wrongologist – Page 218 – The Wrongologist

Forget the Supremacy Clause, What about the Sanity Clause?

“Go sell crazy somewhere else” – Jack Nicholson, 1998, “As Good As it Gets”

Some bad ideas return constantly to the public stage. People try to rewrite the US Constitution, or re-litigate the issue of states’ rights, whenever the existing law seems inconvenient to them. This is another example.

Nevada is considering “The Nevadan’s Resource Rights Bill (NRR) AB408”, which if passed, would declare that all federal lands not used for military, etc. should be owned and controlled by the state of Nevada. That is not inconsequential, since 85% of Nevada’s lands are owned by the US Government. Who is behind this bill? None other than Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who doesn’t recognize the supremacy of the US Government. His issues with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were well-covered last year.

Back then, The Atlantic reported that Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993, and owed $1.2 million. Bundy does not recognize federal authority over the land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. His governmental issues go much farther than just the BLM:

I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.

OK. Now Bundy is proposing a bill to get Nevada’s land back. The Nevada-based Ralston Reports quotes from a Bundy email call to action:

The natural resources of America are being stolen from the people and claimed by the federal government…If we lose access to the land and natural resources, we become beggars to those who control access. Without doubt this is the greatest immediate threat to the individual person and people as a whole. More lives, liberties and property can be taken under this threat than any other we see.

Bundy’s big problem is that the Constitution says he is wrong. His bill in the Nevada legislature is just another attempted attack on Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. For those who took US government way too long ago, here is what it says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, when state law is in conflict with federal law, federal law must prevail. There have been many claims that state laws conflict with federal laws. In those lawsuits, The Supreme Court looks at whether the state law directly interferes or is in conflict with federal law. The US has won the vast preponderance of those suits.

But, maybe to Bundy, the Constitution, like the Bible, says only what the reader believes it says.

Enough civics for today. Bundy and supporters have no idea how the nation they profess to love so much actually works. They seem to have no idea what the Constitution, which they say they revere, actually says.

They are “patriotic” only to point that patriotism will justify whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it. The Bundys are about to re-litigate over a settled constitutional issue, 170 years after the fact.

Just keep this in mind: No matter how wild and crazy you and your friends get on your Las Vegas weekend, you will not be the craziest person in Nevada when you wake up with your hangover.

It’s well past time for the government to nullify Bundy’s attempted nullification, and make him pay the $1.2+ million he owes the US taxpayers.

Is Compulsory Voting a Problem, or a Solution?

At a town hall event in Cleveland last Wednesday, President Obama (nearly) said the US should make voting compulsory, like it is in Australia. Eleven countries, including Australia, Brazil, and Singapore, enforce compulsory voting laws. Another 11 have compulsory voting laws, but don’t enforce them.

The response to Obama’s suggestion was predictable. Fox News host Andrea Tantaros along with her fellow panelists on the show “Outnumbered” on Thursday, bashed Mr. Obama’s suggestion, saying:

Do we really want everybody voting? I don’t think so.

Co-host Melissa Francis said:

If you’re not engaged enough to vote, please don’t…Stay home.

Meanwhile, another co-host, Harris Faulkner, argued that mandatory voting would be un-American because our military:

Fought for our right to decide for ourselves.

Whatever that means. The Wrongologist does not support mandatory voting, but not for the vacuous reasons you might hear on Fox News.

Compulsory voting raises questions. First, is voting a right or a duty? If it is a right, then participation in elections is voluntary. If it is a duty, then participation should be mandatory. In countries where voting is considered a duty, voting is compulsory and is regulated in their constitutions. Some countries impose sanctions (like a fine) on non-voters.

Second, what would happen if all citizens voted? Studies show that turnout increases quite a bit. A Harvard study indicated that there are secondary gains as well:

• Compulsory voting could reduce the role of money in politics. Political parties would not spend as much money on their get-out-the-vote efforts since high turn-out would already be ensured and would be fairly inelastic
• It might increase political awareness and engagement. Compulsory voting would change the ways in which candidates and political parties develop campaign strategies. For example, it might lead to fewer negative campaigns featuring attack ads
• Compulsory voting might increase government’s relevance by bringing in groups that are underrepresented among today’s voters, since the population that shows up for US elections is whiter, older, richer and more educated than the general population

But, America is a place where our “right to be left alone” is foundational. Would being legally compelled to vote deprive anyone of a part of their liberty? Yes, if you believe voting is a right, not a duty. And how big would that “deprivation” be, compared to what we have already lost of our 1st and 4th Amendment rights since 9/11?

