nuclear arms treaty violation

I'm not talking about Russia or China or Iran.  I am referring to Trump, who says he wants to take the US out of the medium range nuclear missile treaty, a treaty that was approved by the US Senate, per the Constitution's requirements.

How is it that the president - of any party - can unilaterally abrogate a valid treaty, lawfully approved by the Senate?  That would constitute an unconstitutional act, and present a marked similarity to despots and strong men actions.  We should push back.

And, since a treaty, once approved by the Senate, becomes the law of the land, by taking the US out of this treaty - or any treaty - is a violation of the law.  Presidents are supposed to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Why aren't Senators asserting their separate but equal branch authority by rejecting this action by Trump?  If there are violations by Russia - would not be a surprise - then we should engage the legislative branch and the State Department to deal with it.  If an abrogation of the treaty is warranted, then the Congress should authorize it.

Why isn't the press asking these questions?

Our exasperating press corps

Our press corps still has not engaged in the self-assessment on what led to its breakdown in 2016.  They are busy congratulating themselves over their fine reporting, based to a great extent on people willing to leak bad behavior from a troubled government.  Yet, the information the NYT recently uncovered about the Trump clan's financial shenanigans was there for discovery long before the press corps underestimated Trump.  And it seems, just seems, that much of the Russian activity was obtainable through good investigative reporting.

Now the march of polls, accompanied by speculation, will be ours to endure until November 6.  We are supposed to be moved by this reporting coming from the very people that got it so wrong in 2016.  Please, don't speculate.  You risk influencing citizens regarding their voting intentions.  And, how much money is raised merits far less airtime than issues reporting and analysis and fact-checking.

Why not devote as much energy as possible to informing citizens and revealing voter suppression actions.  That's not as appealing to you as poll hawking, but we can actually wait for the results..

One more item - clean up your sloppy language.  Omit the "kind of"s and "sort of"s from your discourse.  And, once and for all, certain officials do NOT serve "at the pleasure of the President".  That's a term for monarchs and dictators.  They serve "under the sole authority of the President"
Gheesh

Congress needs to assert itself as a co-equal branch

Leaders of Congress have said several times in the past 2 years that they are wasting their time on legislation that the president does not support.  That runs counter to the principle of separation of powers.  It is too deferential to the executive branch.  And it is just plain a lack of political courage.

The Congress, representatives of the citizens, should express their own view by passing legislation whether or not the president - of any party - tries to preempt the will of the people.  Pass the damn legislation or don't pass it.  If it passes send it to the president for signature and make him veto it if he (or she) so chooses.

While I'm at it, let's not look away from the accretion of presidential power at the expense of the Congress.  For example, the invocation of the national security exception (against Canada!) by the president in applying new tariffs should be rejected by the Congress as a violation of the law, and of separation of powers.  Maybe we have learned that we cannot count on good faith of a president; therefore, terms like "national security" must be defined in legislation or submitted to a court.

Also, how in the world did we allow the president to have unilateral authority to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal?  That is a treaty and the law of the land.  If the language must be amended, then amend it.  It's an example of great executive overreach that looks like authoritarian action.

And what about those missiles fired into Syria most recently.  Congress should have been consulted and either authorized or rejected.  Trump didn't even bother to come to Congress after the launches under the War Powers Act to request approval.

I'm worried.