US-Russian Arms Negotiators “Under the Gun,” Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
EmailMOSCOW — With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.
"The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified," said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. "If we're not able to do that, we'll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty."
Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the "different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval."
The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires. While resident Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to announce progress tomorrow on a nuclear arms reduction treaty – nicknamed “New START” — to take effect in just five short months, many sticking points that remain unresolved.
The 1991 START treaty's pending expiration means “we are under the gun to try to get something to replace it by the end of the year,” Michael McFaul, special assistant to the President and senior director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs, told reporters last week.
Both the US and Russia have agreed in principle to reduce the number of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles from the current level of 1,600 each, as was negotiated under START, and to reduce the number of nuclear warheads each nation has in its arsenal from 2,200 each, as agreed upon during the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
One of the major sticking points so far has been Russia’s continued frustration at US plans for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, an issue Samore said would “have to be addressed in the new treaty,” though he would not specify just how.
“We think we have a good argument,” Samore said, stressing that the “very modest” US plans are “not designed to defeat the Russian nuclear deterrent.” The program would only serve as a shield against attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran, with few missiles, and not Russia, with its extensive arsenal.
But Medvedev in an interview with European reporters did not seem inclined to hear such an argument, at least about Iran.
“In terms of missile defense Poland and the Czech Republic are one thing, Iran is a different one altogether, they are too far apart geographically,” he said. “I do not understand how people can say that missile defense is linked to the problems of the Middle East.” He allowed that “the missiles that North Korea is using have tremendous range. This has to be of concern for us. We are located in close proximity to this country.”
Medvedev said that “offensive nuclear capabilities do not exist by themselves, rather they exist together with the means for defending against them, that is anti-missile defense.” The Russian president argued that “the Russian Federation is not against the development of such a means of defense. But we believe that it should not be unilateral nor, in essence, directed against one of the participants in this dialogue, a major nuclear country such as Russia. We believe that the decisions that were taken on this topic have put us in a difficult position.”
After more than four hours worth of meetings with Medvedev on Monday, President Obama and his Russian counterpart will outline what is essentially yet another outline for a treaty. In London in April the two outlined what was an outline for this outline. Since that time, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller and her counterpart, Anatoly Antonov, the head of the department for security and disarmament in the Russian Foreign Ministry, have been negotiating intensely.
President Obama told Russia’s ITAR-TASS/ROSSIYA TV that his “goal is that both countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles in a way that doesn't leave either country with an advantage, but reduces tensions and the expense of maintaining such high nuclear stockpiles when they're not necessary for our defense and our deterrence."
But how to make sure neither side has an advantage is not a simple matter of numbers – because the counting is complicated. Another sticking point includes how to count nuclear weapons reductions given the asymmetrical nature of the US and Russian forces. Russian nuclear warheads are more land based; US warheads are more sea-based. Russians favor more warheads on fewer launchers; the US favors fewer warheads on more launchers.
US negotiators are also arguing that weapons once used as part of the nuclear arsenal but since changed for conventional use – three Trident submarines with 48 launching tubes; the entire B-1 bomber force; and a number of B-52 aircraft that haven’t been eliminated but aren’t currently in operating condition – shouldn’t be counted as nuclear weapon delivery vehicles.
How the Russians would be able to verify the continued conventional use of these submarines and airplanes, as well as how general inspection rules for how the US and Russia will be able to verify their commitments, is also proving complex.
In addition to disarmament issues, Medvedev said that the US and Russia “have an extensive agenda that reflects other concerns. These involve interregional conflicts, efforts to overcome the international financial crisis, local conflicts and finally bilateral relations.”
-jpt
GOP Rap: 'Take America Back' 
Afghanistan Timeline Realistic?
Something doesn’t make sense here.
We have until DECEMBER to do the newSTART treaty, and the President doesn’t think he can get the Congress to ratify a treaty by then? So he has to override the Constitution?
I don’t get it.
Posted by: Leslie | July 5, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
We don’t need no stinkin’ Senate! Says the White House.
Posted by: LongT | July 5, 2009, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
Hey Jake! You’re back! Hopefully you can restore good and reasonable order to your blog editors again, even while covering this important event.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
UNBELIEVABLE with the casualness with with which this is being said like it is not BIG deal. I sure hope that we will hear more about this. The constituion must be revered but it appears this administration would rather use it for toilet paper.
