Did Obama Just Provoke a Constitutional Crisis? Is it (finally) Time to Impeach Him?

From: pjmedia.com,  by Ron Radosh,  on Jul 22, 2015,  see the article HERE.

Khamenei and Obama

Here’s a preface worth reading from a National Review article, just a couple of paragraphs that expose the hiding of information by the Obama administration – see that article HERE:

President Obama won’t allow Congress to review two key aspects of the Iranian Nuclear deal, Republican lawmakers learned from international partners last week. Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency would negotiate separately with Iran about the inspection of a facility long-suspected of being used to research long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. “The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Pompeo, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, learned of the arrangement while meeting with the IAEA in Vienna, Austria last week. “That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny,” Cotton said in a statement to the press.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a member of the House, I’d start preparations for impeachment NOW. Is there no breaking point for our wimpy “leadership” in Congress? Are they willing to cede ALL of their Constitutional authority to the wannabe King in the White House?  Not only does he make an end-run around Congress and submit the disastrous agreement directly to the UN, but he hides important details about inspections from a co-equal branch of our Constitutional governing system. THIS MUST NOT STAND – I say start impeachment proceedings at once.

~~~~~~~~~~

President Obama’s decision to submit the Iranian nuclear deal to the United Nation Security Council before Congress has had their 60 days to review it could be as problematic for Congress as making a judgment on the deal itself.

Congress felt its responsibilities were already being usurped when they learned the Iranian deal would be treated as an agreement rather than a treaty. In response to widespread protest, the White House had to permit the agreement to be submitted to both houses of Congress for approval. Yet fearing that a negative vote — certain in the House — would occur, the administration decided to go to the UN immediately. This makes any congressional veto useless; the provisions of the agreement almost impossible to turn back.

Yesterday, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the Iranian deal. The 15-0 vote, the Times of Israel reports, “clears one of the largest hurdles for the landmark pact, which will now go before the U.S. Congress where it may face an uphill battle for confirmation.”

Only after it was a done deal did U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power choose to raise the issue of Iran’s continuing human rights violations. These were studiously avoided during the negotiations, when the U.S. had leverage.

Now, like bringing the deal to Congress, this is all for show.

This brings to mind an episode from the 20th century, when an American president similarly sought to force Congress to accept a mechanism for guiding foreign policy that would be determined not by the United States, but by the international community. After World War I, another “progressive,” President Woodrow Wilson, sought to limit America’s sovereignty when he insisted that the Treaty of Versailles incorporate the creation of a League of Nations. The victorious powers at the Versailles Peace Conference then merged the League Covenant and the terms of peace in one single package.

When he brought the treaty home for Congress’s approval, which was needed because it was a treaty, Wilson insisted that the heart of it was Article X of the League’s Covenant — which he had helped to draft. Article X, he insisted, would put an end to aggression and to war. It read as follows:

The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

Instead of the approval he expected, he faced resistance. In March of 1919, Wilson met with members of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was asked whether joining the League under the terms of Article X would infringe upon American sovereignty. It suggested that if a League member nation was attacked, America would be obligated to defend it, even though it would not be in the national interest to do so. Senate Republican leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts pointed out that the United States had no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity of another nation unless it was authorized by Congress.

Wilson was also attacked by radical isolationists like Sen. William Borah of Idaho, who argued that the League was not revolutionary enough, and was a mechanism for imperialist European powers to control the fate of the world.

Much to Wilson’s shock and consternation, when the Senate voted, American membership was defeated because of unity between the conservatives and isolationists, both of whom — for different reasons — did not sanction American membership in the newly created world organization. Although Lodge had created “reservations,” especially in regard to Article X, which if Wilson had accepted would have led to a vote for U.S. membership, he refused –he demanded acceptance of Article X as it was.

The Senate vote in November 1919 was 39 for and 55 against on acceptance of the treaty with reservations. A second vote, on acceptance of the treaty without any reservations, was 38 for and 52 against. A third vote in March 1920 was held, and the treaty was rejected 49 to 35, hence not receiving the two-thirds majority that was necessary for ratification.

President Barack Obama’s action is not exactly analogous to what Woodrow Wilson faced because he was presenting a treaty, but even so, Congress is not taking it lying down. On July 17, House whip Steny H. Hoyer and Sen. Ben Cardin wrote a letter to President Obama urging that the Security Council vote be delayed until after Congress has reviewed the agreement. Secretary of State John Kerry has fueled congressional anger, as Walter Russell Mead pointed out, by boasting:

[B]y having the Iran deal incorporated in a UN Security Council resolution, President Obama could tie the hands of future presidents, legally obligating them to abide by the Council’s resolution.

Thus, Cardin told the press:

Acting on it at this stage is a confusing message to an independent review by Congress over these next 60 days. So I think it would be far better to have that vote after the 60-day review, assuming that the agreement is not effectively rejected by Congress.

President Obama and Secretary Kerry did what they wanted, ignoring the two senators’ bi-partisan letter.  They went to the UN for the favorable vote they knew it would get.

 

He believes President Obama may be creating a very real constitutional crisis. After all, he has set the precedent for the future, in which any president could act in a similar manner by getting

The visible ignoring of the will of Congress, whose voice represents the people, will be resented by both Congress and constituents at home. As Walter Russell Mead puts it:

“There is precious little doubt that the Founders would have considered this a threat to the system of checks and balances they wrote into the Constitution.”

UN approval rather than going to the Congress and by calling any foreign policy deal an agreement rather than a treaty.

If Obama was smart, he would have restrained from rushing to submit the agreement to the UN. By going to the UN, he will be giving recalcitrant members of Congress more of an incentive to turn it down altogether, or to spend more time raising difficult questions. Obama, nevertheless, showed his contempt for Congress and disavowed the advice of Steny Hoyer and Ben Cardin. He did so for one reason, because he knew that by the time the Senate voted, approval of the deal would be a fait accompli.

But then, how smart was he to make this bad deal to begin with? Indeed, it is a real possibility that his action will provoke a constitutional crisis.

Poor Woodrow Wilson. He was commander-in-Chief at the wrong time. How he would have wished the U.S. was already a member of the League, so he too could have bypassed Congress and done something akin to what Barack Obama is trying to do now.

