Posted on 07/23/2015 12:38:23 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
How can Congress circumvent the Constitution by passing the Corker bill? Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of the Corker bill?
The Corker bill provides a modified process for the review and approval of the treaty with Iran. It circumvents the procedure outlined in the Constitution in effect modifying the Constitution without following the process outlined in the Constitution.
"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... Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2"
I think it’s unconstitutional.
The old game of standing would be raised if anyone tried to challenge it. Face it, DC is a closed shop. The sooner it goes away, the better. Now comes the Kabuki theater: “we are going to fight this”, right, part two of that statement means send money to the GOPe who set up the rules that let this POS become impossible to overturn.
Yes.
Treaties require 2/3 vote approval from the US Senate.
Not the other way around.
It isn’t a treaty so it isn’t unconstitutional. That’s why every GOP candidate is out there saying they won’t abide by it if elected - because it isn’t treaty. The next president can just ignore it.
According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.
"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."
And do we think the designated next POTUS, either Hillary or Jeb, will ignore this?
Why on earth the GOPe has facilitated this I do not know. What I do know is that nobody is protecting us.
Because it isn’t a treaty, it’s an executive agreement. Don’t ask me what the difference is. It’s all semantics. It’s like not needing a declaration of war if you don’t call it a war.
It’s obviously not a treaty, because a treaty requires ratification by 2/3rds vote in the Senate. The good news is that it will lack the force of a treaty.
If you are such a defeatist that you think the POTUS is already designated, why waste the time posting? Might as well grab a cold beer and go back to watching TV because we are all doomed.
Larry Klayman just filed a lawsuit.
Why bother asking? We know four Socialists and John Roberts will just rubber-stamp whatever Obama wants anyhow.
“What difference does it make?” (With the people involved)
Like Chief Traitor John Roberts said, it isn’t the job of SCOTUS to protect people from the consequences of their political choices.
(But it is the job of SCOTUS to save Obama’s pet law from the consequences of being unconstitutional and illegal).
So, Cokry’s Bill, it’s just whatever, man.
Irrelevant.
In a fundamentally transformed America, there is no Constitution.
The above article claims to make the case why the Corker bill is constitutional. I haven't studied it enough to decide if it has merit.
The above article claims to make the case why the Corker bill is constitutional. I haven't studied it enough to decide if it has merit.
As an attorney (but not a Constitutional law expert) I believe that any agreement with a foreign nation is or should be considered a “treaty” - which would require 2/3 approval by the Senate. The Congress has no power under the Constitution to give away its power, so in my view the Corker law is void.
However, you need someone with standing to bring this suit. Klayman is just an ordinary citizen, like all/most of us, so he has no standing here. A Senator, though, particularly one who voted against the law in the first place, would have standing because his powers under the Constitution (to vote on treaties) would have been infringed upon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.