Perhaps the final question is: Isn’t one goal of a representative democracy to maximize voter participation? Today, registering to vote isn’t easy for every American, but it ought to be. It shouldn’t be the job of the individual election boards to say who is worthy of registration.

It should be the state’s responsibility to issue every citizen a voter registration card. If the state wants to maximize voter participation, it should mail a voter ID card to each of us. How we would deal with those of us who slip through the cracks would need to be worked out.

We have seen the way that barriers to voting emerge. They create enough of a hurdle that a significant percentage of voters fail to clear it. It is not a terrible thing to demand that we have eligibility requirements for voters, but they are often enforced inequitably, and are enough of a nuisance that a significant minority will end up not voting. For the past decade in America, many individual states have been raising barriers, because barriers to voting confer partisan advantage. With mandatory voter registration, the state’s job would be to reduce the barriers to the lowest possible level.

It is arguable if citizens should be compelled to vote, or not. Wrongo believes that is the individual’s business. Yet, as voter participation drops, a self-selected minority determines who runs the country. They then set policy that primarily reflects their interests.

That isn’t the kind of society we need. We should want our country to see all citizens as full political equals, not just in theory, but in fact. The more that barriers to voting rise in America, and the further voter participation falls, the less we resemble that ideal society.

So, issue a universal voter registration card. Move voting to the weekend, or have an entire voting week. Make it frictionless, so it’s not a big effort. Go and vote, say hi to the neighbors, and then go home to view the results.

It wouldn’t be the end of the world.

The Pentagon’s Huge Problems with the F-35

The F-35 combat aircraft is the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken by the Pentagon. It will cost $1.5 trillion to build and operate over its lifetime. Most pilots think that the F-35 is being tasked with too many things, from use as a fighter and a bomber, to landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, to performing vertical takeoffs and landings. These are conflicting demands, requiring the plane to be over-configured to accomplish all of them. So, the F-35 is unlikely to handle all of these requirements at a high level.

Despite all of the above, in the Pentagon spending bill that passed last month, Congress approved nearly a half a billion dollars more for the F-35 than the Pentagon even asked for.

Conventional wisdom touts the F-35 as an aerial Swiss army knife, but the F-35 is proving to be more like a butter knife — one that only slices taxpayer dollars. A recent report by the nonprofit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), highlights the conclusions in the latest F-35 report from the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). Among the problems highlighted in the DOT&E report:

• Software glitches disrupting enemy identification and weapons employment
• A redesigned fuel tank that continues to demonstrate unacceptable vulnerability to explosion from lightning or enemy fire
• Wing issues that cause loss of controlled flight during high-speed maneuvering, a six-year-old problem that apparently will not be solved without sacrificing stealth or combat capability
• Helmet issues that prevent pilots from seeing things approaching from the side
• Engine problems so severe they’re impeding the test schedule, and generating risky operational decisions
• Maintenance issues leading to over-reliance on contractor support

The Marines’ version of the plane won’t be operational until this summer, while the Navy’s version won’t be operational until at least 2018.

There are accusations that Lockheed Martin has papered over these problems, failing to include certain failures or re-categorizing them to improve program statistics. Taken together, the GAO and DOD reports make for an unambiguous headline:

The F-35 is years away from being the next-gen fighter jet promised by Lockheed to the Pentagon.

More time, more money and unresolved problems. What is going on here?

That’s not all. Head-to-head competition with the Russian SU-30 fighter/bomber was conducted in the US in 2008, and the results favored the Russian aircraft. Now, aircraft have two primary missions, air-to-air combat (ATA), and air-to-ground attack (ATG). The F-35 failed the ATA exercises SIX YEARS AGO.

If you find this summary alarming, consider taking a tranquilizer or two before digesting the full POGO article (“Not Ready for Prime Time”) or the detailed DOT&E report, both of which focus on a subject that are the eventual cost equivalent to the combined GDP’s of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

We are at the point where we will be fielding yesterday’s aircraft solution tomorrow. To a great degree, this is a failure of the Defense Department’s Acquisition Process. POGO believes that the problem is not nearly as much with the detailed laws and regulations that govern the acquisition of military goods, as it is in the management by the people who have been operating the system. In the case of the F-35, while several nations are providing elements of the plane, Lockheed is the sole source contractor for the DOD.

