In a previous broadcast, I told you how, when Congress refuses to pass the legislation that Barack Obama wants, the Obama Administration is trying to put his policies into effect by executive branch regulations. That's an unconstitutional way to get around the legislative process which is spelled out in our U.S. Constitution, where it states that "all legislative powers" are vested in Congress.
Now we find that the Obama Administration is also toying with a plan to substitute executive branch regulations and pronouncements for treaties. Several years ago, the powerful Council on Foreign Relations issued a report claiming that the treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution is its most objectionable section. The globalists find it inconvenient that our Constitution requires a two-thirds Senate vote for treaty ratification. Horrors! That, they say, causes "international frustration" with America. Now, an ex-Clinton Administration State Department bureaucrat, James P. Rubin, has published a New York Times op-ed article suggesting that treaties are not "worth the trouble anymore" and we should substitute domestic regulations. He argues that after it became clear the Senate was not going to ratify a climate-change treaty, Obama just used agency regulations to do the same thing, and so he argues that we can do likewise with arms-control treaties. Let's just ignore the Constitution and let Obama bureaucrats make all the important decisions.
Ronald Reagan never would have signed the New START Treaty because it interferes with our right to build an anti-missile defense. There do not seem to be enough Senate votes to ratify the New START Treaty, so the globalists want us to ditch the Constitution's ratification process and just substitute executive agreements and pronouncements. We must not let them do this.
Listen to the radio commentary here: