John Bolton and John Yoo, who made a career in the Bush administration arguing that the president had unlimited powers in fighting the War on Terror… and that the president alone had the power to decide exactly what constituted the War on Terror, have an op-ed piece in the New York Times arguing in favor of limits on executive authority.
America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues — many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy — the re-emergence of the benignly labeled “global governance” movement is well under way in the Obama transition.
Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will the new president pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?
Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Mr. Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.
Okay, I’ll wait until the hollow laughter subsides…
Ready for more? Try this bit of wisdom:
President George W. Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
“Sometimes fell…”? Like what, they tripped over it?
Either these people have absolutely no sense of the ironic or it is so highly developed that we mere mortals are incapable of grasping it.