Posted by: misty | July 5, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
The essential requirements for the most lasting security are that 1)both nations can openly inspect the arsenal of the other to be sure that they each have more than enough capacity to completely destroy eachother and 2)The reduction is as slow as humanely possible. If we take the healthcare/energy/european kind of advice on this that the efficient position is the best, reducing an arsenal to the most near the balance of power in order to save on expense, both Russia and the USA will pay dearly in added intelligence and defense expenses to maintain that balance. The efficient question is, what is the least expense necessary to leave no doubt about the mutual destruction of both in such an un-desired outcome? Providing in an agreement also for changes to a system to make such provisions more efficient, or cost-effective.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
A whole industry could be launched with mutual consent to define and deploy the least expensive means of positively assured mutual destruction in the event of an unresolvable essential disagreement, with mutual inspections to share such technology and without increasing the arsenal.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
The Fierce Urgency of Now trandscends the Constitution! Who knew?
If there’s no crisis around that you can use to advantage, you can always create one by setting an arbitrary deadline that’s impossible to meet.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 5, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
Every year the inspectors of both countries could get together for a dance and whisky-swap to celebrate the advances made in securing our ability to destroy eachother more economically.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
“A whole industry could be launched…”
Sure. Lets fight the next war with the last war’s tactics and strategy. Thats always worked out well….
MAD is not the threat. The threat is a WMD attack (nuclear, bio, chem) on our cities, using a terror org as proxy to remain anonymous.
And no, primitive nukes do not leave a distinguishable fingerprint. Not with the 100% certainty required to launch a counter-strike.
And I wonder what other treaties will subject us to out of “emergency”. Good precedent though. We’ll just suspend elections after Palin is in because of another “emergency”.
BTW, ABC is so in the tank, she’s had to undercut WaPo’s fee for lapdances. Although I hear Katharine Weymouth does this *wicked* thing with her hips. Keep speaking “truth” to power gents – LMAO.
Posted by: Fen | July 5, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
“Bypass senate ratification”?
If the Senate doesn’t ratify it, it’s not binding upon the United States. That’s not just law, that’s in the constitution.
Speaking of the constitution, where does it authorize the executive to keep a standing army on foreign soil? There’s no constitutional authority for a US missile defense system in Poland, so this should be a non-issue.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 5, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
Obama has five months on this. He has a senate and house majority.
And Bush took flack for running roughshod over the constitution…
Posted by: Dajida | July 5, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
DEfcon 1 would be when one side doesn’t dance. DEfcon 2 when one side doesn’t drink enough, etc. Designated international observers could go to the event to find out how much attention needs to be given to easing any bi-lateral tensions.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
If he shoves START down the throats of the Senate like he did the Stimulas he could have that treaty by this weekend. Dont bother reading it, why break tradition?
Posted by: Rich K | July 5, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
” The threat is a WMD attack (nuclear, bio, chem) on our cities, using a terror org as proxy to remain anonymous. ”
—————
Sorry, Fen, that is simply an unbelievable scenario that neither the USA nor Russia would deploy, and against which both will certainly continue to cooperate to prevent. It is outside the discussion for the re-start of the start outline outline.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Mayday! Mayday! paging ACLU, Code Pink, NYTimes, Leftie bloggers (Huffin Post, DKOS), AL “He brayed this country” Gore: The constitution is being trampled on, but wait! false alarm, it’s not Bush in the White House, its the Messiah. Ignore distress call, phew!
Posted by: julian | July 5, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
“Sorry, Fen, that is simply an unbelievable scenario that neither the USA nor Russia would deploy”
Who said anything about Russia deploying that scenario? I’m talking about rogue nations using terror orgs as proxies for anonymous WMD attacks against the West.
…”that is simply an unbelievable scenario”
“…a failure of imagination…”
Posted by: Fen | July 5, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
No Senate – no giveaway treaty. Have we gone totally mad in this nation?
“We got to do this fast Vlad, before the idiots who elected me wake up and impeach me.”
Where is all the gridlock we used to hear about?
Posted by: Don L | July 5, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Yeah, maybe we should use some imagination, Fen. I mean, what if Iran is telling the truth and there were US style bullets in the riot killings? That would mean we are the ones who need help controlling threats from rogue activity. Maybe Russia and the US can get together to find out who fired those bullets, and where they came from, just to be sure that we aren’t letting rogue activity happen under OUR noses!
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
Hey… what’s all the fuss? It’s O-B-A-M-A. He don’t need no stinkin’ Senate conformation. His agenda is far too important for that.
Posted by: TexGEOas | July 5, 2009, 3:51 pm 3:51 pm
Welcome back, Jake. Give Helen and Chip a big pat on the back. They were the only real reporters while you were cone.
Posted by: TexGEOas | July 5, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
Everything with Obama is urgent. He spent the primaries talking about Bush creating fear- too funny- thats exactly how he is getting his legislation passed. We need to stop this socialism nonsense before Obama is controlling everything.
