New term enters our lexicon: 'Post-Congressional foreign policy'
A new term has entered our lexicon: The 'post-Congressional foreign policy
.' It refers to Czar Barack's circumvention of Congressional approval of his termination of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran by calling it a suspension. And he's betting that Congress cannot or will not do anything about it (Hat Tip: Memeorandum
). Or about several other breaches of Congressional oversight authority.
Only Congress can permanently lift the sanctions--which it’s unlikely
to do even if Democrats hold on to the Senate—but the deal could be
structured in such a way that this wouldn’t happen until Iran meets
certain internationally verified benchmarks. In other words, it could be
It’s not unusual for presidents to look abroad in search of monsters
to destroy late in their terms, as they have more authority to conduct
foreign as opposed to domestic policy independently of Congress. But
even by historical standards, the Obama administration seems to be
particularly interested in freezing Congress out.
Given that it’s virtually impossible to get any multilateral treaty ratified by the Senate
obscure fishing regulations are the exception that proves the rule—the
administration’s plan for a long-awaited climate change deal will
involve “politically binding” commitments rather than legally binding
ones, which Congress would have to approve.
In the case of what’s been dubbed “Operation Inherent Resolve,” the
campaign of airstrikes to counter ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the
administration never sought congressional approval
The 60-day deadline, after which Congress must authorize military
action under the War Powers Resolution, has long passed. (Obama did
issue a letter to Congress in September informing them of the operation
and noting, somewhat vaguely, “I appreciate the support of the Congress
in this action.”)
Yale Law professor and constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman has described
the operation against ISIS as “a decisive break in the American
constitutional tradition” that outdoes anything attempted by the Bush
administration. But interestingly, congressional Republicans who
normally jump on any chance to accuse the administration of imperial
overreach, have been fairly blasé about these strikes. House Speaker John Boehner says
that Congress should debate the use of military force against ISIS but
only after the newly elected legislative body convenes in January—a
lifetime in terms of a fast-moving military operation like this one.
Read the whole thing
. As Israelis say, maybe there are things that Obama (who was opposed to unilateral Presidential actions in the foreign policy field under Bush) didn't see from there that he sees from here. On the other hand, I am very opposed to any weakening of the Iran sanctions regime....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, George W. Bush, Iran sanctions regime, US foreign policy, War Powers Act