The Corker deal a bad one; GOP does it again

• It does not protect the Constitution
• It does not inhibit Obama
• It is steady as she goes on Congressional abdication

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently passed unanimously a bill cosponsored by Chairman Bob Corker (R) Lindsey Graham (R) and Bob Martinez (D). The bill (charitably) is intended as a response to Obama’s assertions that he does not need to submit his negotiations capitulations to Iran for congressional approval.  Any pretense that Corkers bill is an effective assertion of the Senate’s prerogatives under the Constitution are belied by this analysis by  Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review.  The article refers to Corker’s bill as  “simply channeling his inner Mitch McConnell”  There is much to that analysis in the article but here are excerpts from the Iran treaty portion:

The Corker Bill Isn’t a Victory — It’s a Constitutional Perversion

The Corker bill is a ploy to circumvent this constitutional roadblock. That is why our post-sovereign, post-constitutional president has warmed to it.  . . .

To summarize, the Constitution puts the onus on the president to find 67 Senate votes to approve an international agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify an ill-advised deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on Congress to muster 67 votes to block an agreement. Under the Constitution, Obama’s Iran deal would not have a prayer.

Under the Corker bill, it would sail through. And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes.

This is not how our system works. Congress is supposed to make the laws we live under. It is the first branch of government, not a rubber-stamping Supreme Soviet.

We seem to have forgotten that the point of the Constitution is not to accomplish great things; it is to prevent government from doing overbearing or destructive things. The achievement of great things was left to the genius and ambition of free people confronting challenges without stifling constraints.

The Constitution’s constraints can indeed be stifling. Quite intentionally so: They are there to prevent legacy-hunting ideologues and feckless fixers from rolling the dice with our lives. That a lawless president would undertake to eviscerate these constraints is to be expected. But is he really much worse than an entrenched political class that anxiously forfeits its powers to stop him?

 Bold typeface our emphasis.

DLH with R Mall

0

0