~~~~~~~~~~

This Iranian Nuclear Agreement OUGHT to be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. I’ll anxiously await the reaction of our Congress to see whether any of them have recovered the vestiges of a backbone or if they just roll over and kiss Obama’s ass AGAIN. Regardless of an individual’s ideas on a nuclear agreement with Iran to begin with, from all reports, the agreement is so one-sided favoring Iran that every citizen should be outraged that Obama and Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) gave away the store and essentially got nothing in return. We’ll be no safer, Israel will be no safer, and Iran will be free to distribute their recovered $100 Billion dollars to terrorist groups of their choosing – all the while moving closer to being a nuclear superpower.

I know that realistically it’s too late to remove Obama from office, but I’d sure like to see him stamped with an “IMPEACHED” label before his term of office ends.

Garnet92

 

 

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Did Obama Just Provoke a Constitutional Crisis? Is it (finally) Time to Impeach Him?

  1. It’s past time to impeach President Obama. He is destroying our constitution, the bill of rights and our nation. Impeach him congress or be voted out.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Agree RND, my position exactly. If Congress doesn’t make an effort to rein him in, of what value are they? They’re doormats in nice suits.

    • upaces88 says:

      He was told somehow that he can’t be impeached by our laws as they stand now because he is NOT a legal president.
      HOWEVER!
      18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381. ​He usurped Presidency,by fraud,during time of war. Obama a Spy under the UCMJ at Section 906,Article 106.​
      Did you mean
      18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2000. ​He usual Presidency,by fraud,during time of war. Obama a Spy under the UCMJ at Section 90

  2. Hardnox says:

    I agree. Impeachment should be his legacy.

    Last night I heard Putt made a secret deal with Iran off the books. What the hell is that? This wannabe dictator needs to be kicked to the curb immediately.

    • Garnet92 says:

      That’s what I’m after – a stain on his name. Forever known as an impeached president. Obama – a name that would live in infamy. For an egotistical narcissist like him, being the first black president to be impeached wouldn’t sit well.

  3. Buck says:

    “Congress felt its responsibilities were already being usurped when they learned the Iranian deal would be treated as an agreement rather than a treaty.”

    Which is the more stupid, the politicians the people send to DC or the people who send those politicians to DC???

    Uh… A “Treaty” IS an agreement. An agreement between the US government and a foreign entity and pertains to things of mutual benefit. Before it can take effect, the AGREEMENT must be approved by the Senate.

    Definition on Wikipedia:
    Modern usage

    A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.[2] A treaty is the official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Tough question Buck! Even as stupid as our congressional “leadership” has proven itself to be, I’ll pick the people who elect them. I say that because most people in Congress were liars before they were elected, they lied during campaigns, and they continue to lie to their constituents every day and yet keep getting elected by the same dumbass voters. As examples, I submit John McCain, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell.

      Almost daily, that same Congress, elected by the dumbass voters, let Obama’s administration run rhetorical circles around them. They’re surprised when Obama lies to them (and us) and things aren’t exactly as they thought them to be – surprise! Surprise! They’ve been outsmarted again!

  4. Kathy says:

    Sure, he should be impeached and it should have been done a long time ago, but this Congress has yet to even tell the man no, so they’re certainly not going to suddenly grow a backbone and start impeachment proceedings.

    As far as the secret deal is concerned – that’s the agreement between IAEA and Iran according to Susan Rice, whom we all know is the most trustworthy person in DC. (cough) She said that ‘we’ve seen it and we’re good with it’, which really means O’s good with it and screw the rest of you.

    What Congress SHOULD do is send O a unanimous resounding NO, but what Congress WILL do is drag their feet by spending the 60 days posturing for the media and then cave in to him at the last minute.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Can you imagine all of the tough statements we’ll be hearing over the next 60 days, all posturing and acting tough, but as you say, in the end, they’ll roll over, belly up, and submit.