This creates a case of moral hazard. Moral hazard is the idea that misplaced incentives can create unintended and adverse behaviors. For example, an insurance policy with no deductible could embolden some drivers to discount the consequences of reckless driving, raising the likelihood of accidents. Applied to a defense contractor, this policy can cause a heavy economic toll.

The F-35 program is an example of moral hazard. By continuing to lavish cash upon a failing program, Congress risks making failure a financially viable strategy. The predictable result would be more failure. This debacle is, in many ways, a sign of what happens when Congress is no longer the domain of the kind of statesmanlike adult behavior that puts the country first.

Congress itself has incentives to set perverse incentives for others. Unfortunately for the country, the first sign that moral hazard has truly captured our national defense maybe relying on a program that is supposed to be the single answer, one that does not perform, continues to be postponed, and costs far too much.

The second sign will be the inability of our airpower to effectively support our ground and sea military efforts, as and when called upon.

This will happen if bad decisions continue to bleed our resources, and Congress continues to try to make room for the F-35, a weapon that has not proven itself.

Monday Wake Up Call – March 23, 2015

Wrongo traversed the Panama Canal last Wednesday night. Here is a photo of Panama’s Miraflores Locks (Pacific side) taken from our ship at 7:00pm:

Ownership of the canal was transferred by the US to Panama in 1999. At the time, there was real concern whether the Panamanians would be up to the task of managing the canal. It turns out that they were:

• The Canal’s income has increased from US$769 million in 2000, the first year under Panamanian control, to US$1.4 billion in 2006
• The number of accidents has gone down from an average of 28 per year in the late-1990s to 12 accidents in 2005

There is a $5+ billion canal expansion program underway that will allow post-Panamax ships to traverse the canal. Post-Panamax vessels are projected to represent 62% of total container ship capacity by 2030. These ships can carry more than twice the amount of cargo (12,500 TEUs or 20-foot containers) compared to today’s Panamax ships that hold no more than 4,800 TEU. Bigger ships and more cargo can result in economic windfall for Panama.

All this brought to mind the costs (and how we pay) for modernizing infrastructure in the US. Early in 2016, Panama will start sending these huge ships through the Canal to US East Coast ports. US harbor size limits where these largest container ships can dock. A port is considered “post-Panamax ready” if it has a channel depth of 50 feet, sufficient channel width and turning basin, and larger dock/crane compatibility.

Miami, New Orleans, Baltimore have spent the funds to accommodate these super carriers, and will be ready when the canal is ready, but New Jersey and Pennsylvania are still trying to get there. Consider NJ, where, at high tide, 151 feet of empty air lies between the waters of the Kill Van Kull and the deck of the Bayonne Bridge. The Kill, a narrow tidal strait between Staten Island, NY and Bayonne, NJ, is one of the busiest shipping channels in the country. When the Bayonne Bridge opened, in 1931, 151 feet easily accommodated the world’s largest vessels. But the new ships won’t fit, so, the roadway will be elevated 64 feet, to 215 feet, more than enough to let these big ships pass underneath. The five-year Bayonne Bridge project costs $1.3 billion. Its estimated completion date has been pushed back to 2017.

By contrast, the entire canal expansion project will cost Panama $5.25 billion, and the return in increased canal transit fees will go to the citizens of Panama.

But in NJ, there will be no return from bigger cargo vessels for the taxpayers, or for the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Why? In January, 2014, NJ Gov. Chris Christie (R), signed a bill that ended the collection of any cargo facility charge by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The charge was imposed on cargo facility users, ocean and rail carriers and marine terminal operators. The old fee was $4.95 for 20-foot containers, $9.90 for 40-containers, and $1.11 per unit for vehicle cargo. The new bill was bi-partisan, as State Sen. Bob Gordon, (D-Bergen) said:

By imposing a tax on ocean carriers, the Authority has driven up the cost of doing business locally and driven freight to other ports along the East Coast…

So, not only will the taxpayers of NY & NJ pay for allowing Post-Panamax ships under the Bayonne Bridge, no ocean-going vessel will have ANY stake in paying the costs of that bridge expansion.

And for NJ, it gets worse: it didn’t have the money to rebuild the Goethals Bridge, which would cost just one year’s worth of toll revenue. Instead, it set up a private financing, pitched to the public as the region’s largest public-private partnership. For the Goethals Bridge, (ironically, named for the Army General who built the Panama Canal for Teddy Roosevelt), the private firms who took part in the financing get a share of the increased tolls paid by cars, buses and trucks crossing the bridge for a 35-year period.

