always wanted to be”…Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Law, George Washington University School of Law.

  13. nyp says:

    Impressed to see you relying on no less an authority thant Jonathan Turley. Do you also agree with Professor Turley that the senior members of the Bush Administration should all be put on trial for war crimes?
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/12/qa-jonathan-turley-on-holding-bush-and-cheney-accountable.html

  14. That would be a no. I rarely agree with the liberal law professor Mr. Turley…but on this one…on his opinion of the excesses of President Obama, he’s definitely got him pegged!

  15. nyp says:

    Yeah, when I think of President Obama I am invariably reminded of Richard Milhous Nixon. The comparison is just uncanny.

  16. Steve says:

    Yeah…but Nixon was smarter. He got all but one state to vote for him.

  17. Nyp says:

    Today’s Second Amendment moment:
    @SFGate: #Brekaing: At least 1 shot near Sacramento City College; campus on lockdown http://t.co/rJ18K4zhsb

  18. Steve says:

    Yeah, sure. The last one you called wrong and this will be the same kind of thing.

  19. Steve says:

    Now THIS, http://www.newser.com/story/212295/fed-up-with-burglars-man-buys-gun-uses-it-that-night.html IS a second amendment moment! With more to come, if needs be.

    Earlier this week, Harvey Lembo decided enough was enough. After five burglaries in his Maine home in six years—most recently last month when $1,000 and medications were stolen—the retired lobsterman bought what he describes as a 7mm Russian-made revolver on Monday. Hours later, he used it,

  20. Barbara says:

    Republicans, namely Senator Bob Corker and the leadership, are surely complicit in shredding the Constitution, As John Hayward says, the fix was in from the start. Republicans and Democrats…What’s the difference anymore? We are living in a post-constitutional era where no one is looking out for the folks.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/03/the-deciding-vote-for-obamas-iran-deal-was-bob-corker-not-barbara-mikulski/

  21. nyp says:

    I think you should put primary opponents up against all of those pusillanimous RINOs.

    That’ll teach them a lesson.

  22. Winston Smith says:

    As Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s former professor at Georgetown University wrote:

    “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

  23. Rincon says:

    There are a few things you and agree on Winston. This is one of them. While their rhetoric is far apart, their actions aren’t. One other reason for a lack of profound shifts in policies: As can be witnessed on these pages, the American people have a tendency to believe what they want to hear and mistrust everything else. Since their sources of information do not present the same facts, the American people rarely agree as to what should be done regarding anything. This means almost any fool can be elected if he has enough money and consultants.

  24. Patrick says:

    Suggesting that the two parties in this country are the same, or anything similar, is like suggesting that two different people are the same. Of course there is some truth to be found, and of course it incorrect all at the same time.

    It’s all in how you want to see it.

  25. Winston Smith says:

    I have long referred to the Democrats as Socialist Party A and the Republicans as Socialist Party B. Both parties promote the warfare/welfare state, expand the powers of the federal government, make international trade “deals” that hurt our manufacturing base, reduce state sovereignty, ignore the Constitution, grow the militarized police/surveillance state, etc. Sure, they disagree sometimes, but the underlying behavior and purpose of government is the same to them. It’s all just a matter of degrees.

  26. Patrick says:

    People are people, democrats are republicans.

    If the first is true then so is the second.

  27. Athos says:

    Corker bill doesn’t apply (not all info was provided) Grow a set, Mitch McConnell and put it up to vote as a treaty. Pinocchio needs 67 votes, not 34.

    Imbeciles. We’re being led by imbeciles.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s