Posted by: jimbo | July 5, 2009, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
MarkLeavenworth
Okay, right, he’s POTUS we should sit back and watch him do whatever he wants, forget the Constitution. How can I say that? Well, directly criticizing him for overstepping his Constitutional authority repeatedly, knowing his history (you know, the people that he surrounded himself with HIS ENTIRE LIFE), and in interviews where he arrogantly disparages our founding fathers, is apparently “a little over the top for any citizen” in your eyes. Don’t dare question my loyalty to my country. How’s your vote working out for you small fry?
Posted by: BrownShirtsInMSM | July 5, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
Excuse me if I’m mistaken… but I’m not mistaken… wouldn’t something like this announcement have caused Leftists, including Obama, to cry “DICTATOR!” had George W. Bush planned on “bypassing” the Senate?
Posted by: ELC | July 5, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Seems to me that Madeleine Halfbright tried something like this during the Clinton years. After the Senate had killed a treaty with Russia, ole Maddy wrote them a letter saying that the Clinton administration still considered the previous treaty the “law of the land”.
Well, she got herself ripped a new one for that, and 0bama / Hillary should be right there with her for this fiasco.
But he’s our President, we elected him – right?
Posted by: Nick in Virginia | July 5, 2009, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
“One option is that both sides could agree to continue the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. __On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval.__”
DUMA IS THE RUSSIAN SENATE. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN IN **RUSSIA**, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BYPASS HIS COUNTRY’S SENATE. ONLY IN AMERICA DOES THE PRESIDENT CLAIM TO HAVE THIS POWER. WHICH ONE IS THE QUASI-DICTATORSHIP AGAIN?
Posted by: Vox Populi | July 5, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Has any president in our history floated bypassing the Senate, much less actually doing it, when negotiating a treaty?
Posted by: Jason | July 5, 2009, 4:16 pm 4:16 pm
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run for your lives!
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
I do not see any mention in the US Senate website on treaties of any president attempting to completely bypass their approval. I do see that executive agreements have become more common, but I imagine that they would make negotiating with Russia more difficult as they would only have the guarantee until the end of Obama’s term. Either way, this idea is a terrible precedent and the admin should be held accountable by the Senate for even entertaining this possibility.
Posted by: Jason | July 5, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
Danita, I been trying to respond on the other topic since yesterday evening. But my response will not post. I thought I would see if this will go through. If so, I will try posting my reply to this topic.
Posted by: James Danley | July 5, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
danita says: The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run for your lives!
Wow, for once we are on the same side of an issue. The admin is trying to tell us the sky is falling and we must bypass the Constitution in order to pass a new treaty. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Jason | July 5, 2009, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
This is not CHANGE, this is an advancement of Bush policy! When are we going to turn back this assault on our Constitution?
Obama is a liar and a fraud. He is continuing every illegal policy implemented in the Bush administration. We are certainly headed towards dictatorship at some point unless this is halted.
Posted by: paul | July 5, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
Of course President Obama didn’t say that everything within the bill has been accomplished. BUT, there is no taking out of context, there is no absurd spin, President Obama SAID that the Recovery Act was intended to ensure that teachers, firefighters and police officers were not laid off. To THAT end, IS WHAT President Obama SAID– that the Recovery act has “done its job.”
MY POINT IS, that there ARE LAYOFFS of teachers, firefighters and police officers. So I question whether President Obama’s statement is accurate.
Posted by: James Danley | July 5, 2009, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm
Can’t picture this passing constitutional muster.
Posted by: clayusmcret | July 5, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Read it.
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
Not to worry. Hussein has his “czars” (the US Arms Negotiators working for the American people?. We will likely come out dead (that is not an euphemism)last in any negotiations regarding dismantling of our nuclear strategic arms situation.
Why would Hussein even think about bypassing the normal Senate ratification? Something does not smell right there either.
Posted by: hadenuff55 | July 5, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
BrownshirtinMSM- Maybe your deficiency is in knowledge. If the President is overstepping his constitutional bounds, it is the responsibility of congress to act against it. So your characterizations are mis-directed twice in your last comment.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
Uh, say again, over? “Bypass” the Senate? I can’t believe what I’m hearing.
One of the most important checks on the executive is the requirement for the Senate to ratify treaties, especially one that comprises the cornerstone for global stability and national security like strategic warhead levels.
Do we trust that Obama and the 28 year olds surrounding him have the experience and know-how of the intricacies of strategic weapons reductions to design such an agreement? No, we do not.
And what about Pentagon input, not that that would be any different now that anti-military advisors like Rosa Brooks have been added to the Undersecretary’s office. Feel safe yet?
This is unbelievable. It’s almost like a systematic, methodical dismantling of every single way this country provides for it’s defense and security, almost like it’s on purpose or something.
