Progressivism Goes Global

Transnational governance and its contempt for the consent of the governed.

- John Fonte & John Yoo

NOVEMBER’s elections will represent a decisive fork in the road for our nation on any number of issues, but none may prove as important as the choice between preserving our constitutional system and embracing transnational progressivism.

We can see the stakes already in the current fight over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which prohibits all testing of nuclear weapons. The Constitution requires a two third's Senate vote to approve treaties, but the Senate rejected the CTBT 51–48 in 1999. Undeterred by constitutional requirements, Obama will ask the United Nations in late September to accomplish a de facto ratification of the CTBT.

The scheme works like this: The Obama administration (according to a State Department letter) will submit a Security Council resolution according to which any testing of nuclear weapons by any treaty signatory (including the U.S.) would “defeat the object and purpose of the CTBT.” If the resolution passes, international law prohibits the United States from doing anything to defeat “the object and purpose” of a treaty that it has signed but not ratified. American nuclear testing would obviously violate the rule. Presto! The U.S. will adhere to the CTBT.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) sent a blistering letter to Obama denouncing the plan: “The U.S. Constitution clearly provides the Senate—not the United Nations—the right to the provision of advice and consent for the ratification of any treaty.” The Senate rejected the CTBT to protect our right to modernize obsolete weapons and thus reassure allies under the American nuclear umbrella. Recently, leading opponents of the CTBT, including Corker and former senator Jon Kyl, have argued that, regardless of its substantive views on nuclear testing, the administration cannot ignore the Constitution to achieve its policy goals.