Awww: Obama Upset That Congress Overstepping Its Bounds
What to write about?
I started the morning with the thought that I might write a post about the problems with an Article V convention: namely, you can’t defeat the intellectually dishonest with a document. If you advocate looking to the “intent” of those who wrote it, they will lie about that intent, and use it to twist the words of the document. If you advocate textualism (as I do), they will say they need to read the document in “context,” and use that to twist the words of the document. Ultimately, as long as you have a democracy, the various branches will do what they can get away with, and the people will happily ratify it if a majority thinks it benefits them, constitution or no.
But that post felt too cynical — and anyway, I just wrote it.
But the observation about the behavior of the branches of government puts me in mind of this Byron York piece, observing that Obama’s pique about Congress supposedly overstepping its bounds (in inviting Netanyahu, or writing Iran) is a rather predictable consequence of Obama’s own actions:
The White House and some Democrats are livid over congressional Republican attempts to circumvent President Obama’s authority to make a nuclear arms deal with Iran. They have a right to be angry — but not to be surprised.
There’s a war going on between the executive and legislative branches in which Obama has shown contempt for Congress’ constitutional powers, and now, in response, Congress is showing contempt for the president’s constitutional powers. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s what Obama has wrought.
The lefties think Congress is disdaining Obama because he’s black. Would they treat a white president this way? they ask. (By the way, it would be darkly amusing to see Congress respond that Obama is disdaining Congress because it’s largely white. Would he treat a black Congress this way?)
But in any event, Obama has no right to be surprised by Congress’s actions. As York says: “It is not good to undermine the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy. But it’s not a good thing to undermine Congress’ authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . Congress is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.”
Indeed.
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/10/2015 @ 7:43 amDear leftists…we dislike Obama not for the color of his skin but for the content of his character.
kishnevi (adea75) — 3/10/2015 @ 7:54 am(Inspired by something I saw on Facebook, to the effect that it was racist oppression if a white person was brazen enough to quote MLK).
It’s not that I dislike only the black half of Barack Hussein Obama; I despise the white half as well.
The half-racist? Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 7:55 amHuffPo is going nuts about this. I contributed this little story over there, but have seen very few replies. I guess they don’t remember.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Of course, that was different. Reagan was a Republican and the letter was secret, not public like the GOP Senate.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:09 amObama’s only qualification for any office he’s held being the color of his skin and nothing else, any criticism of him or his policies is per se, ipso facto, de facto, nulla quaestio est, and quod erat demonstratum racict. Res ipsa loquitor, too.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:11 aminviting Netanyahu was a smart way to underscore legitimate concerns
the letter from the low-rent Republican senate trash signed by Meghan’s coward daddy, Ted Cruz, the bread bag bimbo, Marco Sleazio, rabid anti-vaxxer Rand Paul and et cetera was juvenile and stupid and adds no value to the discussion
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:25 amThe Iranians already know they better work feverishly to build a bomb while this jackass is still in office. No harm, no foul.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:33 amYou’d think a “Constitutional Scholar” and alleged lawyer would have some grasp on what setting a precedent means.
Apparently, you’d be wrong.
alanstorm (cb237b) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:42 amI like posts like this one.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:46 amMr Storm, I’d never have thought that; this crew has no learning curve, nor any sense of history, or irony.
The Dana who has seen too much (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:58 amThen there’s the letter the Democrat House leadership wrote to Daniel Ortega in the midst of the Contra war. In it they express hope for Ortega’s success and regret that the US is supporting his opponents.
