Who is responsible for enforcing treaties the United States makes?

Enforcement? It's not like that. It's regulated into the system through legislatures. The Courts ultimately have the enforcement powers over treaty legal matters. If you're asking more specifically about, say, a mutual defense treaty and who enforces it then you'd have to back up a bit. The President negotiates treaties and 2/3rds vote in senate allows it to become law of the land.


There is a gem under all of this though. Obama can easily find a few different ways to say that he is operating within a treaty with regards towards excluding congress from it's war powers and responsibilities. On top of all this, we've got former CIA, current Defense Secretary chopping his fist at the Civilian agency responsible for managing national defense of all manners. This is a breakout move. A complete middle finger to the spirit of this country and the purpose of our government. It's the natural progression of a secretive political culture where now a select group decides its unsafe for Congress to know what our country will be doing. Impeachment INC.

 

-----signature-----

The President has acted as though he could attack another country on his own prerogative at least since LBJ. Congress always whines about it but does nothing to prevent it.

What is going on in the clip is that Panetta is taking this same assumption for granted and Sessions is acting shocked and amazed by something that has been happening regularly for half a century.

Panetta is refusing to discuss that part of things and is focusing on what legal hoops have to be jumped through before, say, NATO can intervene in Syria.

Now, I am not happy that the executive branch has this power, and right wingers aren't happy about it when Obama has this power, but, Congress can challenge it anytime it wants to.

 

-----signature-----

Just watched it again.

 

-----signature-----

I think you are missing an important part that Sessions was attempting to show. Panetta is more worried about gaining the permission and authority of international bodies than he is about the Constitution or Congress's authority. As far as I know our constitution makes no mention of asking NATO or the UN for permission if we can enforce a no-fly-zone over Syria.

 

-----signature-----

There are two different permission issues in play.

Does the president need approval of Congress to intervene militarily in, say, Syria.

Does NATO or the UN need some kind of legal framework to intervene militarily in, say, Syria.


Virtually every President in modern times has acted as though the answer to the first question is No. And Congress has always gone along with that, though it whines a lot.

Panetta completely ignored Sessions' attempt to talk about question 1 and focused completely on question 2. Sessions kept trying to meld the two questions together.

Another thing going on is that Obama has made it clear that the U.S. isn't going to go in unilaterally and do all the heavy lifting. We'll only intervene in situations that aren't directly threatening us if we are just one part of a broad, international effort.

 

-----signature-----

Sessions was being an obtuse moron. It was like an outpost debate. It was sad.

 

-----signature-----

Fixed for accuracy


But Congress needs to reassert its authority by taking back the powers it has abdicated to the executive and to the Federal Reserve

 

-----signature-----

So... what's the problem?


The President can authorize the military to act without Congressional approval. He has to turn around and get permission and funding after-the-fact, but he doesn't need to ask first.


That said, Panetta and the General in that video were stumbling big time and they both need to be smacked around.

 

-----signature-----

Koneg the way you say that makes me wonder if you believe that's exactly how the Constitution describes the process. You're ideas are a product of 20 years of twisted executive power media arms.

Congress declares war. Congress tells the president to execute war. Everyone knows the Executive branch has been building foundations to end run Congress for decades but no powers or authority are granted to the Presidency that gives it the ability to immunize itself from the separation of powers.

Agree?

 

-----signature-----