Saturday, March 14, 2015

A word about the letter and the Iran nuclear deal

My friend Barry Casselman has written a great post about the letter that 47 US Senators signed last week:  

"The letter recently sent by 47 Republican U.S. senators to the
Iranian chief of state warned him that any executive agreement 
he reached with President Obama regarding the Iranian nuclear 
program would expire with the end of Mr. Obama’s term 
unless it was submitted to the U.S. senate for ratification  and
subsequently approved by a two-thirds vote.

This letter has been denounced by Mr. Obama and his 
Democratic supporters as interference with the presidential 
prerogative to conduct foreign policy.

So who is right?

The U.S. constitution does say that the president of the United
States is to conduct foreign policy with the advice and consent
of the U.S. senate, particularly on the matter of treaties.

Seven GOP senators declined to sign the letter, and no
Democrats did.

Republicans answered Democratic critics by citing then-Speaker
of the House (and Democrat) Nancy Pelosi’s visit to President 
Assad in Syria in 2007 expressly against the wishes of 
then-President George W. Bush who was negotiating with Syria.

Now-minority Leader Pelosi argues that the circumstances 
were fundamentally different between 2007 and 2015, but although
there were differences, the fact remains that a congressional leader
of one political party ignored the wishes of the president  (who was
from another political party) in 2007. Not only that, the U.S. house 
of representatives has much more limited constitutional powers in
matters of foreign policy than does the senate. In 2015, the senate
letter (crafted by first-term Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas) was
signed by 47 members, many more than the 34 needed to block the
ratification of any treaty.

Nevertheless, the senate letter was very unusual, and it was
contrary to the practice of the traditional bipartisan foreign
polices of past decades.

President Obama has polarized the conduct of U.S. foreign policy
by publicly stating that he will take executive actions without the
advice and consent of the senate. This is not unprecedented (there
was also much polarization between the parties during the terms of
President George. W. Bush), but it is particularly unusual because it 
involves a sudden change in long-standing foreign policy for
the Middle East, policy that has been observed by U.S. 
presidents of both parties since World War II. Not only that,
his negotiations are in such contrast to the interests of one of
America’s staunchest allies, Israel, that the Israeli prime 
minister was motivated to come to the U.S. and strongly make
the case that not only are current terms of negotiations
contrary to Israeli interests, but also contrary to the long-term
interests of the United States.

The interests of the United States are primary, but U.S. public
opinion overwhelmingly says that, in this case, U.S. interests
and Israeli interests are the same. The letter of the 47 U.S.
senators reflects that American public opinion.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that he can unilaterally
make domestic policy without the consent of the Congress, and
he is currently attempting to do so. His motivation is simple ---
he can’t impose his will on a Congress whose majority 
disagrees with him. But this is clearly not the intention of the
U.S. constitution which was created with three branches,
each acting as a check on the others.

Now expanding his unilateral principle to foreign policy as well, 
Mr. Obama is entering further risky political territory. In time, the
U.S. supreme court will decide whether he is right or wrong,
but in the short term, it might be necessary for members of the
U.S. house and senate to make it clear they will not allow their
constitutional powers to be trampled on. Even more importantly,
perhaps, the Congress can insist that Mr. Obama convince the
public of his actions before taking them unilaterally in the waning
years of his presidency.

This was the real purpose of the letter to Iran by the 47 senators.
It took the brave leadership of a freshman senator, Mr. Cotton, 
to think past old niceties (niceties that Mr. Obama and Mrs.
Pelosi had themselves long abandoned) and make a clear 
statement to the nation and the world."



Thanks Barry.  This is great!


Tags: Iran nuclear deal and the letter from the GOP Senators  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

Cuba leading anti‐Obama Attacks

(My new American Thinker post)

Back in the days of "we are the change we've been waiting for", we were told that a new President Obama would improve our standing in the world. In other words, voting for McCain or Romney would make us unpopular.

It turns out that these people were right: I voted for McCain and then Romney and everybody is in an uproar with the U.S.

Whatever happened to the Obama charm? I'd guess that it met reality!

According to news reports, Latin America is angry at the U.S. because the Obama administration is targeting key players in the Maduro government:
Latin American leaders have rallied around embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as relations between Washington and Caracas have plunged to a new low.
Governments from Havana to Buenos Aires have denounced Mr. Obama’s executive order labeling Venezuela as a national security threat as unwelcome U.S. meddling in regional affairs.
Analysts say the move may do little to improve the volatile situation in Venezuela and could well worsen it.
Here are a couple of thoughts:

First, this is just another example of Latin American leaders playing the "gringo card" to distract locals from a murder in Argentina, corruption in Brazil, a president acting like a dictator in Ecuador and a Mexican left still angry about reforms to public education and energy.

Second, this is a good lesson for the "yes we can screamers" who thought that you could change the world with a smile and bouquet of red roses.  In fact, nothing has changed. The Latin America left hated Bush because he was the president of the U.S. 
So now they hate Obama because he's the president of the U.S.

Third, where is the evidence that Cuba is changing since we decided to sit down with the Castro regime?  Cuba is out front denouncing the U.S..

Again, the Obama people were right. I voted for McCain and Romney and we are more unpopular than ever.   

P.S. You can hear my show (CantoTalk) or follow me on Twitter.




Tags: Cuba, Venezuela, US-Venezuela issues  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

Friday: A look at the GOP Iran deal plus Hillary's emails with Jim Yardley


GUEST:  Jim Yardley, contributor to American Thinker, Canada Free Press plus editor of Patriot Dreams...


Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio



Tags: Iran-US nuclear deal,  Clinton emails  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR BLOG AND RADIO SHOW

FOLLOW MY BLOG

LISTEN TO OUR RECENT SHOWS

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Search This Blog