Do you think Mr Obama agrees with Senator Joe Biden, who once said: "the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations"?
I also don't think that anyone realizes it's not just us it's 5 other world powers and something like this happend with the League of Nations which we created but did not join because of congress which involuntarily helped lead us into ww2
No, I think Obama thinks that he is the power and that's all that counts
The senate gets their say on treaty's if it's not a treaty (which I don't believe it is) it's not their business. If it is a treaty they will get their say after an agreement is made. What the 47 did was wrong either way.
No...he is an elitest who thinks he was elected king not president
President Obama is a Progressive. Progressives believe only a small percentage of people understand. He is one of the elite and understands. He will do what he thinks is best whether the sullied masses follow or not.
Senator Biden? What year are you in now?
Tex ... I realize that it's inconvenient that leftists are held to account for heir hypocrisy.
So, answer the question. Was crazy Joe right or is naked emperor O right?
He's the Vice President...
Tex ... noted ... you're unwilling to address the hypocritical actions of the Vice President and the man who thinks he's a king.
Why would I respond to a question when it doesn't reflect actual fact. You diminish your question by referring to our sitting Vice President as a senator, a much less important position. Why would I finish reading the question, let alone respond?
Tex ... what was Mr Biden's "job" before his incompetence lad MrO to bring him onto the ticket?
Stop evading, its a reasonable question that highlights the hypocrisy of this current situation.
I would say both President Obama & Vice President Biden, the leaders of the USA, would both agree with the statement. The senate just needs to participate, compromise, collaborate and that would be happening now. The senate owns their stonewalling.
Tex ... glad you see the hypocrisy of MrO in shutting out the Senate from their rightful role in establishing relations with foreign governments.
The letter was written as a response to MrO's lack of transparency & undermining the Constitution.
I'm not sure referencing a treasonous, mutinous letter helps the senate look like collaborators... Petulant children, yes...
Tex ... I don't like the letter, and likewise abhor when MrO, Ms Pelosi and Mr Kerry did FAR worse.
You've missed the point ... again! There must either be hypocrisy in the White House or Joe is now enlightened/evolved by the intellect of ignorantO
I think you're holding him accountable for the senates unwillingness to work with him... These republicans have said they will actively work against him. Should we just have no foreign policy because the senate is avoiding working as a team?
Partners means the two have to come together. One can't refuse to sit at the table. It's not the others fault if they do refuse to sit at the table..
Tex ... your a broken record. Where's the evidence if MrO changing his ways from the days that he shut Republicans out of the negotiations? Where's the specific evidence of collaboration on Iran?
This will be good, grabbing the popcorn!
Tex ... continue the vague innuendo because you know that it doesn't fit this situation. MrO has refused from the beginning to negotiate in good faith.
Noted - you didn't respond to the "treasonous" activities of Senators Obama, Clinton and Kerry
I'm sure he does. But he also knows they have different roles in the partnership, and it is the president and the president alone who sets foreign policy.
It is the Senate alone who is charged with checking the overreach of the president with their responsibility to ratify any treaty.
Neither house of the congress plays a direct role in determining or administering foreign policy. The president alone speaks for the entire US in international affairs, as the president alone was elected to represent the entire US.
Until there is a treaty under consideration, the Senate's role is rightfully limited:
Most foreign policy, and by far most international agreements, fall well short of being treaties by US law. Congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) require consent, but no advice, and sole-executive agreements are made by the President alone.
Those last three posted out of order, but you'll figure it out.
Zod ... it's incredible how you're able to dance on the head of the pin. We all know that foreign policy is the responsibility of the president. We also know that MrO has failed to set a policy.
The key is that we're talking about negotiating ...
... with an abhorrent oppressive regime. And with that potentially committing our country to irreversible harm.
These negotiations are in the spirit of a treaty, and the Senate should be included to avoid the need to embarrass MrO yet again.
Negotiating with foreign governments is specifically the responsibility of the executive branch, and specifically outside the purview of the legislative branch. You can look up separation of powers and responsibilities if you've forgotten.
And I have been unable to find any mention of a treaty being negotiated at all. Have you seen this proposed treaty? Have you even seen a treaty mentioned, either in the official releases from DC, or in any news report anywhere?
Of course, MrO is a liberal, so the first order of business is to redefine terms to skirt the law.
Even MrO's State dept defines a treaty as ...
"A treaty is a formal, written agreement between sovereign states or between states and international organizations. In the United States, treaties are negotiated through the executive branch, which includes the Department of State."
That sure soundsl ike what's being negotiated.
Yes, a treaty by international law can be almost any agreement between countries, but not as defined by US law - hence the link I provided. All three forms of treaties are negotiated exclusively by the executive branch though, never the Senate.
As far as I know, the kind of treaty that requires "advice and consent", or ratification by a supermajority of the Senate, before becoming a binding part of our law hasn't even been considered. Like I said, I can't find any mention of one.
And as far as redefining terms like "treaty", if you take the trouble to look it up, you'll find the various forms of international agreements (not treaties by US law), have been common going back as far as Thomas Jefferson.
Zod ... you precisely make the point of the Senators, observing in their open letter that if MrO is suggesting that he's negotiating an agreement that will last longer than his term, that he doesn't have that authority. It sounds like you agree.
Well, I probably agree, as there is no limit to how long such an agreement might last. But I disagree with the notion that any part of the legislature sets foreign policy (it doesn't), or needs to be consulted to make such agreements (it doesn't).
That is, I disagree that he doesn't have the authority (he does), or that the Senate can constitutionally interfere with his authority to create and carry out foreign policy and agreements, other than formal treaties as defined by US law (it can't).
"The president and the senate..."
0bama doesn't think of himself as the president, he thinks of himself as a benevolent dictator. The presidency is a vestige of an unsophisticated past where leaders needed rules to stay in line.
Senator Obama would agree.
President Obama disagrees.
Based on results? Abso-freakin-lutely not.
They like to bind the U.S. Down in agreements.
How could a republican from Kansas say that MrO agrees with this statement when everything that MrO has done is counter to it?
I think is the obligations part he was agreeing to and not the partner part. No doubt the dems would love to get the US locked down in a bunch of treaties.