      It’s unfortunate that more voters aren’t paying attention to our do-nothing, worthless, Congress. Hell, we could hire out of work buggy whip makers to kowtow to Obama a lot cheaper and save a lot of money.

      We’re not getting our money’s worth out of Congress and haven’t been for several years. We need wholesale change.

  5. Kathy says:

    Here’s what Texas Senator John Cornyn had to say about treaty vs. agreement yesterday. Yes, it’s long, but he is a politician after all….

    “During our ongoing discussions of the Iran agreement, many of you have expressed concern about why the deal being debated is not considered a treaty subject to ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. The State Department has criteria for determining whether or not an international agreement takes the form of a treaty, a congressional-executive agreement, or an executive agreement.

    Executive agreements do not supersede existing U.S. law and can be reversed by the President or any future presidents. Existing Iran sanctions, which were enacted in waves over the past several years, were written to give the President varying degrees of latitude to tighten or relax restrictions based on U.S. national security interests.

    The Iran bill passed earlier this year modified that authority by requiring the President to submit any agreement reached with Iran to Congress for a 30 or 60 day review period before being able to provide any sanctions relief. Without the Iran bill, the President would not be required to submit the executive agreement to Congress for review at all and would have been able to relax sanctions on Iran without Congressional approval.

    During this 60 day review period, Congress may vote to approve or disapprove the agreement, or take no action at all. If Congress approves the agreement or takes no action, the President will be able to relax Iran sanctions based on existing authority. If Congress disapproves the agreement and that measure survives a likely presidential veto, the freeze on the President’s ability to lift sanctions will be temporarily extended, giving Congress additional time to decide what other actions to take in regards to Iran.

    As I have previously said, I have deep concerns about how this administration has approached these negotiations with Iran. I am particularly troubled that the administration seems to have moved its own goalposts during the negotiations, and I plan to give the agreement careful scrutiny to ensure that it protects our national security interests.”

    • Garnet92 says:

      “Careful scrutiny,” eh? Right, sure he will. Cornyn is a RINO politician, a talker, a negotiator, but I predict that after the allotted 60 days, he’ll fold like a cheap suit and lament how Obama didn’t “play fair.”

      Cruz, Lee, et al will, no doubt, have some pithy statements to make about the treaty/agreement and will try to mount an attack on its passage, but will be blocked from doing anything substantive by the “leadership” (Big Daddy Mitch). And then, the conservatives battling against it will be pounced upon by the establishment lapdogs.

  6. vonmesser says:

    Probelm with impeaching is 3 fold.
    1. If convicted, that puts Biden in the driver’s seat.
    2. If NOT convicted, his popularity will go up (as did Clinton’s) and that will give a lift to thee Democrats and a hurt to the Republicans in the upcoming election.
    3. You need 67 votes to convict. We have a short majority, and several of those are NOT conservative.

    • Kathy says:

      A lot of people have used the same reasoning as you did in #1 VM, but I can’t see how Biden could possibly be any worse than O. Granted he’s a dufus, but I don’t see him hellbent on destroying this country the way O is.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I’m very aware, VM. Firstly, Obama won’t be removed from office, there’s simply not enough time to mount and get an impeachment verdict in the House, much less get a removal vote in the Senate.

      Second, I’d be pleased to accept Uncle Joe in place of B. Hussein Obama. Thirdly, Obama’s popularity would go up with blacks and the very liberal left, and would likely hurt us to some degree, but those people weren’t going to vote Republican anyway. Fourth, Obama has all but made Congress impotent, he’s shown them to be unnecessary and, according to reports I’ve seen, that has pissed off a lot of them – and not just Republicans.

      And lastly, I want to see Obama tarnished. I want him to forever after be labeled as an “impeached president.” He is trying to burnish his presidency with this Iranian deal as a foreign relations achievement, I want his legacy to be folded, spindled, and mutilated so that his misdeeds overshadow his “achievements.”

      With all of the ways that he’s ignored his duties, he’s ignored the law, he’s overstepped his authority, he’s refused to deal with a equal branch of government, he’s essentially created law (which he can’t do) and acted as an Imperial President – most things in the country are worse than when he took office, including race relations. In summary, I want him to pay a price for acting un-presidential, un-constitutionally, and un-American.

    • Bullright says:

      Great points plus it requires will, something sorely lacking. However, I have a crazy idea: Obama could step down and walk out leaving Biden in the office. He’s accomplished much of his evil already. Then Biden can run from there and stick a knife in Clintons back at the same time. Yes, they’d get right behind old crazy Joe.

  7. Bullright says:

    Garnet well, I cynically think they can wait till his last day in office and raise the question, “Oh, should we impeach him?” (said with a straight face)Or they could do something absurd like tally up a bill for which Obama’s policies will cost us over the next fifteen years and hand it to him on his skippy way out the door. Just a thought.