Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[The Decider]

Quote by: Derach TD - I meant the constitution doesn't give any of it's sworn officers the right or 'duty' to usurp the presidency in terms of foreign relations and foreign policy. She can't constitutionally disagree with the president as a representative of the US. Meaning that Pelosi (or anyone else NOT speaking officially on behalf of the pres) doesn't 'count' ... officially.

I think I see your position now. You're not saying her trip is "unconstitional" as we keep seeing on this thread, only that it lacks constitutional backing, and therefore any meaningful political impact. I would agree that a visit to Damascus alone can't force Bush to do anything. Then again I doubt that a Congressional resolution would actually deter this president from invoking some form of executive privilege and forcing a constitutional crisis. We aren't at that stage yet. Baby steps come first.

Pelosi's trip had multiple benefits. First, the obvious ones linked to more information and connection with one of the Middle East's important governments. But it also did something else. It highlighted the REPUBLICAN delegations doing the exact same thing! Again, do you think Assad misses the importance of Bush's own party members in open breach of their leader? Assad is a man that tolerates NO DISSENT in his Baath Party. Couple the Republican defections with the growing number of American allies in Europe and elsewhere paying visits to Damascus and just those two facts should tell Assad alot about the state of Bush's power in Washington D.C. Pelosi's trip highlighted the trend. It's a reminder to Bush, yet again, of just how isolated he is in the world, in his country, and within his own political party. Perhaps you see this as a small point, but I don't think anybody in Washington D.C. or world capitals will miss the significance. The constitution doesn't prohibit such trips, or the points they make.

But Pelosi was careful not to engage in the ugly rhetoric of Newt Gingrich or Hastert. She didn't openly oppose Bush's Roadmap for Peace. She didn't slam Israel. On the contrary, she was joined by Tom Lantos, one of Congress's most ardent Israel supporters.

Quote by: Derach My 'pessimistic' view of the future is only fed by the realities of the present and past ... the details will change ... intelligent, articulate people will make valid arguments that partisans will take to heart (the Kool Aide will be drunk, so to speak) ... and this episode will be another old flame to be fanned 2 or 3 yrs down the road.

I think context is important here. Yes, Bush and Bobbie and Brian all push the same "unconstitutional" line and may even call for Logan indictments. But so what? Many people in America are wondering today WHY we are refusing to engage Syria and Iran in dialogue. Without Pelosi's trip it would just be another inside-the-Beltway talking point. Pelosi put herself on the line, along with several Republicans. Don't you think it's significant that Pelosi timed this trip inbetween the Republican visits? Bush's condemnations of partisanship were baseless when the names of those Republicans entered every story. Pelosi was careful, despite taking a few arrows from different directions. Bush just looks even more isolated--fuming in the Rose Garden about events beyond his control. Bush has the veto and the Bully Pulpit--yes--but he's vulnerable in other ways.

Quote by: Derach The dem argument for Pelosi's trip should not have to include past references because it weakens the true reason she went (I think) ... which is she genuinely thinks she can open a channel of communication with Syria to begin to build a mid-east coallition to stabilize Iraq ....

Again, I can only speak for myself. I countered the charge of "precedent" made early on by brien. How does one do that without reference to history? I was fully prepared to defend Pelosi without going to the "Newt-did-it-too" argument. After all, I had the Republican delegations in Damascus--why did I need Newt? As you see, even on this thread, the president's defenders must diminish the significance of those Republican delegations prior to launching their arguments. It's telling, and for a man as astute as President Assad, more than a little enlightening about the true nature of Bush's domestic and international standing.

The Pelosi trip was more than worth the trouble.

Quote by: Derach If you think Bush is digging his heels in and being stubborn now, imagine what the nim-wit must be thinking about Pelosi (and crew) running off without his 'permission' ... She wasn't able to stop him from sending in 20,000 new troops, she wasn't able to stop him from calling up more reservists ... what will he try next? ... instituting the selective service? .... In some ways, it seems it would be better to just wait out the 18 months until this bafoon is gone and let whoever gets in start from scratch in Iraq (is there a chant there ... 'start from scratch ... in Iraq!'?) ...

You may be right. But I'd rather have our elected representatives out there doing something other than crying in their beers at the US congressional bar in Washington D.C. Americans didn't send these folks to Congress to fiddle their thumbs for 18 months while Bush leads us all down the path to ruin and disgrace. That's exactly what Bush and his minions would love.

Take a look at how Bush protests these days. Does he look powerful? Respected?

I wonder what world leaders think.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO Oh, she doesn't take the criticism very seriously. That she embarassed herself by botching the message from Olmert, and still considers her trip a success, demonstrates that she is not a particularly serious person.

All this verbiage and you STILL fail to address the comparison with Newt Gingrich? You are blind and disingenuous.

Quote by: BobbyO The Logan Act would not apply. That act involves private citizens negotiating on behalf of the USA.

Logan, as in Dr. George Logan, was a Pennsylvania state legislator, not a private citizen.

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Admit it.