Unlike the current situation, with the administration’s ridiculous claims that the GOP is allying with hard-line mullahs, the House Democrats (Jim Wright, Lee Hamilton, Bob Torricelli, etc) explicitly allied with the Communists in Nicaragua. But none dared call it treason.
https://twitter.com/JMichaelWaller/status/575316138969686016/photo/1
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:01 amWe can dismiss Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama as just plain dumbasses, but they have hired a whole bunch of people, not all of whom are so stupid, but their minions keep going along with whatever they are told to do. These aren’t people who’ll have to stand in the unemployment line if they lose their jobs, but they still
The amazed Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:01 amfall to their kneesgo along with whatever stupidity they are told to swallow.How dare a President’s political opponent dare try to undercut him and his authority to conduct foreign policy.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P_KK8YuOLuw/TodjDKeIqHI/AAAAAAAAMYg/Xt-w4U3qrh4/s1600/Pelosi-Assad.jpg
http://kerry-patton.com/wp-content/uploads/kerry-assad.jpg
Why, that’s just never happened before.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nbc-news-whitewashes-history-iran-diplomacy_880789.html
Steve57 (71fc09) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:10 amIt is interesting that this “constitutional scholar” seems ignorant of the “advice and conscent of the Senate” as related to making treaties.
Gramps, the original (9e1415) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:10 amByron York is wrong here:
Liberals don’t even have the right to be angry. It isn’t Congress that’s overstepping its bounds, it’s Obama. The only authority any President has to conduct foreign policy comes from the Constitution. The letter only restates the fundamentals. Any deal Obama makes that goes beyond his Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy is no deal at all.
Steve57 (71fc09) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:17 amdang, i was hoping for some good headline groupings from Drudge on this 🙁
seeRpea (b6bbec) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:20 amHow is an open letter stating the constitution “contempt for the president’s constitutional powers”?
Up is down, black is white, and night is day. The left has no grasp of reality.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:23 amOr Dennis Kucinich’s many defenses of Assad:
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/kucinichs_defense_of_bashar_as.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rep-kucinich-takes-the-side-of-syrias-murderous-dictator/2011/06/29/AGLqPNrH_story.html
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:25 amPerhaps Barack Obama should not have claimed to be able to bind the USA to agreements without the advise and consent of the Senate.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:28 amWith the likes of Obama (and Holder) the complaints aren’t racial at all, they never are, although the sycophant media and the Kool-aid Left are up in arms working overtime peddling that particularly convenient and self-serving toxic fiction – empty vessels always make the loudest noises – the simple truth is clear and obvious: Obama relies on his race to muddy the waters and shield himself from accurate and appropriate criticism for his bald faced lies, criminal deceptions, high-handed unilateral dictates, and his illegal usurpations of Congressional prerogatives.
The despicable little man arrogantly puts his own warped ideology first and uses the trappings of office, the protections of race, and the ignorance, fear, bootlicking complicity and abject complacency of accomplices, enablers, cowards and dupes around him to evade the laws and bamboozle the public.
Obama’s no more a democrat than Charles III was and we had to fight the Revolutionary War to rid ourselves of his arbitrary dictates.
ropelight (f38c30) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:43 amCharles III ?
Hmmm
The War of Independence was against Spain ?
Sneaky Spaniards.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:48 amYesterday:
Funny, many of us are concerned about the demonization and intimidation of the government’s opponents in this country.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:53 amHas anyone actually read the letter?
I don’t see anything in the letter that says congress won’t ratify a treaty, only what happens if congress doesn’t ratify a treaty. There’s also good information on the value of a treaty that isn’t ratified by congress. The left is making too much of this letter.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:55 amTanny O’Haley @17 was quoting from this post currently on the top page at Powerline:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/our-supreme-leader-and-theirs.php
There are a number of posts now up at Powerline eviscerating the hypocritical, hysterical, and totalitarian left. They are all worth reading as well.
Steve57 (71fc09) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:03 am“President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.”
– Some Jerkoffs
Ewww. Watching a politician gloat about the depth of his entrenchment is like watching a tick gloat about the length of its proboscis.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:10 amEwww. Watching a politician gloat about the depth of his entrenchment is like watching a tick gloat about the length of its proboscis.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:10 am
Or a lawyer gloat about nearly anything…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:19 am#21, Mike K, thanks for the correction. It was George III, and although I’ve known that since grade school, I have no explanation for why I typed Charles instead. It’s a mystery to me. Chalk it up to a senior moment.
