Barack Obama thinks he is home free, selling out the US. Maybe he is, but from what I gather, the work he’s been doing in Europe requires the approval of the US Senate. I have yet to see anything written about the agreements The One (incompetent) has been making in Europe, but I’m wondering if we have some politicians Republicans with some backbone – they could tie this do-do up for so many years, it could be rendered useless.
Am I right or am I wrong? I don’t know, but from what little I do know about the Constitution, and Obama’s abject ignorance of it, we could be in for that old curse of interesting times.
If Obama plans on turning our entire financial system over to the EU, or what ever it is, it seems to me he must first have a two-thirds majority approval of the US Senate. As you will see in the section below, by Steven Haywood, the Obama Administration is doing an end run around the Senate rejection of Koyoto by issuing administrative orders.
This afternoon I was discussing Obama’s European Vacation and his little deals with the Gang of 20 with my friend, Glenn. He thinks Obama will push the whole thing over into the State Department with a very quiet executive order, by-passing the Senate – which is not Constitutional.
My comment was all the Republicans in the Senate need to do is grow a back-bone and start hitting him with injunctions and shove it into the SCOTUS, where I would think rejection of the whole thing would be a slam dunk. If nothing else, it would force the Senate to take up the issue. I think we could defeat the two-thirds majority and keep anything Obama might try on the back burner until 2010 when we may be able to pick up even more Republicans in the Senate.
Am I right?
If so, how do we force our Republicans to grow some …. a backbone? (I am a lady, and will not use the term I would like to use, but I think you get where I am heading. If Koyoto was forced into a vote, how can the fact that Obama agrees to sell out our entire financial system not go for a Constitutional vote in the US Senate?
“…Constitutional provision Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:[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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The term “advice and consent” first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the Senate’s role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate’s role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the President’s duty to nominate officials.
The Founding Fathers of the United States included the language as part of a delicate compromise concerning the balance of power in the federal government. Many delegates preferred to develop a strong executive control vested in the President, while others, worried about authoritarian control, preferred to strengthen the Congress. Requiring the President to gain the advice and consent of the Senate achieved both goals without hindering the business of government….”
Writing about Kyoto and the Constitution, Steven F. Hayward comments:
“…In other words, we have arrived a place in which the regulators, armed with no affirmative statute or mandate from Congress, and with a policy framework designed for a very different kind of problem, finds itself limited only by its imagination (which is quite expansive), with no effective constraints from the positive law or the Constitution. And this is merely one aspect of the modern revolution in government borne of a series of by now very old errors in constitutional construction that have delegated legislative power to independent agencies and eroded the separation of powers that was considered a key bulwark of liberty by the framers of the Constitution in 1787. This is a long and complicated story that defies simple solutions, easy remedies, or the mere reversal of a few Supreme Court decisions. Above all, the root of the administrative state we see galloping along at a quicker pace even before President Obama came into office is the set of ideas of progressive government that sees Constitutional meaning as unfixed, to be determined by the tides of history which somehow always seem to be running full in the direction of the increasing control of government over people and enterprise. At some point we need to engage in serious thought about reforming administrative law and regulatory procedure, with new limits on congressional delegation, on standing rules for third party intervention, and on the nature and limits of government power in a globalized world of advanced technology……..”
Trackposted to Nuke’s, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Democrat=Socialist, Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.