 |
 |
| Friday, April 19, 2024 |
Miles from the Mainstream |
D.
R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor |
Citing a curious question in
The New York Times,
September 8, 2015
September 19, 2015 -- "According to the Constitution, the president is responsible for the nation's foreign policy. Why does Congress get a say on the Iran nuclear deal?" LPR's answer. The New York Times prefers that a Democrat president controls "the nation's foreign policy," and domestic policy, too, for that matter. When Congress is in the hands of a Republican majority, the Times vigorously negates any constitutional provision -- the treaty-ratifying provision, in this case --that might make it possible for Republicans to block a Democrat president. Should a Republican be elected president, The New York Times will rediscover the constitutional authority given to Congress as a check on the president, in foreign policy, as well as domestic policy. (And, as corollary, on college campuses, academic freedom will become more robust should the White House again fall into Republican hands.) |
Consider, too, this observation from an editorial in The Washington Post, February 6, 2015, "The Iran drift" -- "While presidents initiate U.S. foreign policies, it is vital that major shifts win the support of Congress and the country; otherwise they will be unsustainable." The Post editorial concluded: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make. If so, the right response to the questions now being raised is to seek better terms from Iran-- or convince the doubters that an accord blessing and preserving Iran's nuclear potential is better than the alternatives." |
|
