August 5, 2015 --

The Wall Street Journal, in its July 21 lead editorial, "Obama's U.N. First Gambit," concluded:

"Even if Mr. Obama does veto a resolution [disapproving the deal with Iran], a bipartisan majority vote against the Iran deal would be a forceful statement to Iran and the world that Mr. Obama is acting without the support of the American people."

LPR will state the matter somewhat differently. If President Obama vetoes a congressional vote against the Iran deal and if only 34 senators of 100 voting senators support the veto, President Obama will have established presidential rule backed by a Senate minority. That is to say, President Obama will have undone the Constitution and imposed imperial government on the American people, telling Iran and the world that the United States, henceforth, has government of, by and for the president supported by a minority of federal legislators.

This is contrary to the procedure established under the Constitution for Senate ratification of a treaty. Such ratification requires the vote of two-thirds of senators present and voting. LPR blames congressional Republicans for allowing approval of the nuclear treaty with Iran by presidential action and the support of no more than 34 senators.

The Wall Street Journal opened its lead July 21 editorial by asserting that President Obama boxed-in Congress by having the United Nation's Security Council approve the Iran deal before Congress voted on it. This suggests to LPR that if Congress overturns a presidential veto of congressional disapproval of the Iran deal, the Obama administration will claim, nevertheless, that the United States is committed to the deal by the Security Council's action. If so, there is no point in pressuring Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), for example, to say how he will vote on the Iran deal -- because the vote of any member of Congress, by trhis approach, will have become irrelevant, once the UN Security Council has acted.

This perspective leads LPR to the following conclusion: the import of the Obama legacy is that it sought -- successfully -- to bury America's founding legacy. And the congressional Republicans made it all possible.

Is there no one in the Republican member of the House or Senate who will defend the Constitution of the United States from leftist assault? Is there no Republican member of House or Senate who will point to the betrayal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner of the Constitution and America's founding legacy?