home > archive > 2005 > this article


Search this site Search WWW

Ignorance? Or dishonesty?

By Charles Bloomer
web posted August 8, 2005

New U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton at the UN building in New York on August 3
New U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton at the UN building in New York on August 3

President Bush has used his recess appointment authority to appoint John Bolton as US Ambassador to the UN. Reading the reactions of Liberal Senators released recently makes me wonder – Are some of these Liberal Senators ignorant of the Constitution? Or do they think they can lie to the American people with impunity?

Sens. Reid and Kennedy must have collaborated. They both used the "abuse of power" attack. Reid: "[T]he latest abuse of power by the Bush White House." Kennedy: "The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues." What "abuse of power" are they talking about?

The US Constitution, in Article II, Section 2 states, "The President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session." So, the Senate is in recess. There is a vacancy in the UN ambassador position. President Bush used the power granted to him by the Constitution to appoint Bolton to the position. How is Bush's action an abuse of power if the power is granted specifically, clearly by the Constitution? I would think that Sen. Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, and Sen. Kennedy, a Senator sworn to uphold the Constitution would know the contents of the document they are sworn to support and defend. If they do understand the Constitution, then the only other conclusion I can come to is that they are lying by claiming the President has abused his power as President.

What about Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Liberal from Maryland? Is she ignorant of the Constitution, or distorting the truth? Here's part of her statement: "I believe it was wrong to appoint him to that position over the Senate's objection." Here again, there seems to be a bit of disconnect with the understanding of the President's recess appointment authority. Not only that, but Sen. Mikluski wants you to believe that the Senate objected to Bolton's appointment. What Sen. Mikulski neglects to say is that there is really only a minority of Senators that object to Bolton, and that this minority of Senators has staged an unprecedented filibuster to keep Bolton out of the UN position. The result of the liberals stand in the Senate is that, in order to get an up or down vote on Bolton, 60 Senators have to vote to halt the filibuster. That means that the appointment of Bolton effectively requires a super-majority – a requirement not included in the Constitution. Sen. Mikulski knows, as do all her Liberal colleagues, that if Bolton's nomination is allowed an up or down vote, a majority of Senators will confirm him.

I think most of us would agree that Sen. John Kerry (who by the way, served in Vietnam) is not exactly a paragon of truth. His reaction to the Bolton appointment also shows a bit of distortion and a lack of truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I guess that only counts when he is under oath. Sen. Kerry (who by the way, served in Vietnam) states the following: "John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations."

Now, how can Bolton have been rejected twice by the Senate, when the issue of his nomination has never come up for a vote? There have not been two confirmation votes, no up or down votes by the Senate on John Bolton to serve as Ambassador to the United Nations. What exactly does John Kerry (who by the way, served in Vietnam) mean by his statement? Much like Sen. Mikulski, Kerry fails to tell us that the votes that were taken were to end the filibuster. So actually, what the Liberals in the Senate have done is twice block and obstruct the ability of the whole Senate to exercise its advise and consent role, as provided in the Constitution. John Bolton has not been rejected by the Senate – not once, not twice, but never. John Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) doesn't want you to know that he and his Liberal colleagues are unconstitutionally obstructing the President's authority to appoint an ambassador while unconstitutionally blocking the Senate from exercising its function in the appointment process.

Now, having thrashed all this out, I have come to the conclusion that the Liberal Senators have lied in their statements. Okay, maybe "lied" is too strong a word here. What is absolutely clear is that Liberals will distort, twist, alter and bend the truth in order to hide their unconstitutional activities.

They all know what the Constitution says. They just don't care. And they think we are the ignorant party.

Charles Bloomer is a Contributing Editor for Enter Stage Right and the creator of Liberty Call US. © 2005 Charles Bloomer

 

Printer friendly version
Printer friendly version
Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

Printer friendly version Send a link to this page!



Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
e-mail:
Subscribe
Unsubscribe

 

Home

1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.