ropelight (f38c30) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:20 amCharles III is the next king of England. Are we going to have to fight them again?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:34 amPresident Obama will leave office in January 2017
I’m thinking he won’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:35 amThis letter will have no effect on Iran, and Sen. Tom Cotton, its author, certainly knew that when he wrote it. There are probably a few copies of the U.S. Constitution somewhere in the confidential files of the mullahs, in both English and Farsi translations. There are probably one or two people in Iran who know the history behind the United States’ refusal, via the United States Senate, to go along with Woodrow Wilson’s naive plans for the League of Nations. Indeed, Islamic bandits going back to the days of Thomas Jefferson and John Monroe have certainly had occasion to learn the difference between striking a deal with an American President and seeing that deal become a treaty ratified, or rejected, by the U.S. Senate.
This letter is all about sub-text, and that sub-text is intended for its effect on American political audiences. To attack the letter as being “patronizing” to the Iranians is actually more patronizing than it would be to suggest that the Iranians don’t know about the Senate treaty ratification process prescribed by the Constitution. But that’s not really what this letter was about anyway. Indeed, a letter from 47 U.S. Senators has zero operative effect under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
This is a devilish, puckish, and droll way to point out to the American people that Obama is prancing about a world stage pretending to have greater powers than he actually possesses under the U.S. Constitution.
The Iranians won’t care about the letter. They don’t even care about the Senate’s ratifying powers. They don’t care about any treaties, and they won’t comply with them regardless of whether the Senate ratifies them or not. The Iranians are stalling, successfully, for time, and gobbling up every bite that Obama gives away, for nothing in return, just for the “privilege” of continuing to negotiate.
But the letter scored a hit on Obama, and that’s why he’s whining and his minions are accusing Republicans of being traitors.
The Dems should put John Kerry out front on this one. Nothing like having the former U.S. Navy Reserve officer who actively conspired in person with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese against the American government during the Paris Peace Conferences in the 1970s as the government point man to accuse the Republicans of treason.
I’ll bet there are even some Iranians who can appreciate that irony.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:48 amI’m thinking he’ll leave but think he is still in office and in charge, just like Jimmy. We’ll have to put up with his stupid opinions (which will be fawned over by the MSM) for years to come.
Bill M (906260) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:51 amThink of him as the mistake that we never quite get rid of; perhaps the electorate will learn a lesson…NOT. We’ll always have the MSM to prop him up.
Beldar — dead on!
Bill M (906260) — 3/10/2015 @ 10:54 amsomeone had to take a crack at the Solon:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/sen-tom-cotton-fires-back-at-biden-hes-been-wrong-on-nearly-every-foreign-policy-decision-in-last-40-years-video/
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:04 amMr M wrote:
King Charles III is more likely to remind his subjects of what they did to King Charles I.
I am not opposed to a constitutional monarchy, but the current Prince of Wales is not exactly a shining example of nobility or intelligence. Were he to predecease Her Majesty the Queen, ‘twould be better for everybody.
The Anglophile Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:28 amMr M wrote:
So, the H in Barack H Obama actually stands for herpes?
OK, OK, that’s wrong, and I heartily denounce myself!
The Dana who isn't a physician (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:30 amBut the letter scored a hit on Obama, and that’s why he’s whining and his minions are accusing Republicans of being traitors.
Exactly. I like the “prancing” metaphor. Also true.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:31 amon that day, when he assumes the throne, he says he will be an Edward not a Clarles,
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:35 am“Charles III is the next king of England. Are we going to have to fight them again?
”
The Spaniards were pretty sneaky but it was France that ran Spain after 1792 when they invaded them. Part of the negotiations with the British that ended the Revolutionary War involved the role of Spain in Florida and some machinations by France to give Spain Louisiana.
Frankly, I think the Brits are too smart to give the fool Charles the keys to the palace. William will be the next king if Elizabeth has a say.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:35 am#35 — Spew alert! Tea out the nose feels almost as nasty as coffee exiting the same way. So much for changing beverages.