Posted by: jordan | July 5, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
How soon before we hear that term limits for the president are being rescinded? He is so fond of Chavez and the ex Honduran president and that seems to be the going them with these socialist control freaks these days.
Posted by: Lori | July 5, 2009, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
Now we see why President Obama is on the side of the President of Honduras when that president wants to ignore constitutional requirements: they both think their constitution is there to be ignored as needed for their own special agendas.
Posted by: Arnold Williams | July 5, 2009, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Try reading it.
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
“How’s your vote working out for you small fry?”
—————-
BrownshirtinMSM- IF you want to get a little bigger, try writing out your complaints to your elected representatives. If you want to jump out of the frying-pan, then run for office yourself.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Obama is did not acquire the position of President to advance the American people – he is advancing the agenda he has formulated for many years with the assistance of his radical associations.
Unfortunately, “we the people” are not his main priority and he has shown that repeatedly by going around the checks and balances that are established by our constitution. Czars, taking over private business, controlling banks, controlling energy, firing IG’s. No matter what pretty bow he puts on it, it is still government control.
Posted by: Lori | July 5, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
Lori- his radical associations include an overwhelming majority of congress and most of American suburbia.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | July 5, 2009, 5:48 pm 5:48 pm
It’s amazing how many people can not stay on topic. We get it. You hate Obama. So, go back into your foxhole until 2012.
Jake, was “temporarily bypassing” your words or someone from the administration. It would seem that the WH is coming to a personal agreement until the senate ok’s it, while the other, sounds like he’s pushing a agreement until they agree with his agreement.
Posted by: CES | July 5, 2009, 6:03 pm 6:03 pm
Wow, so much for this president supposedly respecting the Constitution more than the last guy we had in office. Naturally the Obama sycophants, you know, the ones who refuse to criticize him for anything, no matter how wrong or hypocritical he is, will try and come to his rescue with tirades that are sure to blame Bush for just about everything.
Posted by: Mark | July 5, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm
Its not a treaty if the Senate doesn’t agree to it.
Posted by: Doc Merlin | July 5, 2009, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm
Sounds like Mr Obama wants to act illegally by bypassing Senate. What other laws does he want to bypass Senate using what the article like to call “different options”. All he’s doing is he wants to be a dictator, passing laws from the executive without congressional votes
Posted by: 4rc | July 5, 2009, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm
I don’t think you get to “temporarily bypass” the Constitution.
You just do not. Otherwise we have no Constitution.
Posted by: Alana | July 5, 2009, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Try reading it.
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
“In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.”
How on earth does a “Constitutional Lawyer” find the Constitution to be such an impediment or something to ignore if need be?
Why float the bypass idea if you have a stacked Senate? This doesn’t pass the smell test.
Is it true that Zelaya is flying to Honduras in a Venezuelan jet from Dulles Airport?
Posted by: Hmmm... | July 5, 2009, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
I’m not surprised. Obama has little regard for the Constitution anyway.
Posted by: tx281 | July 5, 2009, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm
WOW!! What a shocker this is. Somebody who has no regard for the Constitution would actually work to circumvent the Constitutional processes in place.
It should come as no surprise to anybody who has kept up with the goings on in Washington to see this. He is bound and determined to make the United States weak no matter what it takes. Sometimes, it does seem like he is doing this in the hopes of making us be a soft target for others.
I am not saying that is his his agenda, but to me, at least, it seems like it could be a part.
Posted by: John | July 5, 2009, 8:11 pm 8:11 pm
Try reading what is actually said by the official above . . .
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run for your lives!
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm
Does the Constitution mean nothing?
Posted by: mbs | July 5, 2009, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm
“If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Translation: “We claim the right to abide by treaties, or parts thereof as we choose, unilaterally if we wish, even though all parts have expired, until forced to do otherwise by a lapdog Senate”
Posted by: madkangaroo | July 5, 2009, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm
“There was even a bill introduced in January to throw out the 22nd Amendment which would allow Obama to be leader for life.”
Posted by: Mickey | Jul 5, 2009 9:04:30 PM
“Someone suggested impeachment for treason. They better do at least that and do it now before this regime can hurt the country more than it already has”
Posted by: rulisteningnow | Jul 5, 2009 9:33:51 PM
This has been the ONLY tactic the ‘Republican right wing’ has been able to put forward in the past years.
FEAR AND SMEAR. And then MORE fear and smear.
Oh what will we try now? Oh I know! Let’s try FEAR AND SMEAR.
You fear mongerers who are out to frame the President as traitor are a sad lot indeed.
Fortunately most americans are not as daft.
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
Those that hold Democracy precious shall never be quite…Don’t be bullied into silenced………..
