Today's MOZEN: 47 Shades of Wrong

Words and photo by F LoBuono

By this point everyone is familiar with The Letter. Forty-seven US Senators, forty-seven Republican Senators, penned what can rightly be called a screed to the leaders of Iran. In the ultimate irony, they attempted to "school" the Iranians on the US Constitution by completely ignoring it, US Law*, International Law, and common sense. Their rational was to express their displeasure with the state of negotiations between the US and Iran concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Our efforts appear to be focused on easing current economic sanctions directed at Iran in exchange for Iran's assurance that their research will be in developing nuclear power and not weapons. John Kerry, our Secretary of State, under the guidance of President Obama, was reported to be making good progress. That is, until now!

I read the letter with increasing displeasure and, quite frankly, disbelief. I am not a legal expert and don't even pretend to be. But, what I read made me incredulous. It does not take a lawyer to see their arguments simply have no basis. The Supreme Court, in their landmark 1936 decision United States v Curtiss-Wright Exp Corp*, clearly defined who plays what role when it comes to international negotiations . In addition, the tenor of the letter appears trite, if not downright insulting to any thinking person much less than to entire nation of Iran. It's as if it were written by a bunch of spoiled, petulant, adolescent males (in a sense, perhaps it was!).

So, I investigated: who actually authored this rant? Apparently, it was penned by a freshman Republican Senator from Arkansas named Tom Cotton. Considering the spirit and content of the letter, plus the region Mr. Cotton hails from, I expected my research to turn up some type of "country bumpkin". Well, what I discovered both surprised and disappointed me. It surprised me because, apparently, Mr. Cotton is far from an uneducated, unsophisticated hack. Mr. Cotton is a Harvard educated lawyer and a decorated Army veteran who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan. And, THAT'S what disappointed me. How could a man, so accomplished, so given to service, be so blatant in his disregard for not only the office of the President of the United States but to the rule of law, as well? Again, I don't believe that one need be a "legal eagle" to see the folly in such an effort. It attempts to undermine the very authority of the President to negotiate international treaties. In other words, the letter attempts to keep the President from DOING HIS JOB. It is downright seditious!

We can take pride in the fact that this nation was created as a democracy governed by the principal of law. And, we must always blend the two, even when it may create conflict. Our very election process provides the most obvious example. When we elect someone, unless it's a runaway victory for one candidate over another, the votes are generally split in a nearly 50-50 ratio. Of course, someone wins by some amount of votes. However, the margin of victory in most elections is statistically insignificant. What this means is that nearly half the people in this country are unhappy about any given election. They "lost". So, within our democratic system, without consent of the "losing" side, nothing can be accomplished. NOTHING. It's HALF the Country. And, that's exactly what is happening here. The  Republicans in Congress, in an effort to wrestle power away from our duly elected President are attempting what is, in reality, nothing more than a grandstanding stunt. 

Unfortunately, this event, combined with the debacle of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ill-timed speech before congress shows a mean spirited Congress, controlled by the GOP, that is more interested in discrediting President Obama than it is in truly helping this Country. It's foolish and counterproductive. But, as a democracy, the people still have the power and it's called The Vote. Use it - as it was designed to be used - show the forty-seven that this is unacceptable!

*Per SCOTUS: "Not only . . . is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it." United States v Curtiss-Wright Exp Corp, 299 US 304, 319; 57 S Ct 216, 220; 81 L Ed 255 (1936))