Bill M (906260) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:49 amwell William will likely be the Regent, however Charles will still stink up the place,
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/10/2015 @ 11:49 amMany of us were discussing the Netflix original series “House of Cards” and its British antecedants in the comments on a recent post. I still haven’t finished season 3 of the American version, nor have I watched any of the British miniseries. But the second of Michael Dobbs’ three British novels upon which the UK miniseries was based, To Play the King, is all about a “fictional” British successor to HRM Elizabeth II who bears more than a little resemblance to the current Prince of Wales, whom Mr. Dobbs knew and dealt with daily when he was Thatcher’s chief of staff. It’s as wickedly pointed and devastating a send-up of Prince Charles in particular, and constitutional monarchy in general, as I’ve ever read. Among my favorite lines — beginning a chapter in the same manner as the U.S. version, Frank Underwood, delivers his asides to the TV audience — is this one at the beginning of chapter 13:
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:00 pmyes, it was a very pointed satire, Dobbs was not keen on either Thatcher, as Welliver does for his mentors,
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:03 pmPart of the problem is these end runs that every recent President has made around Congress, signing treaties or congressional-executive agreements, and then never actually submitting them to the Senate, in the case of treaties, or the Congress for ratification. SALT II and the Kyoto accords are the most famous examples.
President Bush didn’t like the Kyoto Accords, so he withdrew our official signature (by Vice President Gore, representing President Clinton.) What he should have done was submit it to the Senate for ratification, knowing that it would have been rejected; that would have accomplished his goal, and shown respect for the constitutional process.
Say what you like about President Carter, but he did submit the unpopular Panama Canal Treaty to the Senate for ratification, and got it.
The Senate ought not to wait on the President to submit treaties for ratification; the Senate ought to simply take them up, on it own, and ratify or reject.
The constitutionalist Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:40 pmThe other Mr M wrote:
My work here is done.
The very satisfied Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:44 pmnarciso wrote:
I’m not quite sure why there’d be a need for s regent in a constitutional monarchy . . . .
The very, very British Dana (f6a568) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:45 pm“Or a lawyer gloat about nearly anything…”
– Colonel Haiku
You know there are a lot of lawyers on this site, right? Including the host, one of whose slogans is “always trust content from Patterico”? I’m just saying, maybe you want to specify that it’s liberal lawyers that bother you, so as not to inadvertently offend anyone.
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:55 pmMy skin is pretty thick these days…
SPQR (4764ea) — 3/10/2015 @ 1:43 pmLincoln was a lawyer.
But that’s not an excuse for the rest of them.
bobathome (cb0d92) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:21 pmYou know there are a lot of lawyers on this site, right?
Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/10/2015 @ 12:55 pm
I am sure he knows.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:29 pmI think this is a teachable moment.
Sen. Cotton as well as the other senators and the president swore an oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution, not to support a chief executive who has made it routine to ignore the constraints of the Constitution.
Anyone who does not know this needs to be educated, as much as can be.
If one wanted to be snarky, and justly so, one could say that Sen. Cotton simply doesn’t want President Obama to find out in the NYT some morning that Iran violated an agreement and nuked Israel.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:36 pmLet them hate provided they also fear, Leviticus.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:37 pmTo quote the late Sam Goldwyn, “Obama’s oral contract with the Iranians isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”.
Well that may be a malapropism, but Sam was on to something. I don’t think the Iranians will honor any deal that anybody signs with them. So Obama may come back with a piece of paper and claim that he has achieved peace in our time and all that. But the Iranians are going to do what they want to do–which is build a bomb. Obama’s proposed “executive action” will give them a fig leaf, and the sanctions will go away. He’ll let them up.
I think Cotton’s letter was an interesting gambit but the mullahs will tell Tom Cotton and his Gang of 47 to go pound sand. But then once they sign a deal with Obama, they’ll tell him to pound sand too.
I don’t think the Obama deal will make a danged bit of difference one way or the other in the Iranian progress toward a nuclear bomb. All that it will do is give Iran a bit of breathing room on the sanctions–and I for one can’t see why the world should cut them any slack at all. But then I’m not an idiot in an oval office near the Potomac.