Posted by: Parallex View | July 5, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
The Fierce Urgency of Now trandscends the Constitution! Who knew? Posted by: JM Hanes | Jul 5, 2009 2:54:31 PM
Fierce Urgency of Now; otherwise known as the FUN Doctrine.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the FUN doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | July 5, 2009, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
If he shoves START down the throats of the Senate like he did the Stimulas he could have that treaty by this weekend. Dont bother reading it, why break tradition? Posted by: Rich K | Jul 5, 2009 3:10:02 PM
Don’t forget the part of treaty marked “reserved for future use.”
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | July 5, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
Alana: “I don’t think you get to “temporarily bypass” the Constitution.
You just do not. Otherwise we have no Constitution.”
==============================
Really? Not when Abraham Lincoln assumed emergency powers when Washington was in danger during the Civil War, including tossing out habeus corpus (holding people without charging them). Maybe we wouldn’t have a Constitution if he hadn’t bypassed it!
And don’t forget Franklyn Roosevelt promising 300 Sherman Tanks to Churchill, before we were in the war, just a Tobruk fell to the Germans – even though the treaty that would keep us “neutral” hadn’t been to the Senate yet. Can you imagine what my father and the other American soldiers who landed in Algeria a year later would have faced if there was no British Army to pin down the Germans on the other side of North Africa?
If we do not do this, the Russians may use it to begin actively testing new weapons systems. Then we can brag all we want about being perfectly constitutional as we watch a new arms race develop.
Posted by: The_Mick | July 5, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
stay in the mother country when you get there obama. america is used to dealing with commies from a distance.
Posted by: gunclinger | July 5, 2009, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
I’m not surprised. Obama has little regard for the Constitution anyway. Posted by: tx281 | Jul 5, 2009 7:31:24 PM
Do you have to uphold the Constitution if you haven’t proven your a U.S. citizen?
Posted by: Traffic Cop Timmy | July 5, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
i guess sotomoyer is a shoe-in now huh?
Posted by: gunclinger | July 5, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
You can’t just ‘throw out’ an amendment by law. You have to amend the constitution to repeal an amendment. A treaty can be ‘enforced’ without the approval of the Senate, but of course then somebody can just as easily disregard it.
Posted by: Tired | July 5, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
“stay in the mother country when you get there obama. america is used to dealing with commies from a distance.”
Ah, the cream of american intelligence on full display.
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
THis is the REAL definition of a political COUP:
“bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties”
Can you say impeachment for a direct act of TREASON ???
Posted by: cls | July 5, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
Hey danita, you’re joking about the right-wing fear and smear garbage right? Obama has used fear and smear to pass every single bill since being in office. Stimulus anyone? Cap and trade anyone? Did you miss the talking points about how unemployment would reach 9% if the stimulus didn’t pass? hmmm….it’s now at 9.6% and they were so scare that no one read the bill. The same goes for the 1300 page Waxman bill that no one read but it had to be passed now right?
Posted by: ryukyu | July 5, 2009, 10:47 pm 10:47 pm
danita, When arer you going toi wake up? Hitler did not staart out killing Jews.He started out like most dictators. He slowly usurped power from the other branches of gov’t, until he had absolute power.
Sound familiar????
Posted by: Roger | July 5, 2009, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
Gee, Obama may ignore the Constitution? Hell, does he know one even exists? I mean, besides the one he wipes his feet on when he enters 1600 Penssvannia Ave?
Posted by: RJR | July 5, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
I think some of you need to reread the article. The point being made is that certain provisions for inspection will be continued under executive action UNTIL the Senate can ratify the full treaty. Duh, no one said anything about doing away with the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. All of you who are so worried about Obama´s disregard of Constitutional process should keep in mind the US´s “non-wars” in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as well as the invasion of Panama, all done as executive decisions. Why call them non-wars? Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened.
Posted by: BachisBest | July 5, 2009, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Not no but hell no
Congress must ratify all treaties and this should never be up to debate
Posted by: Holly | July 5, 2009, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
“I think some of you need to reread the article. The point being made is that certain provisions for inspection will be continued under executive action UNTIL the Senate can ratify the full treaty. Duh, no one said anything about doing away with the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. All of you who are so worried about Obama´s disregard of Constitutional process should keep in mind the US´s “non-wars” in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as well as the invasion of Panama, all done as executive decisions. Why call them non-wars? Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened.”
Posted by: BachisBest | Jul 5, 2009 10:55:36 PM
Most calm and interesting comment posted here.
Posted by: danita | July 5, 2009, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm
There are 60 democratic senators. Why on earth does Obama need to bypass them? Something doesn’t smell right here. And the senate better get their act together or they will be SOL like the rest of us.
Posted by: Axey | July 5, 2009, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm
Axey . …
The real heart of the story is the negotiations that are taking place.
