Posted on 07/14/2015 9:55:47 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I absolutely agree with that.
Another fly in the ointment is international law. I don't recall the source, but I'm sure I've read that they will hold the nation accountable for this 'deal' once it is signed, barring some indication that it is NOT a legitimate legal document within our system.
That is what makes the Corker bill so traitorous. It adds the veneer of law to this fiasco by having the process turned on its head. Instead of the treaty having to be approved by a 2/3 majority, it requires a 2/3rd to turn it down.
And somehow the president has unilaterally written a bill for Congress. I'm still pretty hazy on how that snuck in there.
I just got off the phone with Mile Lee’s office and I asked how a man who has just published a book on preserving the constitution could have voted in favor of a bill that guts it entirely. I got a nonsensical response about how the senate would not treat the treaty as a treaty and how the Corker amendment was the lesser of two evils.
I’m not sure how giving Obama the power to ram a treaty through with almost 2/3 of congress voting against it can possibly be the lesser of two evils.
Why is Senator Cotton the only patriot left in Washinton?
He had tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's ranger qualified, airborne, air assault, and a CIB. So he's seen the elephant. He doesn't need a class to tell him who's been helping blow up US soldiers in Iraq and Afghan.
Well, ignorance of that particular "fly in the ointment" seems to have been aided and abetted by Senator Bob Corker. (May his name forever live in infamy, unless he comes to his senses pretty soon.)
If the president "has unilaterally written a bill for Congress" that is astonishingly "hazy" in its details, then I think the paramount duty of the Senate right now is to clarify these "hazy" details sufficiently as to what they logically entail, for the benefit of the people; also thereby declaring the principles upon which they acted — voted — as individual senators, in the process.
One-third of the senatorial body is up for reelection next year. Whether they are Dem or GOP or whatever, they need to expose their little political feeties to the fire of constitutional truth. Those who do not survive this "trial by fire" should be retired from their senatorial duties as soon as possible....
JMHO FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
It would be nice if I could say about Corker, “He’s just plain stupid.”, but I can’t. I think he knew what he was doing. It was the TPP, TAA, TPA thing all over again...all confusion all the time as people researched everywhere trying to sort it out.
Corker’s bill requires the Congress to approve a plan that wasn’t yet written. And if they don’t approve it, then the President vetoes what doesn’t go forward, and they have to override it with a super-majority so that it really doesn’t go forward. So, what goes forward is something they didn’t write, didn’t originate in Congress, and didn’t get approved, but has been vetoed meaning it a non-approval goes forward. (Follow all that? It gives me a headache.)
My brain says, ‘then don’t vote in the first place’, and it won’t go forward, And then my high school civics class reminds me that a treaty requires 2/3 Senate approval.
The hopeful news in all this is that the alternative media is giving them fits, so that now they have to make the issue so murky that even a Ranger wearing NVGs couldn’t find his way around in it.
The bad news is that that is exactly what they are doing.
Well, I gather that a "Ranger, wearing NVGs" — that is, Senator Cotton — has found his way around it. And I gather that what he has seen is something like this:
Corker’s bill requires the Congress to approve a plan that wasn’t yet written. And if they don’t approve it, then the President vetoes what doesn’t go forward, and they have to override it with a super-majority so that it really doesn’t go forward. So, what goes forward is something they didn’t write, didn’t originate in Congress, and didn’t get approved, but has been vetoed meaning it a non-approval goes forward. (Follow all that? It gives me a headache.)He has reported back. He deserves all the help, encouragement, and support he can get —from his immediate constituents, and from all the rest of us who object to having the Constitution hornswoggled away from the people, and dumped down the memory hole of oblivion....
Thank you for all the excellent work you do, dear brother in Christ!
If you figure out how to veto the non-approval of a bill, then please get back with me. I’m running out of headache meds. :>)
Well it all makes sense, doncha know — if you are living in Alice's rabbit hole....
However, sane, rational adults living above-ground would say the veto of a non-approval of a bill is absurd on its face; and most importantly, in this matter, unconstitutional.
Didn’t Cruz vote for Corker’s plan, too? I’m fairly sure he did. I’d love to see his constitutional analysis of it. It’s one of the 2 demerits that Cruz has earned from me, the other being his ignorant H1B visa stance, which I think he has tried walking back a bit. I believe he’s now saying that he insists on any visa going ONLY to a clear vacancy that cannot CLEARLY be filled by a qualified American.
I’d feel better if he wrote legislation to that effect.
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.