Yoo and Bolton: Presidential Power should Be Limited!

Gee, now that we’re about to get a president who will probably enact foreign policy that they disagree with, all of a sudden John Yoo and John Bolton rediscover the importance of treaties and their ability to be “a bulwark against presidential inclinations.” These are the same people who argued for unlimited executive power in foreign policy, one of whom (Yoo) wrote the original torture memos allowing the most extreme techniques? Apparently it was Bill Clinton who misused legislative loopholes to get what he wanted when Congress opposed him! I suppose when they called on the idea of the Unitary Executive, that was purely to be faithful to the Founding Father’s constitutional intentions. But, oh wait! Reading the article, all they seem to care about is preventing the United States from actually having to make treaties and not getting its way all the time. Like when I wonder? Like when the US might become a member of the International Criminal Court. And I wonder why they would care that US officials could be internationally tried for war crimes?

(And why, oh why does the New York Times feel the desire to publish op-eds by a war-criminal??)