[The Decider]

Quote by: brien So they have contributed to this precedent, eh there decider? Good, glad to see you admit this so long as you point to a member of Congress, besides Pelosi et all, meeting with a President, PM or King of another nation.

I gave you the link to post #42 on this thread, about the Newt Gingrich trip. The information is all there. The name of the PM is there.

You said "set a dangerous precedent" in your first post on this thread. "Set" is not the same as "contribute." The Republicans (and Pelosi) visited foreign leaders like others in US history. The issue of whether the Republicans (and Pelosi) followed an "unconstititional" precedent is separate. As I've stated, the constitution doesn't prevent congressional foreign trips or the broaching of political topics. Since the Republicans (and Pelosi) didn't negotiate any treaties, move any armies, or appoint any ambassadors, they didn't violate the US constitution--and neither did their predecessors who set the "dangerous precedent." By the way, I'm not saying that Gingrich actually set the precedent. I'm sure with some research I could find some of his predecessors in foreign capitals against the wishes of a sitting president. Gingrich, however, was a Speaker of the House (like Pelosi), and as such he was an earlier example of a high ranking Congress official who defied the president.

Quote by: brien You keep writing this but you haven't yet listed a President, PM or King (heads of State) that another member of Congress has met with here.

See post #42 and the link I provided for you. Your answer is there.

Quote by: brien So you think it is ok to confuse foreign nations with alternatives to meeting with the Sate Department. Fine. That's your view of the Constitution, not mine. I adehere to Article 2 Section 2 when it comes to implementing FP. If you supporrt 535 members all particpating in FP by traipsing around the globe and giving the appearance of an alternative to the State Department, so be it. FP is much about protocol and appearances and if Congress is going to play this role, then it will be confusing to foreign nations when it comes to dealing with the Department of State.

Where does Article 2 Section 2 use the words "foreign policy?" Do you have a supporting opinion from a constitutional scholar?

Quote by: brien Therefore, you are supporting undermining of the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2. and just don't whine about it when members do it to a Democrat in the WH. Please remember to support your idea when it goes up your own party's ass sideways. Me, I am against it no matter who is in the WH.

See the Newt Gingrich story in post #42. It's already happened. The Clinton Administration complained too, but they didn't file Logan indictments or call or imply that Gingrich was a "traitor" or try to prevent congressional overseas trips not sanctioned by the State Department. If they did, please show the evidence.

Quote by: brien You can say all day long she isn't conducting FP, but she is undermining the Department of State by allowing foreign governments to think they can negotiate with someone other than the Department of State in FP. This is the damage done to the Constittution. If you can't see it, not my problem. I can and do see this as harmful to the US Constitution.

What "negotiations" did Pelosi conduct specifically? A transcript would be nice and some relevant quotes.

Quote by: brien The old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, because it may come true."

It already came "true" during the Gingrich trip of 1998. Until you acknowledge that point, you are still repeating the Bush talking points and undermining your claims to non-partisanship, not to mention any professed "respect" for the Office of the President.