http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22rubin.html?scp=1&sq=rubin%20treaty&st=Search
"Rubin advocates by-passing the Senate"
"Farewell to the Age of the Treaty", James Rubin, November 22, 2010
I was appalled by Professor Rubin's "cojones", to quote his former boss.
His Oped piece does not even try to disguise the intent, and its slippery slope:
- Unlike other countries, the U.S. "Government" (Executive branch) does not control parliament.
- Goals of Treaties are "held hostage by a small number of Senators who represent a tiny fraction of the American public."
- "Fortunately" there is a legislative alternative that only requires a simple majority (as in 53?)
- "Critical procedures" may not even require legislative action and can be established by "executive agreements" [Presumably President Obama and S.of S. Alb... err, Clinton.]
- The clincher: that is what we are doing with Kyoto and Climate Change.
SAY WHAT? Did I just read a former State official actually advocate by-passing the requirement for a two-third majority of the Senate, then if that does not work with a simple majority, then "Executive Agreements" will get it done?
Then again, why should we be surprised? Some are already insisting that Kyoto and Cap-and-Trade can be accomplished by the Executive branch through regulation and rulemaking.
Let's just do away with the U.S. Senate!
I wonder why Mr Rubin waited this long: he could have made his suggestion while George W. Bush was President: he and his buddy Putin would have worked things out just fine!
Guedy
No comments:
Post a Comment