“bypassing the Senate” is just Tapper’s choice of phrase and may or not be well chosen. I see that phrase no where in the statements of the people he quotes.
Best explanation on here is this . .
“I think some of you need to reread the article. The point being made is that certain provisions for inspection will be continued under executive action UNTIL the Senate can ratify the full treaty. Duh, no one said anything about doing away with the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate. All of you who are so worried about Obama´s disregard of Constitutional process should keep in mind the US´s “non-wars” in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as well as the invasion of Panama, all done as executive decisions. Why call them non-wars? Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened.”
Posted by: BachisBest | Jul 5, 2009 10:55:36 PM
Posted by: danita | July 6, 2009, 12:07 am 12:07 am
I didnt vote for him you did..the snake oil salesman barack…what a joke ,the WORST thing we could have is a health care system like Canada. it will ruin what we now have
Posted by: mx | July 6, 2009, 1:16 am 1:16 am
I have to admit that this is a no brainer and that the title is misleading. I am not happy with Mr Obama lying about that he was removing politic as usual and providing transperancy! Mr Obama is politicizing government on the grandest scale ever… Authorizing more power than the constitution allows with his czars… creating his political appointment with Embasadorships! Controling the attorney generals office and its attorneys, investigations and prosecutions on a grander scale than ever before too. but this is not him pulling a Zalaya! At least not yet. Viva La Honduras!
Posted by: MadDogCrog | July 6, 2009, 1:20 am 1:20 am
After this happens, who’s gonna be the next Ollie North? any bets?
Posted by: mx | July 6, 2009, 1:21 am 1:21 am
Now this is funny. This N Korea thing is a nightmare for Obama and he would love to scrap the missile shield BUT he cannot do that if the missile shield ever successfully shoots down a missile aimed at anyone, especially Honolulu.
If a successful real life use of the missile shield happens then Obama would be made a laughingstock for dismantling it BUT IF the missile shield is never used in defense of the nation then the Democrats can dismantle it and say…”well it never really worked you know; just another stupid idea from Bush”
I am laughing this one ever day watching Obama squirm as he will probably capitualte on the missile shield to get a new START treaty with the commies…. oops sorry the democratic loving Putinists.
Posted by: Pal | July 6, 2009, 1:47 am 1:47 am
Obama sends drones into pakistan in an UNAUTORIZED ACT OF WAR…. KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN as the Bush Doctrine became the Obama Doctrine and NOW THIS!!!
This is exactly what had us all miffed about BUSH!!!
NO WONDER OBAMA AND BUSH LOOKED SO COZY LAST YEAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey how about that FISA BILL OBAMA???????
Posted by: Albert | July 6, 2009, 1:57 am 1:57 am
THIS IS IN FACT IGNORING THE CONSTITUION AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT JUST AS YOU DID WHEN BUSH ACTED THIS WAY!!!
Posted by: Albert | July 6, 2009, 2:01 am 2:01 am
BachisBest wrote: “Because only Congress can declare the US at war, according to the Constitution and that never happened.”
According to the Constitution, ONLY Congress can appropriate the money–even for an undeclared war–and that DID HAPPEN regarding Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. So Congress gave their approval even if not a full declaration of war.
Posted by: James Danley | July 6, 2009, 2:26 am 2:26 am
Clearly unconstitutional and a huge overstep by our arrogant, foolish occupant of the White House. In a Freudian slip, ABC stated: “While resident Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to announce progress tomorrow on a nuclear arms reduction treaty – nicknamed “New START” — to take effect in just five short months, many sticking points that remain unresolved.”
That’s “resident” Obama rather than “President.” Appropriate.
It’s about time to enforce the elibility requirements and demand the birth certificate, school, travel and work records to get this imposter out, before we have to impeach him.
Posted by: gmiller | July 6, 2009, 2:31 am 2:31 am
Article II, Sec. 2 U.S. Constitution
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;…”
So, no…. Barry does not get to jumpstart the process by creating a treaty without the “advice and consent” of the Senate nor does he get to hold this country, by any means, to the terms of any treaty with which “two thirds of the Senators present” do not concur.
Some Constitutional scholar. Seems like Obama only studied the US Constitution for the purpose of devising end runs around it.
