Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Fwd: New Common Sense: Whatever Happened to "Advice and Consent"?
Mark your calendars: Constitution Day is September 17, 2010—less than a month away!
Last year, Heritage hosted Charles Kesler's talk "Picture of Silver, Apple of Gold: Withstanding the Assault on America's Constitutional Principles."This year, join Heritage at the Values Voters Summit, where the Constitution is our theme!
Also, don't forget to watch for the latest Heritage products on the Constitution.
Around the Country
Or, celebrate the Constitution with some of our friends:
Georgetown University's Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy will host a Constitution Day Roundtable on "Constitutional Morality?".Hillsdale College hosts its First Annual Constitution Day Colloquium, September 16-17, 2010, with a webcast of panels, debates, and special speakers.
Tell us about Constitution Day events near you!
Quick Thoughts
Has American politics changed in the last 40 years?
Will the mosque in Manhattan follow the example of the convent at Auschwitz? What We're Reading: Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order by Charles Hill.
Whatever Happened to "Advice and Consent"?
The Senate floor may be empty, but debate over the New START Treaty continues. Dismissing calls for debate as petty partisanship, many on the left urge a quick vote on the treaty. In doing so, the treaty's proponents fail to appreciate the Senate's constitutional role in the treaty-making process.
In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution grants the President the "Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." James Wilson explains, "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people." In Federalist 64, John Jay praises the treaty-making process that relies on both the President and the Senate: "We have reason to be persuaded that the treaties they make will be as advantageous as, all circumstances considered, could be made." Thus, both the executive and legislature are essential to making treaties "law of the land."
But what does "Advice and Consent" mean in practice?
One of America's earliest treaties, the Jay Treaty (negotiated by Jay himself), provides a great model for Senators today. In 1794, a war raged between Great Britain and France, and the British violated American neutrality by capturing U.S. commercial ships. The hotly debated Jay Treaty of 1794 averted a potential war with Great Britain and encouraged commercial relations between the two countries.
Upon receiving the Jay Treaty, Washington duly presented it to the Senate for advice and consent. He did not assume senators would simply rubber-stamp the measure. The Senate, in turn, did not shirk its constitutional responsibility—after much deliberation, the treaty barely passed with a vote of 20 to 10. Interestingly, Washington provided the Senate with the entire negotiating record—but he later denied the same request from House of Representatives—thereby recognizing the Senate's unique constitutional role in the treaty process.
As Marion Smith highlights in his paper "Remember the Jay Treaty: START Behaving Like Senators," the Senate has a serious role in the treaty-making process. Throughout history, treaties have been made, considered, ratified, and yes—some have been rejected. Today's Senate should take a cue from the Jay Treaty. New START contains a number of ambiguities and clauses that could potentially compromise our missile defense system and therefore our national security. As such, senators must not hastily rubber-stamp the document. Rather, they should deliberate upon the treaty and refuse consent until they can be wholeheartedly confident of its worthiness to become "supreme law of the land."Keep reading about treaties and the Senate's role
Forward this message to a Friend! Quote of the Week
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.~ George Washington, Farewell Address
For more quotes, visit westillholdthesetruths.org
The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400
Fwd: Morning Bell: End Crony Capitalism
08/18/2010
At 300 East 23rd Street in the exclusive Gramercy Park neighborhood of Manhattan, where to get into parts of the park you need a key granted just to residents, a new 98-unit luxury apartment complex has been built with an outdoor movie theater and panoramic city views. The problem is that not enough buyers are coughing up the $820,000 to $3 million the project's developers are asking for the privilege to own a unit in the building. But don't worry, the Obama administration is coming to the rescue. Last December, the Federal Housing Administration loosened its financing rules so that U.S. taxpayers would have the honor of backing loans with downpayments as low as 3.5%. Now rich Manhattanites can better afford condos in buildings with pet spas, concierges and rooftop lounges like the one in Gramercy Park, all on the taxpayers' dime.
You read that correctly: the FHA, created in 1934 to make homeownership attainable for low- to moderate-income Americans, is now subsidizing Manhattan luxury condominiums. How did we get here? The mindset that allowed this unconscionable public policy to occur was on display yesterday in Washington, where Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner hosted his Future of Housing Finance symposium. While Secretary Geithner promised "fundamental reform" of our nation's housing policies, he also insisted that the federal government must continue to play a strong role in U.S. mortgage markets: "There is a strong case to be made for a carefully designed guarantee in a reformed system, with the objective of providing a measure of stability in access to mortgages, even in future economic downturns."
Geithner was not asked if FHA's backing of Manhattan luxury condos fit his definition of a "carefully designed guarantee in a reformed system," but American Enterprise Institute fellow Alex Pollock was there to at least throw some cold water on Geithner's central-planner arrogance: "You can either, in my view, be a private company or a government agency -- one or the other, but not both."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)