[brien]

Quote by: Yarn What matters best is what the founders didn't specify??? Nope. I said: What is best matters more then what the founders didn't specify. So they didn't specify that the President couldn't introduce laws into Congress so he can go up the hill and draw up a resolution, introduce it, and expect a vote, right? Absurd thinking, at best, ignorant at worst. It doesn't give him the power to do that, and thats a power that has to be given (perhaps the text doesn't say that explicitly, but any court will support that assertion). The constitution doesn't prohibit you from talking to foreign leaders once you become a member of congress, and thats a power you have without having to be granted it (once again, courts will uphold that). Once more: Nothing that would not be deemed unconstitutional by courts, should be thought of as unconstitutional in anyway we ought to care about. Ok Great. Your conclusion then is that 535 members of Congress are all empowered to traipse around the globe discussing and making foreign policy for the US. They are legally allowed to. No court would even likely hear a case that they weren't. Anyone is allowed to talk to foreign leaders.

So you agree that it is perectly acceptable to encourage 535 members of Congress to particapte in FP by having face to face meetings with the heads of state in other nations. No need for the State Department correct? Absurd.

It doesn't give him the power to do that, and thats a power that has to be given (perhaps the text doesn't say that explicitly, but any court will support that assertion).

In the same respect, the powers of FP are directly enumerated in Article 2 Section 2. So the members of Congress, according to your own logic, are prohibited from doing this.