bruce, Why not/ You lads defended Bush for years by saying "But Bill Clinton.............".
On Jul 6, 1:23 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > why do obamanoids think that saying Bush did something is a defense of > Odumba > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > How is this like what Bush did. Bush did not implement a treaty without > > the approval of the Senate first. That is what Obama is trying to do. > > Suppose he implements it and the Senate votes it down. Then what happens. > > > Frederick The Moderate wrote: > > > It seems the Dems are now doing exactly what Bush did - except it's > > the GOP who's compaining this time. Now if Obama starts telling us how > > "We absolutely must do this right away or they will blow us all up > > with WMDs!", he will have completed his journey to the Dark Side of > > the Force. > > > I don't like the smell of it but will wait to see if they actually try > > it, before getting to rattled... > > > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can just make the > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember right it > > takes both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a done > > deal if the president signs it unless the senate also approves it. > > Guess they forgot that one. Of course they also tried to forget that > > when it came to Kyoto for a while as the Dems tried to force the US to > > implement a treaty that the Senate never ratified. Looks like another > > one coming along. > > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's Treaty-Making > > Powers: * Here's the relevant > > section<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...> > > <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am...>: > > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the > > Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators > > present concur; > > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation > > inconvenient<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat...> > > <http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat...>, > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily > > bypassing"<http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> > > <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot...> > > the Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement with > > the Russians on limiting nuclear arms. > > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not find any > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or otherwise, > > that limit on his treaty-making powers. > > > Senator Byrd --- among others --- isn't going to like this one little bit. > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 > > [link]<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> > > <http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578>- Hide > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