Skeptical Voter (12e67d) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:41 pmI expect that any explaining of someone bombing someone else is going to be explaining why Israel nuked Iran rather than vice versa. Bibi isn’t going to let Iran get the drop on Israel …. you think?
Ike (54c356) — 3/10/2015 @ 2:47 pmhttp://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-was-senates-constitutional-power-he-was-against-it_881791.html?nopager=1
It seems Biden’e standard for faux outrage depends on the party affiliation of the President.
JD (40d113) — 3/10/2015 @ 3:24 pmthis letter, it is no good
I have no affection for this letter
happyfeet (7a7bef) — 3/10/2015 @ 3:35 pmetc Dana #45 – “I’m not quite sure why there’d be a need for s regent in a constitutional monarchy . . . .” – the Regent serves during the incapacity of the Monarch …
I am convinced that Her Majesty is staying on the Throne out of duty … while hoping that her grandson will be the next King …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 3/10/2015 @ 3:36 pmalanstorm #8 – “You’d think a “Constitutional Scholar” and alleged lawyer would have some grasp on what setting a precedent means.” …
Sadly, Pres’ent Obama has difficulties with any word that sounds even close to President – and he lacks understanding of such words …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 3/10/2015 @ 3:39 pm#50 MD What a delicious comment … thanks.
Karen Ferris (811373) — 3/10/2015 @ 4:19 pmWho has to assent to a royal succession? Can the Queen ask Parliament to name William her successor? Can they do it on their own after her death? Looking at the Regency Act of 1830, the first blush answers would be “Parliament, Yes and Yes.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 3/10/2015 @ 5:10 pmYes, but the Press will paint it as the GOP just being mean for the sake of obstructionism.
Not to suggest they shouldn’t DO it, but that’s what it’s going to be portrayed as.
Example:
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 3/10/2015 @ 5:39 pmhttps://cmgajcluckovich.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lk031015_color.jpg?w=640&h=448
46… yep, I do, so let me be more precise and limit it to young whelps practicing law in the Land of Enchantment.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:13 pmPatterico: “Mommy, he started it! And now he’s being a cry baby.”
Thanks for confirming that the Republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of the Constitution and international cooperation on the important issue of nuclear proliferation.
PurpleStatist (964ec0) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:59 pmHey Purple!! Apparently the SENATE has a PEN, a PHONE and a FAX MACHINE!!! TOUCHE.
Gus (7cc192) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:11 pmPoor poor Opie Lady Jeans Hussein. The Senate just showed you that THEY don’t play by ALYNSKI rules. Right Purple???
Gus (7cc192) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:13 pmOh, no problem Purple. Obama can ride along with the Senate, but he’ll have to ride in the back!!
Gus (7cc192) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:15 pmYou remember don’t you???? Hey Purple. Obama ACTED STUPIDLY??? Sound familiar????
Kevin M. #59 – I believe that the Queen, in theory, can ask Parliament to assent to Her Majesty designating a different Heir than her first-born son … as I said, I suspect that Her Majesty is waiting until Charles is sufficiently old that *he* agrees to the change of Heir …
At that time, the Queen can then request that Parliament concur with her selection of the new Heir to the throne …
I believe that a lot of Her Majesty’s subjects are eagerly awaiting that request …
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 3/10/2015 @ 9:32 pmWhat did they do that is unconstitutional?
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:05 amI’ve read of all kinds of Bills of Succession passed by Parliament throughout history. To pick, in the words of Francis Urquhart, “one talentless, discredited family” over another. Some at the reigning King’s behest, some on Parliament’s own notion.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:21 amCongress also has phones and a pens. GLZ.
Gary L. Zerman (d0c56e) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:24 amStrictly speaking, Andrew is next in line under the present rules of succession, if Charles is knocked out before he ascends the throne. And Edward after him if Andrew is also claimed by a better place while mommy is still queen. In other words, if Charles never ascends the throne, Bill and Harry become cadets. Nicht wahr?