Quote by: BobbyO All Pelosi did was basically tell Asaad that he can be rewarded for his backing of Hezbollah, his decision to back Iran, and his support of terrorists in Iraq, if only the Dems were in office, and Asaad will respond in kind by working to create the mischief neccessary for the Dems to capitalise upon.

Wow, that's impressive, Bobby. Do you have a transcript of the Assad/Pelosi talks or did you shape shift into a fly on the wall and memorize it all?

Quote by: BobbyO I had no idea there was any delegations period, going to Syria, prior to April 1. I do not recall any news stories about it. I learned today that the Bush Administration had opposed the GOP delegation going to Damascus a couple of weeks ago.

Apparently Bush wasn't too outraged when members of his own party openly defied his "rule." Wonder why?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: The Decider All this verbiage and you STILL fail to address the comparison with Newt Gingrich? You are blind and disingenuous. Logan, as in Dr. George Logan, was a Pennsylvania state legislator, not a private citizen. "Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Admit it. Wow, that's impressive, Bobby. Do you have a transcript of the Assad/Pelosi talks or did you shape shift into a fly on the wall and memorize it all? Apparently Bush wasn't too outraged when members of his own party openly defied his "rule." Wonder why?

You keep insisting that the speaker of the House is no different than a couple of minority members of Congress, which is aburd. That is what explains the anger from the Bush Administration.

I suppose the criticism of Gingrich in that regard is fair. But don't get too excited about it. Pelosi went to thwart USA policies toward Syria which she is judging is to harsh; Gingrich toward Israel. Which country would you rather stand by?

[Technosoul]

And who is the "United States" anyway? The President? How could Bush be the United States? The house speaker of Congress who was voted for by the people of the United States as our new "time to change" speaker? Yes, she more closely represents the USA then Bush, Rice, or some Military commander.

The Untied States is a forien policy that was drafted by the houses and signed into effect by the President. Not by a CIA "black list" or other such non-sense. But a well stated policy that is in writing and apporved of by all the required branches of our poltical system. The bottom line has to do with the attainment of peace in the world. Who is disputing that? We have a long standing policy to support and to help defend Israel.. for her to pass on a note from Israel to it's potential enemy is not in conflict with that stated policy - but rather, acting on it. If Israel wants to sit down at the table to talk peace with one of it's neighbors why should Bush object to that?

President Bush and his staff has made mud pies out of our forien policy and nothing seem to be clearly outlined anymore by him that makes sense relative to the best interests of the USA or world peace. She cannot mess up a Bush policy that was never neat and clean in the first place.

Soo.. a ha.

[Derach]

Quote by: Technosoul And who is the "United States" anyway? The President? How could Bush be the United States? The house speaker of Congress who was voted for by the people of the United States as our new "time to change" speaker? Yes, she more closely represents the USA then Bush, Rice, or some Military commander.

The United States is represented by electe officials and the roles they play depend on the circumstance. For instance, the Judiciary branch is responsible for interpreting laws ... there is a 'chain of command' that ultimately ends at the Supreme Court.

In matters of foreign affairs, the Executive branch, through the State dept, represented by the president, is the end of the food chain. The Speaker has other functions and acts as the 'end of the road' in matters concerning the Legistlative branch, but is not legally representative of the people of the US in matters of foreign relations when she is not acting with the blessing of the State dept.

[xyzer]

I understand the main problem with Pelosis trip was that right in the middle of an imoprtant conference with Assad her makeup melted and her perpetual smile became a frown? This ticked off Assad and ruined her misplaced attempt to contravene the foreign policy of our country? Right now nobody really knows what effect her visit had?

But to top that off she freaked out the Israelis by telling the world what their policy and intentions were and it turned out what she said wasn't true? At least thats what the Israelis announced? This display of lies by our third ranking official, when joined with that of bush who the libs say lie constantly, is a severe blow to the confidence of our allies and most all of us.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Derach In matters of foreign affairs, the Executive branch, through the State dept, represented by the president, is the end of the food chain. The Speaker has other functions and acts as the 'end of the road' in matters concerning the Legistlative branch, but is not legally representative of the people of the US in matters of foreign relations when she is not acting with the blessing of the State dept.

I recently reread the US Constitition with regard to Congressional powers and limitations over the conduct of foreign policy. In the list of "Powers of Congress" and "Limits on Congress," I failed to find anything that limits congressional delegations overseas, either in choice of destination or topics for discussion. I'm not sure what constitutional basis you have for the "end of the food chain" comment.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; 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.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[Derach]

TD - Where in your post is the speaker of the house given more international clout than the pres?

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The right of the pres to nominate embassadors, make treaties (with congressional support), and deploy armed forces makes him the 'head of the food chain' in matters of foreign policy (concerning armed conflict)... I saw absolutely no reference to the speaker of the house's right to negotiate with foreign powers in your post.

[rmnunez]

Id read Section 10's preclusions against States, as applicable to their representatives in Congress. This must be explicated elsewhere, but its well-established.