So, today’s wake-up is for politicians who think no fees will make their port competitive, and who favor “Public-Private Partnership” financing of infrastructure projects. And since we can see light at the end of the igloo here in the Northeast, here is U2 with “Beautiful Day”:

Sample lyrics:
The heart is a bloom
Shoots up through the stony ground
There’s no room
No space to rent in this town

You’re out of luck
And the reason that you had to care
The traffic is stuck
And you’re not movin’ anywhere

You thought you’d found a friend
To take you out of this place
Someone you could lend a hand
In return for grace

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 22, 2015

Back from 85° in Costa Rica to another snow storm in the Northeast. A few things happened while Wrongo and Ms. Oh So Right were away. One wasn’t a surprise: Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud Party again claimed the most seats in the Knesset. It’s hard for Americans to wrap their minds around the fact that 75% of Israeli voters can be against a guy, and yet, in a parliamentary system he’s still the Prime Minister.

Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute declaration that there will be no Palestinian state finally rips the fig leaf off of the failed peace process. No one will try to keep up that facade any longer. He claimed subsequently that he never really meant it, but when pressed by a close election, out came the old big bad idea, just like a Costa Rican Black Iguana:

We need to add some distance between the US and Israel, particularly in light of Netanyahu’s move to invalidate the two-state solution. The Obama administration could agree to passage of a UN Security Council resolution embodying principles of a two-state solution, something we have always opposed. To really pay-back Bibi for grandstanding in DC and meddling in the P5+1 nuclear negotiations, we should base the two-state solution on the pre-1967 lines between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most foreign policy experts say that Israel would have to cede territory to the Palestinians in exchange for holding on to the major Jewish settlements built by Bibi in the West Bank.

Perhaps it is a good thing that Bibi won the election. It’s time to give him a dose of reality. Yeah, it’s time to call bullshit on Bibi. Now a few cartoons.

Bibi isolates Israel:

Bibi’s domestic campaign message was a cheap imitation:

Obama goes to the experts for advice on undermining a leader:

Obama suggests voting be mandatory. Reaction is predictable:

Republicans try to find the losers in their bracket. Please help them out:

3285e750aec20132cfad005056a9545d

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 15, 2015 (Costa Rica Edition)

You may have heard that there was a volcanic eruption in Costa Rica. It occurred while the Wrongologist and Ms. Oh So Right were seated in a prime location on the runway (yes, in a plane) at Newark Airport. But airlines do not willingly fly into volcano ash, so we had to wait another 24 hours for the San Jose airport in Costa Rica to reopen. So we did, and here we are, walking around the Curu National Preserve @6:30am, after getting to bed after midnight local time. If you’re traveling to Costa Rica, visit https://www.buenavistadelrincon.com/costa-rica-wellness-tours/ to learn about wellness tours.

Here is a photo of a female spider monkey from the early Saturday walk:

Now, on to cartoons. It seems that Hillary and the Republican effort to torpedo the Iran negotiations continued to dominate the news.

The messaging on both sides is the same:

Republicans see no irony in their position vis a vis Iran:

Clinton server problems:

Limited Blogging Begins Today

Wrongo and Ms. Oh So Right have left the country. No, not in protest about the letter the #47 Traitors sent to Iran, but for a few days in Costa Rica.

We will have occasional Wi-Fi connectivity and probably less frequent ambition to take on the great issues of the hour, so don’t expect much while we are in a nation where 12% of its land area is comprised of national parks.

Actual, thought-out writing should resume on Sunday, March 22.

Is Obama Misusing Sanctions in Venezuela?

President Obama imposed sanctions on a number of Venezuelans yesterday. From the White House fact sheet: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela. The targeted sanctions in the E.O. implement the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, which the President signed on December 18, 2014.

Unfamiliar with the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 (the Act)? It was passed in both Houses by a voice vote, so we have no record of anyone opposing the Bill. The same day in which the US said that they were going to normalize relations with Cuba, they also confirmed that the Act would open Venezuela to sanctions. So, while we are trying to normalize relations with Cuba, we move against Venezuela, Cuba’s closest ally. It looks like Venezuela will replace Cuba as a foreign policy toy for the US political right.