Posted by: riograndevalleygirl | July 6, 2009, 2:50 am 2:50 am
The essential to consider here is (I prefer to use his middle name) Hussein’s desire to bypass the Constitution. The limitation of America’s defensive capabilities is standard leftist dogma. The attempt to bypass the Senate is the deplorable part of this that is typical of this administration. (Leftist apologists like The Mick, see last paragraph) The president cannot bypass the Senate; he has no authority to do so. If he gets away with a bypass of two weeks (Let’s say) why not three? Or six? Why not months, instead of weeks? Why not years instead of months? Why stop at treaties? If the goal is to achieve (supposedly) popular political outcomes, why not enforce laws until they’re approved by Congress? Would that be the appropriate action of an American president? Or is that the action of a South American dictator like the Comrades Chavez, Castro and Zelaya? (I could make an argument here against regulatory bodies like the EPA and their forthcoming rules on CO2, but that would be far too long a post) Popularity paves the road to hell with its good intentions; neither popularity nor good intentions allow an end run around the Constitution. (Although, ignoring the Constitution is both the M.O. and the signature of this administration, as they are the serial-killers of freedom.) The attempt to do so makes Hussein the first fully anti-American president.
As for the examples provided by “The Mick”, Article 1, section 9 of the US CONSTITUTION states “…the PRIVILEGE of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it…(caps lock mine) So, unless you’re saying that the South had a non-threatening rebellion, you have no point. Your second example ignores completely The Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, by which CONGRESS AUTHORIZED the president to send arms and war supplies to “the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.” (quotes courtesy of answers.com; caps lock mine) History and the Constitution, “The Mick”, you need to learn both.
Posted by: Hoverwolf | July 6, 2009, 3:37 am 3:37 am
I’m pretty sure one of the bush’s signed an executive order that pretty much declared-during wartime the commander in chief has the ability to act individually, and thus congress becomes ceremonial.basically giving Barry the rights of a dictator,since an executive order becomes law as soon as it is signed by the president. here comes Corporate America with the Internationale bankers running the (not)FED and the IR(b)S,the whole of D.C. good luck my fellow Americans.maybe we should all go get assault weapons before they re-ban them,as to protect ourselves when it’s time for CHANGE.
Posted by: heinekenstar | July 6, 2009, 4:27 am 4:27 am
Wow…it’s like living in Germany in the 1930s!
If you liked the original, you’ll just love the sequel.
Posted by: Hocus Pocus | July 6, 2009, 5:00 am 5:00 am
Wow! Can you imagine the uproar if Bush tried this?
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 7:27 am 7:27 am
President Obama’s continued overreach of power is very disturbing. With 60 fully owned seats in the Senate, he should be able to pass any treaty without difficulty. No need for executive order here at all.
Posted by: ConservativeWoman | July 6, 2009, 7:41 am 7:41 am
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that 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.” These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances. That means 67 Senators. Since Obama has only 60 “rubber stamp” Senators he can count on, we now know why he’s trying to bypass the Constitution.
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 8:00 am 8:00 am
“Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!”
All hail Emperor Obama.
Posted by: drjohn | July 6, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
RESIDENT OBAMA…is the most ignorant…selfish…self centered..manipulative..RESIDENT…this country has ever had (hes not a president he is proving himself to be somewhat of a dictator). HE does not CONTROL this country or THIS WORLD. He has done nothing but go completely against everything this nation was founded on which is the Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and God (christianity). Ha and all u democrats wanna call him ur president..HA. Jokes on you. What good has he done for this country..he is STUPID for even tryin to do anything involving RUSSIA…HELLO. If i were anyone in this world…i would be SCREAMING IMPEACH OBAMA!! HE has Lied his way through everything since he has ran for president…remember the FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I have a chinese pug named Sampson..he would make a better President than the RESIDENT we have now. Well i exercised one of my Rights…FREEDOM OF SPEECH. GOOD LUCK AMERICA! If we dont impeach him..which we can at anytime, we are in for a world of heartache. Good Luck America, and GOD BLESS!
Posted by: NOBAMAinhendo | July 6, 2009, 9:38 am 9:38 am
ARTICLE II SECTION 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION (You remember that document, right?)
…He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…
IMPEACH. NOW. While we still can.
Posted by: PatF | July 6, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am
I don’t understand how he can even get away with it?
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
As the Constitution now reads, this isn’t even open to interpretation.
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
I don’t see the issue. The President, via executive order, can enforce aspects of a treaty before the treaty is ratified. In this case, the treaty is about strategic arms reduction, all of which are under the Executive branch. There’s nothing even remotely unconstitutional about this.
Posted by: David | July 6, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am
James Danley, you are right in that all revenue bills must originate in the House and be approved by Congress. There is no specific wording about money for wars, but it would come under the statement about revenues. That’s in Section 7. In Section 8, the specific powers of Congress are listed and one is the power to declare war. The US has indeed fought undeclared wars for which Congress voted money.
The real point is that strong Presidents have always relied on executive powers to carry out policies and to meet specific circumstances. Consider Lincoln’s wartime autocratic decisions, as well as FDR’s actions before the US was actively involved in WWII.
Posted by: BachisBest | July 6, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
This is yet another Obama “law” for the We Won category.
And yet another reason why one party controlling Congress and the WH isn’t wise.
