Playing with Fire

[Adam's Apple]

Do we now have two presidencies--one elected and one not--setting foreign policy for the U.S.?

Playing with Fire
by Thomas Sowell, Human Events
04/03/2007

Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

for full article:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20097

 

[GeeWhiz]

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

Adam's Apple,

The opinion article you posted is incorrect. Nowhere in the Constitution does is say that the President alone as the authority to speak for this country to foreign nations. In fact it says quite the opposite.

The Consitution says this:

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

That's it. The Consitution makes no mention of granting the President sole power to speak for this country. But if you look at the Consitution it does state that treaties can be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. It would make sense then for members of the Senate to speak with foreign nations because the President must seek Advice and Consent from the Senate in order to make treaties and who do we make treaties with? The answer is with foreign nations.

Learn about your country it wouldn't hurt.

 

[Adam's Apple]

You've given your interpretation of what the Constitution says; now I will give mine.

The Constitution gives the President the duty of receiving ambassadors and other public ministers, which implies that he is the correct person in the government to meet with foreign officials/dignitaries. There is no commensurate responsibility listed for members of Congress. The Founding Fathers probably felt that this was just good common sense, and there was no need to spell out this responsibility further with details. The “advice and consent” function of members of Congress implies giving a response--a subordinate position to that of President. If they want to override the President's initiatives, it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to do so. That should tell you something.

BTW, even the liberal Washington Post criticized Pelosi’s latest venture as getting a bit too big for her britches.

 

[GeeWhiz]

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=128197&ntpid=0

George Bush's presidency has been distinguished by nothing so much as his consistent disregard for the Constitution. He wages war without required congressional declarations. He orders spying that is in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment. He permits torture and extraordinary renditions that violate the Eighth Amendment.

Above all, the president disregards the basic requirement of shared governance. He shows little respect for the separation of powers, let alone for the system of checks and balances that requires Congress to participate in domestic and foreign policy decision-making.

Bush's anti-constitutionalism was on full display this week as he echoed claims by his aides that it was somehow inappropriate for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to travel to Syria

snip

Just as the present president...rejects the intent of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution makes clear that Congress has broad authority to actively participate in foreign and military affairs. After all, the founders created the legislative branch as the first defined branch of government and afforded to it the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," "to define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations," "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

House and Senate leaders have a long history of being regular travelers abroad, and they have sometimes overstepped their boundaries. Famously, according to documents obtained by the National Security Archives at George Washington University, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., secretly advised Colombian authorities to ignore the human rights requirements that had been attached to U.S. military aid to Colombia during the Clinton years.

I did go the National Security Archives website and sure enough the documents are there. Don't you find it interesting the stark contrast between Pelosi's trip to encourage dialogue and Hastert's secret trip to encourage a country to blow off humans rights.

 

[red states rule]

LOL - San Fran Nan's "Coddle a Dictator Tour" had its moments. First, the terrorists must have laughed their asses off at her picture wearing the Atrab grab.

Next, watching her say how the US wants to "talk" - yes talking is what the terrorists want. Kill time before they kill us

Being a lib - you know you are in trouble when the Washington Post is against you

Much like with their 400 billion tax increase - libs are showing their arrogrance and contempt for what the voters really wanted when the handed the car keys over to the Dems