Update: Senator Ernst statement regarding her vote can be read here.
We have read her statement and there is no good thing that is accomplished by the bill she supports as relayed by her that could not be had without implicating the ceding of Senate oversight power to the presidency.
And she voted against declaring Obama’s negotiations with Iran a treaty which was the intent of the amendment she voted against.
The mechanism of the bill she supports allows what is a treaty being negotiated by
Obama to be treated as not one, and thereby avoid the treaty approval threshold of two-thirds Senate approval necessitated by the Constitution. The matter of supposed congressional oversight proceeds as a bill, subject to Obama’s veto. Presuming to force such wishes on him by overcoming a veto will only require only one-third of the Senate to stop, which Democrats have in excess. Obama gets his way on the cheap.
In other words the bill pretends to flip the the power concept
regarding treaties from the necessity of the Senate obtaining through deliberation two-thirds to approve what a president negotiates, to only one-third to approve it because that is all that is required to sustain the President’s objections or will as regards the bill. The Democrats easily have enough strength (one-third of the Senate) to sustain Obama’s wishes when under the proper treaty process two-thirds of the Senate should be required.
So this is another example of maneuver by powers that want something and damn the Constitution.
If that is not the case, then there is no purpose in passing it as a
bill. Instead pass a resolution regarding what the Senate will demand to see prior to approval of any proposed treaty. It matters not that some fail-safe legislative process is contemplated or could be employed, as it then is a useless and embarrassing gesture implicating disregard for the Constitution.
As regards Obama’s contention that what he is doing is not a treaty, well then all is farce as the next president can ignore it, except that Iran gets its money and more. The bill stops nothing as Obama will veto it or proceed to do what he wants either way. The bill does not tie up Obama unless he wants to pretend it does.
Bringing the house into it to stop funding is fine but it is wrong to vote that it is not a treaty or abrogate the Senate’s powers.
That Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell in combination opposed it says something of its extreme assault on the Constitution and Senate powers. McConnell’s faults lie not so much in not knowing what is unconstitutional or implicates Senate prerogatives but in failing to use his and the Senate’s powers to protect the Constitution.
Senate bill is surely unconstitutional. But we would never be
comfortable relying on the Supreme Court to say so.
R Mall
