Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not at all if you are viewing American democracy through the view of parties you don’t actually support democracy at all. And I view this as extremely troubling and undermining the separation of powers.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I view this as extremely troubling and undermining the separation of powers.

      Not American, but I don’t get why. AFAIK your constitution literally says that the senate gets a say in treaties. Article II, section 2:

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

      Now obviously, that’s far more rare in recent history, IRC stuff mainly gets done by executive agreements, but that’s mainly because the government signs far more crap. Makes perfect sense that congress gets a say in the big stuff. Prime example I can think of, is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which was signed by the president but not ratified by congress. I’m sure there are more. Not something particularly new.

      In fact, I googled and apparentlyt the most recent vote was on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Obama had signed but was ultimately rejected by congress. That was unfortunate, but I don’t see how that undermined the seperation of the powers either.

      if you are viewing American democracy through the view of parties you don’t actually support democracy at all.

      Congress is elected, no? This legislation was approved by an overwhelming majority.

      If anything, as an outsider I find it troubling that the presidency has become more and more imperial. The president’s just one guy. Obviously, what do I know, I’m just a foreigner. Maybe the US is different than France, which has similar issues. But plenty of your countrymen agree and historically agreed with me:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_presidency

      Article mentions FDR, Bush and Obama. So not simply a partisan issue either.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a lot to unpack here, and I promise I will not be able to address all of your questions. But I will try.

        First the overall problem I have with American democracy is that it is controlled by a single class of people who will donate equally to the two parties to ensure that they will get what they want regardless of who gets elected. These types of donors aren’t concerned with individual rights like abortion, protesting, police brutality, racism, housing etc. They just want to make sure that funding for foreign wars and arms deals aren’t interrupted. So the wars in Ukraine, Israel, afganistan, iraq, the various arms deals with saudi arabia, japan, morocco, the EU, municipal police etc etc are never in-question.

        The second problem is the delusion that the populace has any control what-so-ever over public policy. The congress and the senate operate entirely without oversight. The incumbent advantage is overwhelming. In the last 10 years the US has re-elected at least 3 people who could not be described as functional humans to the senate. (Feinstein, McCane, McConnell), these senators shouldn’t have been fit for office AT ALL. But the fact that they are able to be re-electice is indicative of the problem. So when a captured institution like the Senate starts to encroach upon presidential powers it is cause for alarm.

        The president is by design more receptive to the public then and of the rest of the federal office holders. So when a bunch of corporate mouth pieces start to get upset about a president rejecting defense pacts that amount to 100 of billions of dollars a year in defense contracts I see cause for concern, even if the wolves bipartisianally agreed to eat the sheep.