So, what is going on here? Venezuela’s president Maduro thinks the US is out to get him, claiming that we have attempted 16 coups in the past two years. OK, probably an exaggeration, since we were able to bat 1.000% in our one try at a coup in Ukraine. OTOH, Maduro showed some evidence of a possible coup launched by exiles living in the US. There was apparently, a “100-day Plan for Transition”, designed by the coup plotters. It stipulated a series of measures which included the privatization of all public services.

In response, the US has been saying Maduro is making the coup thing up, accusing him of fabricating some of the intelligence he was using to make his case. OK, maybe Maduro is making shit up, but our response is to declare a National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act?

Then, we impose economic sanctions. Obama’s EO defines sanction targets as those who undermine democratic processes, engage in violence or human rights abuses, those that limit freedom of expression, and those involved in public corruption

BTW, how many National Emergencies does the US have today? Venezuela is #31.

The WH fact sheet referenced above argues that Venezuela is among the most corrupt countries in the world. Fine, but it has the same score as Yemen, while it beats Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well Uzbekistan (another US ally). And all of them are worse on human rights than Venezuela.

From Emptywheel: (emphasis and brackets by the Wrongologist)

In other words, the Administration is claiming that Venezuela’s corruption and human rights abuses present a much bigger threat to the US than a string of countries we’ve already destabilized that are worse in terms of corruption and human rights, [including]…Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s more severe human rights abuses.

Reuters was quick to point out that the sanctions did not threaten Venezuela’s energy sector or broader economy, for good reason: We are Venezuela’s top trading partner, and they were the fourth-largest supplier of crude to the US in 2014. And how exactly is Venezuela, a nation of 29 million, with a small military, a threat to the US?

In 2002, there was a brief, military coup attempt in Venezuela, which arrested then President Hugo Chavez. During the period he was detained, George W. Bush promised quick recognition of the coup plotters. But before Washington could formally recognize the coup government, a mass uprising by Venezuelans and parts of country’s military led to Chavez’s release from captivity.

The Venezuelan economy is in terrible shape, and Maduro’s polling badly. You’d think the administration would be smart enough to do nothing, and not create an America-centric rallying point for Maduro, who now gets to say that our sanctions foreshadow another 2002-style coup.

Threat to US national security? Of course Venezuela is a threat. Obviously it was behind 9/11, and is close to acquiring WMD, and something about yellow cake…?

It’s not about oil. It’s never about oil.

We have used sanctions to impose our will successfully on Iraq and Iran. The jury is out on whether sanctions will work with Russia. Targeting Venezuela, as we did Cuba, where most of the rest of the world didn’t cooperate with our plan, is an overreach by Mr. Obama.

Hashtag #47 Traitors

Twitter has turned on the Republicans who signed the letter to Iran. Outraged Americans on Tuesday blasted the Senate Republicans for sending a letter to Iran’s leaders, sparking a top trending #47Traitors hashtag on Twitter. The attack got started following the Daily News’ front-page coverage of the unprecedented open letter to Iran:

The Daily News is a right-leaning paper, owned by Mort Zuckerman, who is a staunch supporter of all things Israel. It’s interesting that their editors took this on. We covered the wretched Republican epistle here. The Iranians expressed amusement at the Republican’s notion that they do not understand the US government. How ignorant do you have to be to talk down like that to another country in a so-called diplomatic exchange? Do the Republicans really think the Iranians are an uneducated people?

Here is part of Iran’s Foreign Minister’s response, which is an act of diplomatic trolling. And depending on your point of view, it is either hugely insulting or hilarious (or possibly, both):

…it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Iran knows that third party investment will flood into Iran if there is a nuclear deal, and sanctions are lifted. It would be interesting to see a Republican Congress try to reverse a nuclear agreement, and then work with Israel to attack Iran, which would then include French, British, German, Chinese, and probably some American investments. (A side note: The Wrongologist raised a couple hundred million dollars for the Iranian National Oil Company in the pre-Ayatollah era of his banking career.)

The 47 Traitors say that Obama can only legally conclude an “executive agreement” with Iran and have it remain in effect only for the remainder of his presidency. Once again, they are incorrect. They continually talk about the “alliance” between Israel and the US. But, there is no treaty creating an alliance between Israel and the US. All of the many agreements are “executive agreements.” Mostly because Israel wants it that way, and their position is easy to understand:

In a defense treaty, the US would commit to defend Israeli territory in case of attack. Israel’s problem with that is both the “territory” part, and the “attack” part.

