Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes has commented that they consider the nuclear deal with Iran to be the crowning achievement for President Obama during his second term and as his first term was defined by Obamacare. One might hope that the comparison was speaking to their importance and monumental effects and not about their competency. Any deal with Iran to limit their nuclear research, in order to assure that weapons are not the result in the future and that Iranian nuclear designs are actually as innocent as they claim and truly for medical uses and electrical power generation, should provide for strong verification inspections along the lines of previous such deal during the Cold War where the mantra was ‘trust but verify.’ If, on the other hand, the Iranians have been deceiving the P5+1 nations (five permanent members of the Security Council, United States, Russia, Britain, China and France plus Germany) and actually are seeking to produce nuclear weapons and warheads to tip their missiles with which to threaten the world, then reaching an agreement solely so the Obama administration can claim to have reached an agreement leaves the process open to being futile in preventing Iranian attaining nuclear weapons capabilities if that proves to be their true goal. Just as the passing of Obamacare was the goal more than making the resultant healthcare program a workable, efficient, advantageous and improvement over the existent healthcare system, simply making the reaching an agreement with Iran the goal instead of demanding a strong, effective, enforceable and lasting set of protocols, inspections and limitations preventing Iran from being capable of attaining nuclear weapon breakout conditions is placing emphasis on being granted a piece of paper promising peace in our time instead of making an enforceable agreement guaranteeing peace for all time. Reaching a deal is easy as is passing legislation when your party has a large majority in the House of Representatives and over sixty seats in the Senate thus making your majorities filibuster-proof, but that does not make the results in either case effective or desirable beyond those seeking an accomplishment at all costs all other desires cast aside. Thus, the desire of the Obama administration to reach a deal with Iran with which to define the second term for President Obama actually has even more dangerous ramifications with higher and more damaging results than any healthcare legislation which can be repealed or adjusted to make it more effective, something which cannot be attained as a treaty pretty much is complete and beyond any one party taking corrective adjustments without the agreement of the other parties.
These worries expressed above may beg the question why one would be so concerned about the desire of the administration to reach a deal with Iran, after all, isn’t it the whole idea of negotiations to reach an agreement and encoding the results into a treaty or other agreement? And furthermore, doesn’t every treaty require the ratification of the Senate before it can be enacted as the law of the land? Technically the answer to both questions is ‘yes’, of course. Below is the video of the interview where Ben Rhodes commented on the importance the Obama administration has placed on reaching a deal with the Iranians. Within his interview the most important part which must be inspected and stressed consists of where Mr. Rhodes states, “…we are already, kinda, picking through how do we structure a deal so that we don’t necessarily require (starts laughing) legislative action anyway. Um, And there are ways to do that.” This is just another example which can join the rest of the inferences which exemplify the disdain and contempt that President Obama and his administration have for the United States Constitution should it come between his desired actions and what is allowable by that Constitution. We were once told by then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, along with our elected representatives, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” That particular bill was passed in both houses purely with Democrat party line votes as not a single Republican in either side of Congress voted for Obamacare. This time around the administration does not even desire to rely on a straight party line vote to ratify any treaty or agreement by any other name in a special session called by Harry Reid as the President cannot be assured of receiving every Democrat vote. The reason this is important is that since any agreement reached with the Iranians will likely happen between now and the deadline of November 24, as that is the deadline set when the last negotiations broke down almost six months ago, it allows the possibility to attain a ratification with the current Democrat controlled Senate which would make such a move more likely than waiting for after the seating of the Senate with the recent election results which favored Republicans. But even with this Senate the President would still need Republican votes as it takes a two-thirds vote, or sixty-seven votes, to ratify a treaty. Perhaps this is one reason why the Administration is seeking another route to attaining an agreement with Iran without necessitating any ratification from the Congress.
But would it be possible for President Obama and the administration to circumvent the necessity for Senate ratification to certify and enact a nuclear treaty agreement with the Iranians? That depends on semantics, a political way of taking something and granting it a name which means the same thing without actually using the traditional terminology used in the Constitution. Thus the administration might decide and write the speech for President Obama where he would announce something along the lines that ‘today the P5+1 nations and Iran reached a mutual settlement whereby the Iranians have established future inspections and certifications that their nuclear program is entirely for peaceful intents which will assure that the Iranians are not pursuing nuclear weapons but are using their nuclear program for medical, power generation and peaceful research and have assured the world by their agreement that they are not pursuing to weaponized their nuclear programs.’ There you go, presto-change-o, no treaty needing Senate ratification, the parties simply reached a settlement, and means to a mutual establishment of a set of structures and procedures through which the sanctions are removed as there is no longer the conditions for which they were first implemented and this was accomplished through having the Iranians grant certain allowances and without necessitating anything as bulky and outdated as a treaty as we have entered an age where such vestiges of the Cold War and before are passed and we have attained a new enlightened way of dealing between nations and resolving differences. This will be heralded by much of the mainstream media as a revolutionary concept that is issuing a new age where the restrictions and limitations on heads of state have been discarded allowing for agreements between nations and facilitating cooperation which were unimaginable before this bold new initiative. President Obama will receive accolades and potentially another Nobel Peace Prize for his great accomplishment. Once he receives international accolades and the second Peace Prize there will be no possibility of turning back and what this change will bode for the future is frightening as it gives the President and the executive branch powers so far above and beyond the limitations imposed by the Constitution that Congress will have become superfluous in the arena of foreign affairs and having not even the power of review over treaties as the word treaty will be replaced by newspeak words such as arrangement, agreement or even protocols attained by mutual stroking of egos.
Should this scenario come to fruition it will mark the death of the United States Constitution. Once the Constitution has been nullified in its applications restricting the Presidential ability to enter into treaties simply through using the simple tactic of rebranding treaty into some other terminology and successfully claiming that such actions between nations are a whole new creature completely removed and separate from those treaties of the past as they no longer are agreements between one nation and another but rather an agreement between a council of nations with the target nation thus no single nation of the council has complete authority, authorship or responsibility for the terminologies and ratifications of the agreement or the offers presented thus the arrangements are in no way equivalent to the concept or definition of something as simple and straight forward as a treaty, these things are far more complex and the parties far more intertwined than anything formerly seen in international relations. Eventually the words will stop making sense and soon after lose their individual syllables as they will start to run together and even the most ardent of political junkies, you know, me and my closest friends, will have to turn it all off and surrender that those things they valued are beyond their capability to preserve and the world is entering an age which will very likely prove their worst predictions are coming true. They will realize that the individual citizen no longer has any say and their vote has become meaningless because even nations are about to enter a dangerous intertwining from which there will be no return until the entire conglomeration fails, something which will bring on chaos beyond anything from all of remembered history. Imagine a world in the state of France immediately after the French revolution when the two main parties to their glorious revolution where Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins unleashed a reign of terror attempting to destroy the Girondists who opposed Robespierre and the Jacobins. Eventually, the Thermidorian Reaction led to the arrest and execution of Robespierre and placing the Girondists in power with the expected results of the reign of terror against the Jacobins, even to eventually including many of the Jacobins who assisted in the removal of Robespierre who they agreed had lost his way and was counterproductive to the ends of the revolution. Imagine this on a worldwide scale. That is the probable outcome when the individual leaders, whether elected or autocratic, are empowered to reach agreements and aligning their nation within alliances without oversight of the bodies more directly representing the separate individual peoples and constitutions become superfluous and no longer have their designed effect and limitations.
Beyond the Cusp