And anyway, do we know treason when we see it?
Call me old-fashioned, but when the advise-and-consent role of the Senate was exchanged for a casual, treacherous intrusion into the rights and duties of the executive branch, the senators involved deserved a chilly overnight in the stocks for their action.
Mike Coblenz guides us through the Constitutional issues the framers discussed with respect to the separation of powers in the matter of foreign treaties. In the end, their decision was quite clear:
The power to make treaties is the sole subject of No. 75, by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton notes that there are three common objections to this provision: that it mixes powers between the Senate and the President, that the President alone should have the power, and that the Senate alone should have the power. He begins by noting that a treaty is neither a purely executive function, because it is not about executing a law, or a legislative function, since it does not involved drafting of a law. It is a mixed function, and so authority over it is mixed. He does note that the President should have the authority to conduct the negotiations: “The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions.” He then discusses the role of the Senate in negotiating treaties: “To have intrusted the power of making treaties to the Senate alone, would have been to relinquish the benefits of the constitutional agency of the President in the conduct of foreign negotiations.” The Senate could appoint a minister, but “the ministerial servant of the Senate could not be expected to enjoy the confidence and respect of foreign powers in the same degree with the constitutional representatives of the nation.” Federalist No. 75.
The “Framers” clearly considered a larger role for the Senate in negotiating treaties, and clearly rejected the idea. The Framers original intent is clear. The President alone has the authority to negotiate treaties. So the Senate’s attempt to make an end run around the President in his negations with Iran clearly runs counter to the original intent of the Framers. So not only are these Senators out of control, they're hypocrites. ...Coblenz,Daily Kos
But Dana Milbank defends them from charges of high crimes.
It’s true that 47 Republican senators did their level best to bring us closer to war by writing a letter to Iran’s mullahs, attempting to scuttle nuclear talks with the United States. But Republicans aren’t exactly subverting the United States. It’s more as if they’re operating their own independent republic on Capitol Hill. Call it the State of Republicania. ...Milbank,WaPo
The State of Republicania, let's not forget, is supported financially by a more genuinely treasonous group that's been around for decades. Eisenhower called them "the military-industrial complex." A more casual critic might toss out the phrase "top ten percent," or "corporate America." Whatever works for you. And yes, they are the termites in the ship of state and yes, they are destructive traitors.
The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors. ...Milbank,WaPo
Fortunately, however, we are rewarded with a GOP implosion as the bickering within the party grows. Senator Collins (Maine) directs her fire at Senator Cotton (Arkansas) -- the guy with the great name who drafted the letter to Iranian leaders from the State of Republicania.
Senator Cotton leaves a trail of infamy. You have to wonder how, in his treachery, he could have played such a dirty game out in the open. Look at who he had breakfast with on the morning he contacted Iran's leadership.
On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like.
You’re not allowed to know what Cotton said to the defense contractors. The event was “off the record and strictly non-attribution.” But you can bet it was what Dwight Eisenhower meant when he warned of the military-industrial complex.
The defense industry contributed more than $25 million in the 2014 election cycle and spent more than $250 million lobbying over that time period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. For the defense industry, this is a good investment: If Senate Republicans blow up nuclear talks, it makes war with Iran that much more likely — and nobody would benefit as much from that war as military contractors. ...Milbank,WaPo
Ick.