1. Defining attack: Would violent Palestinian resistance against occupation and expropriation qualify as an attack? Would a stray rocket or mortar round constitute an attack, or does it need to be a barrage? Does it need to be men or vehicles crossing Israel’s border? Does it need to be an attack by only state actors (Iran) or would non-State actors (Hezbollah) be enough?

2. Defining territory: Israel’s “territory” would have to be defined, and Israel doesn’t want anyone looking too closely at that. Would the US defend the 1948 borders? The 1967 borders? The 1973 borders? What about the Golan Heights? What if someone attacks the ski resort or the vineyards that Israel built there? And what about the Sheeba farms? That are an Israeli outpost inside of Syria. What if someone attacks an Israeli in East Jerusalem? Or in a settlement in the West Bank? None of that is Israeli territory under international law.

And, regarding a legal basis for a charge against Republican traitors, here is the relevant part of the Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

But, the lunacy of what the 47 Traitors have done is best shown on Twitter. Here is a tweet that captures the emotional maturity of today’s Republicans by Steve Marmel (@Marmel) :

Finally, the Republican Party is moving on from the mistakes of the George W. Bush era to make new, even bigger mistakes. #47Traitors.

Republican Senators Usurp Presidential Power

Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin reports that a group of 47 Republican senators, led by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), wrote an open letter to Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei, warning that any nuclear deal Iran signs with President Obama’s administration is unlikely to last after Mr. Obama leaves office. Here is a snippet:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system…Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement…The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

The full text of the letter is here. Seven Senate Republicans did not sign the letter. It is a pretty condescending way to insert yourself into nuclear negotiations being conducted by 6 nations with Iran. Their premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.” The problem is that these Senators seem to have an incomplete understanding of our constitutional system.

Their letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” Yet, a Senate web page says:

The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification…

Ratification is the formal consent that the nation will be bound by the treaty. Senate consent is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification in the US.

None of this detracts from Sen. Cotton’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency, but, in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson to a foreign government, the Republicans have made an embarrassing error.

But it’s no secret that the administration wasn’t planning to seek Congressional approval to lift Iranian sanctions if a nuclear deal is struck. The NYT reported last October:

The Treasury Department, in a detailed study it declined to make public, has concluded Mr. Obama has the authority to suspend the vast majority of those sanctions without seeking a vote by Congress, officials say.

While Mr. Obama cannot permanently terminate sanctions, Congress can take that step. Mr. Obama’s advisers concluded last year that the White House would probably lose such a vote. The Times quoted a senior WH official: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation [for] any comprehensive agreement for years…

It’s no secret that Republicans don’t like what they’re hearing about the negotiations with Iran, and they have hit on an interesting tactic for weakening them. Republicans would have trouble passing any new Iran sanctions in order to disrupt a deal, since they would have limited Democratic support and would need to overcome a presidential veto.

But, you don’t need to hold a vote to write a letter.

So, these 47 Republican Senators usurp the role of the president during a nuclear treaty negotiation. The Constitution does not give the Senate the right to undertake negotiations with a foreign government, or to threaten a government we are negotiating with, as a part of their role to “advise and consent” to treaties.

Having a world view that distrusts Iran is understandable, but trying to undermine good faith negotiations with a foreign government just hurts America. It is clear that Mr. Obama has been building his deal on unsteady ground, particularly since Democrats lost control of the Senate last November.

It is also true that Republicans are doing Netanyahu’s bidding, attempting to scuttle any deal that slows or halts Iranian nuclear enrichment, but does not completely dismantle Iran’s program.

We are so lucky to live in an age when the real patriots (Republicans) understand that laws do not apply to them. Laws like the Logan Act, passed over 200 years ago, which forbids unauthorized meddling in foreign affairs.

These are the same people that equated simply questioning the Bush government’s actions in Iraq with terrorism, by burning Dixie Chicks CD’s, back when people bought CD’s.

Quite the elastic set of principles in that bunch.

With this letter, they’re beating the drums for a larger war in the Middle East, this time, with Iran, much in the same way they did in Iraq. Republicans have become enablers of the politics of fear. They have become far too easy to rattle, and too willing to say no preemptively on so-called principle.

Rather than shaking our heads and moving on, we need to remember that, when you don’t turn out for elections, things can always get worse. This is a textbook example.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Author: wrongologist