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2015 @ 7:35 amNicht so nk. Any child of Charles precedes Andrew and Edward, and any child of Wills precedes Harry. Per stirpes, so to speak.
kishnevi (91d5c6) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:09 amI think the order is Charles, William, George, (insert here the new royal baby when it arrives),Harry, Andrew, Andrew’s daughters in order of birth, Edward,Edward’s kids if he has any, Anne,Anne’s children. After which it would bop over to Margaret. Remember when she was the scandalous royal?
Of course it is all by Act of Parliament, and Parliament could if it wish make Bob the dustman King if it wished.
kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:11 amI agree with that, kishnevi, presuming Charles ascends the throne. I am operating from the position of heirs of the body of the reigning monarch, by primogeniture, with preference given to males. I.e., Charles has nothing to pass on before he is crowned.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:39 amThanks for confirming that the Republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of the Constitution and international cooperation on the important issue of nuclear proliferation.
PurpleStatist (964ec0) — 3/10/2015 @ 8:59 pm
That is fuggin’ hilarious! Imagine that! Anyone resorting to “partisan politics”, lol… “Kettle? This is Pot, you’re black.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/11/2015 @ 10:58 amconflating the netanyahu speech and that execrable letter is no good
we should discuss this further over ramen
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:02 pmmaybe a Nespresso and a scone:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/11/anatomy-of-a-smear-the-media-vs-republican-senators-on-iran-letter/
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:07 pmIt is cute that the statist claims to care about nuclear proliferation, when Barcky is rolling over and doing back flips trying to claim a win for something that will absolutely not keep Iran from going nuclear. And his concern over the Constitution is just precious as well.
JD (86a5eb) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:23 pmDon’t know if you saw this, but
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obamas_shariacompliant_truce_with_iran.html
Apparently “TRUE” Muslims can’t make peace with infidels; Sharia only allows stopgap truces until the Muslims feel strong enough to go-for-the-throat again.
Nonie Darwish assumes that Dear Leader (y’know, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, son of a Muslim) knows this…..
A_Nonny_Mouse (1417df) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:32 pmIt’s amusing that leftists think truthfully informing everybody (it was an open letter) of how our Constitutional system of government works is “partisan.”
I suppose it would be considering people like PurpleStatist think it’s
Steve57 (d8b290) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:42 pmblasphemoustreasonous to apostatize from their cult of personality.How long have you considered it execrable for politicians to be honest and above board?
As opposed to the Obama administration that demands the right to make common cause with the Mullahs in secret. Recall how they threatened Netanyahu not to dare reveal any details about the nature of the deal this administration is making with Iran.
Why is it execrable for a group of Senators to clearly remind the entire world in an open letter the facts (nobody has criticized the content because everything in that letter was entirely correct) of the nonbinding nature of a deal a president can make using only his executive authority as opposed to the binding nature of a treaty that is ratified by Congress?
Meanwhile you give Obama a pass for letting all our enemies in on the details of the pending deal with Iran. Obviously Iran knows those details (they’re posting the details in Farsi on the internet, but this administration likes to blame Israel for “leaks”). Consequently so do their patrons; China, Russia, and North Korea.
The only people Obama is trying to hide the details from are the American people.
You have a strange definition of execrable.
Steve57 (d8b290) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:50 pmthis is around the time, Graham Chapman shows up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kerry-congress-change-iran-nuclear-deal-29555760
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 12:59 pmwho’s copying who?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/irans-government-strikes-back-against-congress.php
narciso (ee1f88) — 3/11/2015 @ 2:18 pmiirc, there is no such thing as an “international agreement”. You either have a treaty or you don’t.
Purple , where are you? Was that just a one-and-done ?
seeRpea (181740) — 3/11/2015 @ 2:21 pmletter was dopey and all it accomplished was it made Team R look like tools
these wankers think they’re being all ballsy and clever but not one of these cowards will just come out and say to the American people that the president of the united states is a jew-hating genocidal p.o.s.
how hard is that done and done
happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/11/2015 @ 2:22 pmIs there anything, anything, that the left fusses about that they haven’t done 10 times worse???
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/how-barack-obama-undercut-bush-administrations-nuclear-negotiations-with-iran.php
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 3/12/2015 @ 11:30 am