No Dems will stand up to the Great Messiah – lest they be called “racists.”
Posted by: joseyj | July 6, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Does this President care anything about our constitution? For the sake of the country is there a leader out there that will stand up to the subtle tyranny of this outrageous behavior?
Posted by: Tom | July 6, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
“I don’t see the issue. The President, via executive order, can enforce aspects of a treaty before the treaty is ratified. In this case, the treaty is about strategic arms reduction, all of which are under the Executive branch. There’s nothing even remotely unconstitutional about this.”
Posted by: danita | July 6, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
Wake up guys, Obama has been bypassing the senate for a long time.. When he creates bills over 1000 pages and presents them to the senate 8 hours prior voting this is bypassing the senate.. Not to mention the bill where he added 3 or 4 hundred pages 20 minutes prior voting. .THIS IS BYPASSING THE SENATE..This is just Obama’s cunning way of doing it.. It worked, so now he has come right out and admitted his plans to do it openly..
The entire world is at risk…Impeach is too nice a word…
Posted by: ruth | July 6, 2009, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
That giant flushing noise is our constitution, and our country, going right down the toilet. Obama, and everyone in Congress, should be tried as traitors.
Posted by: Darryl | July 6, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
“The fact that the administration is preparing for such an extraordinary measure shows just how much pressure the two administrations are under to arrive at an agreement before the 18-year-old treaty expires.” Even the story says that bypassing the Senate is an “extraordinary” measure. Not remotely unconstitutional? Sounds like it’s uncomfortably close to it!
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
All of you screaming out for impeachment need to do some thinking. 1) What would be the charge?
2) How on earth would they get the votes in the House for impeachment? 3) And if such were to come about, how many Senators would really vote for removal? These are just the practical realities.
Posted by: BachisBest | July 6, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
I agree! Let’s stop the impeachment nonsense. It ain’t gonna happen. Stick to realistic expectations. Obama has most of both houses on his side – for now.
Posted by: LongT | July 6, 2009, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
If this treaty only effects the military and agencies under the control of the executive branch, then I don’t see how an Executive Order or ‘provisional’ order to follow a new treaty would be unconstitutional. It simply wouldn’t be the ‘law of the land’.
I believe the President already has the ability to refuse to spend money earmarked to an executive branch agency at his discretion, so I’m not sure what new conflict this would cause.
It would seem unconstitutional if any new treaty would effect ordinary companies or citizens – the government would be unable to prosecute them for violating the treaty if it had not been ratified. But I don’t think we have any private companies or citizens arming themselves with nuclear weapons?
Just please tell me Obama didn’t bring a “New START” button with him to the negotiations :-/
Posted by: Mike S | July 6, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
It’s easy to see why Obama has been expressing support for Zelaya in Honduras. These pesky constitutions get in the way all the time, and it’s so much easier just to rule without them.
Enforcing an arms reduction treaty on the basis of executive order? Didn’t this country get rid of rule by monarchy more than 200 years ago?
Posted by: buzzardist | July 6, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
buzzardist . . .
You should try reading the article above and some of the more perceptive comments below .. .
“The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified,” said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. “If we’re not able to do that, we’ll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty.”
Posted by: danita | July 6, 2009, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm
I cannot understand the destruction of our country, and how the press allows Obama, the biggest crook that every came into politics, to continue to get away with his deceit. He is a traitor, a crook, a liar, a grandiose narcissist. From “cap and trade” to “our health care system is broken” to “the stimulus is working,” just one lie after another, one swindle after another, more pay-to-play than Blago could ever think about. How can the press continue to help him?
Posted by: cowsagrazin' | July 6, 2009, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm
You are spending more than any president in history. Now you want a free pass? What happened to democracy?
I work for you and you need to clean up your own backyard before you tell other people what to do. I work for the VA and again we are refinishing floors, painting walls and installing koi ponds because we still have a capital spending budget for CONSTRUCTION. What we don’t have is PRIMAY CARE PHYSICIANS!
HEALTH CARE REFORM “like we get at the VA”
I need doctors for my Veterans, not fish for them to gaze at while the WAIT.
Posted by: Sherri Wyatt | July 7, 2009, 1:24 am 1:24 am
This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Oh and looky here … the New York Times decided to do some investigative reporting on President Obama six months after he became POTUS.
Great article by National Review here
which talks about the then student Barack Obama’s article from 1983 here.
Who could have known?
LOL
Posted by: VibrioCocci | July 7, 2009, 6:59 am 6:59 am
There is obviously a lot more than this. Would you mind telling me how long it took you to gather your content? Please come visit my site Equipment when you got time.
Posted by: Sanddy Suby | July 18, 2009, 12:16 am 12:16 am