There was an opinion piece in the NY Times recently calling for treaties to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as called for in the Constitution. Who wrote this opinion piece? John Bolton and John Yoo. John Bolton, you'll remember, was Bush's appointee as Ambassador to the United Nations. Coincidentally, he is the same person who does not think the US has much use for international bureaucracies. Apparently Bush wanted to appoint someone that would antagonize the UN, instead of work with it, but I digress. And John Yoo... who was he? Wait, wasn't he the guy who wrote those illegal torture memos that conservative lawyer Jack Goldsmith rescinded? Yes, that's him. So we are going to take legal advice from him?
The best part is that the two don't suggest that all treaties go through this process. They admit that trade treaties like NAFTA were passed with simple majorities by Congress, and they are fine with that. Basically, they argue that the Constitution requires only treaties they don't like (liberal treaties like ones that ban weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians, like land mines or cluster bombs, or treaties on human rights issues, or treaties that deal with global warming) to get 2/3rds support from the Senate while treaties which conservatives support do not need to.
I admit that I don't know all the constitutional and legal requirements about which treaties should have to go through Senate with 2/3rds support and which can be passed with simple majorities by Congress. But it disgusts me to see people profess to care about legal and constitutional arguments only when it serves them. If the Constitution requires that treaties need to get 2/3rds support in the Senate, than that includes trade agreements along with everything else.
Finally, can we please stop quoting the founding fathers as if everything they said still holds true? The international world was far different in the late 1700s than it is today. If we are going to venerate something Thomas Jefferson or George Washington said just because they said it, then we have to do that for everything. And that means eliminating political parties and more bloody revolutions.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Selfish Burris Helps Governor
I get no pleasure in writing a post like this, but I think it needs to be said. Rolland Burris seems to be more concerned with becoming a Senator and extending his political career than he is with doing what is best for Illinois. If he had anything other than his career in mind, he would see that the best thing for him to have done when Governor Blagojevich called would have been declining to accept the nomination and then politely advising the governor to step down.
Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).
Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.
Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).
Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.
I Predict the Future
I predict that Governor Paterson will name Byron Brown, Buffalo mayor, to fill Hillary's senate seat. I have no inside information; it is just my educated guess. Granted, he might choose a woman instead, and select Representative Carolyn Maloney (Congresswoman from New York City) or Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (Congresswoman from Albany). But I don't think he will choose Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo.
First, I think Paterson will want to select a person of color for the senate, especially with Obama's seat in flux (granted, by the time Paterson has to name his selection, Obama's seat may be resolved), so that points to Byron Brown. And Brown is from upstate (Paterson will be sensitive to selecting someone from upstate to state-wide office to help with his re-election in 2010), while Carolyn Maloney is from the city (as are Kennedy and Cuomo). Kristen Gillibrand is from upstate, but I think she is too new, just having been elected to Congress in 2006.
The only downside to Brown is that he doesn't have the name recognition, and therefore the obvious fund-raising ability, that Cuomo or Kennedy has. But I now think that is less important considering the senior senator from New York is good old Chuck Schumer, someone pretty good at fund raising.
First, I think Paterson will want to select a person of color for the senate, especially with Obama's seat in flux (granted, by the time Paterson has to name his selection, Obama's seat may be resolved), so that points to Byron Brown. And Brown is from upstate (Paterson will be sensitive to selecting someone from upstate to state-wide office to help with his re-election in 2010), while Carolyn Maloney is from the city (as are Kennedy and Cuomo). Kristen Gillibrand is from upstate, but I think she is too new, just having been elected to Congress in 2006.
The only downside to Brown is that he doesn't have the name recognition, and therefore the obvious fund-raising ability, that Cuomo or Kennedy has. But I now think that is less important considering the senior senator from New York is good old Chuck Schumer, someone pretty good at fund raising.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Not Immune
As is becoming clear, Democrats are no more ethical than Republicans. Stories about Governor Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, Congressman Charles Rangel, and now a story that raises questions about the Clintons (Destiny USA? Talk about a blast from the past) and allegations against Bill Richardson are all over the news. For now, it does not seem to be sticking to the Democratic Party. But the party better get a handle on these things soon and hope there are no more waiting to break. Otherwise, we could see another midterm election that takes away a Democratic congressional majority from a sitting Democratic president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)