Yesterday, I fisked Paul Waldman’s post regarding the 47 Republican Senator’s open letter to Iran that has caused a great deal of anger among the Democrats. In it, I included an example of how the Democrats have, in the past, tried to undermine US Foreign policy of a Republican President. Today, on Twitchy, there are even more examples of how Democrat Senators went to see communist leaders to undermine foreign policy objectives of the sitting President, in this case, Ronald Reagan
In an attempt to shore up the narrative, a Harvard Law professor posted an article, which, unfortunately, only appears as a screenshot on Twitter. The actual link doesn’t work because the website was down when I wrote this, but for now:
In essence, the law professor quibbles with semantics. A treaty isn’t ratified until the Senate “advice and consent” is finalized. In his statements, he says technically, the Senate doesn’t actually ratify the treaty. He points to the Senate website on the actual Senate procedure which references a study on the role of the Senate in the treaty ratification process, and its evolution over time. (You should read it if you want to understand how Congress itself is particularly slow.)
This is mere technical handwaving over the term of “ratification.” While it is true that the Senate doesn’t actually ratify the treaty, the process of ratification stops when the Senate fails to give its advice and consent. From a layman’s perspective, the point at which a treaty is ratified is meaningless as this is a fundamental step towards the actual ratification of a treaty.
Senator Cotton’s use of legal terms was not technically accurate, but it doesn’t change the substance, nor purpose of the process itself. It is a red-herring, one the liberals have caught and elevated as a way to paint the Senators as not only bad people, but just dumb, which is one of the fundamental narratives liberals like to use.
And despite all that, if you peruse the study linked above, you see that the Senate has a responsibility and duty to be involved with treaty process beyond just consent. The “advice” term is specific to its role in that the Senate has authority in these matters. The Senators are well within their established legal roles to perform actions of this sort when it comes to shaping foreign policy. Over the years, the Senate has been less formally involved and allowed the Chief Executive to do most of the negotiating. That doesn’t mean the Senate has abrogated its Constitutional duty.
You see, this is not about the Constitution and it never was. This has always been about protecting Obama and his legacy. In another post I made yesterday about the media protecting Obama’s legacy; you can see how this latest drama works towards that end. Liberals want Obama to succeed in deference to any rules, people, institutions or other obstacles. Anything and anyone who gets in the way, must be given the Alinsky treatment as witnessed by the hashtag #47Traitors and making it a top trend.
Despite this attempt, history has a way of coming back and biting you. Reactionary Obamabots are quick to get on social media and generate baseless hype of an attack on their “leader” (and I use that term loosely, probably more apt to use the term patriarch, with complete offense to feminists) by trying to portray Republicans as angry, hateful racists and stupid. I’m not saying that all Republicans are smart, however…
Watching liberals reaction when they realize some of their most esteemed icons have done the same things they complain about in the past: Priceless.