The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true onoy in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the states such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the federal government, leaving those not included in the enumerattion still in the states. And since the states severally never possessed international powers, such powers could not have been carced out from some other source. See Sutherland, The Internal and External Powers of the National Government, Sen.Doc.No.417, 61st Cong. 2nd Sess. (1910).

As Justice Frankfurter noted in Youngstown

A systematic, unbroken executive practice, long pursued to the knowldge of Congress and never before questioned (may) be treated as a gloss on Executive Power" vested in the president by Art.II §1 of the Constitution.

Executive powers are exclusive.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Derach TD - Where in your post is the speaker of the house given more international clout than the pres? Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The right of the pres to nominate embassadors, make treaties (with congressional support), and deploy armed forces makes him the 'head of the food chain' in matters of foreign policy (concerning armed conflict)... I saw absolutely no reference to the speaker of the house's right to negotiate with foreign powers in your post.

Where did Pelosi and the Republican delegations "make a treaty?" Where did they "deploy armed forces?"

No where in your quote does it say that ANY member of Congress can't visit foreign capitals and discuss anything under the sun. What they can't do is negotiate treaties or deploy armies.

Again, I don't see any constitutional prohibition against these Damascus delegations (which included Republicans, just in case you forgot).

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez Id read Section 10's preclusions against States, as applicable to their representatives in Congress. This must be explicated elsewhere, but its well-established.

Members of Congress work for the national government. Congressional salaries come out of federal funds.

So what is your point exactly?

[rmnunez]

That the power to engage in international relations with sovereigns is an exclusively federal capacity and reserved to the president and Executive branch institutions under the exclusive control of said branch such as diplomats under the State Department.

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez That the power to engage in international relations with sovereigns is an exclusively federal capacity and reserved to the president and Executive branch institutions under the exclusive control of said branch such as diplomats under the State Department.

rmnunez, reread the US constititution. Nowhere does it say that the president has the sole power to make foreign policy. Only in regards to negotiating treaties and sending armies, and only then with the "advice and consent" of the legislative branch. The Founding Fathers did not want another King George with unilateral control over foreign policy.

So again, please show me where the constitution prohibits ANY member of Congress from traveling to any nation and discussing any topic.

[rmnunez]

No, I can't find a constitutional provision forbidding congressional inmiscuition in international relations, but united statian law relies on more than just its constitution. There definitely is an established practice which recognizes executive jurisdiction in the field of international relations and there is Art.II with its enumerated executive powers which include international relations. Many understand the way the US Constitution is written means only powers not already yielded to others can be vested elsewhere, so if international relations is assigned to the executive, it couldn't also be found within the scope of state governors or representatives. There is lots of non-constitutional material indicating this is an exclusively executive function. Furthermore, expediency requires limiting legislator's capacities in international relations. Though treaties must be approved by the legislature in the process of ratification, this doens't mean the legislators can negotiate treaty terms, its a take it or leave it proposition.

[PatrickHenry]

Point being, Nuñez, that GW Bush got the US into a no-win war in the nation next door to Syria.

His administration obviously needs a bit of help.

Pelosi and other members of Congress are being asked to fund said war and are within their authority to explore various means of ending it, including approaching regional powers that could be of assistance.

Unless you are in thrall to Dubya's delusion that he can manage to end this thing. That's what he seems to be saying...that everything's fine and Congress shouldn't be looking over his shoulder, just supplying the money without question.

[rmnunez]

So then when the president is judged to be performing poorly in international relations the legislature can step in to overcome those shortcomings? How does a foreign government know whether the US presidential foreign policy performance level is low enough to recognize in their legislature executive-type capacities for international relations?

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez Furthermore, expediency requires limiting legislator's capacities in international relations. Though treaties must be approved by the legislature in the process of ratification, this doens't mean the legislators can negotiate treaty terms, its a take it or leave it proposition.

The president negotiates treaties.....I acknowledged that already, or didn't you see my earlier post? But so what? Where does the US Constitution give the president sole discrestion over international relations? You could cite the Logan Act, but then you would have to explain why it's almost never been invoked for almost 200 years.

BTW, what does "inmiscuition" mean?

[Mia]

Quote by: rcne I don't mind her going; but her wearing a headscarf while in public, makes her authority in any political resolution seem unlikely. Any dialog between the parities would be a plus, but still I can't see her trip with the PC headscarf as being in any way an equal footing in that part of the world. Time will tell.

Let's get our facts straight:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept a diplomatic fashion accessory on hand throughout a recent Mideast tour _ an array of colorful scarves draped around her neck, ready to be pulled over her hair when Islamic custom required. As it turned out, Pelosi needed to cover her head only once, when she visited a historic mosque in Damascus.

FederalNewsRadio - WFED: Pelosi Scarves a Diplomatic Accessory

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez So then when the president is judged to be performing poorly in international relations the legislature can step in to overcome those shortcomings?

Yes, as long as they don't negotiate treaties or field armies. The Founding Fathers did not want another King George.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez So then when the president is judged to be performing poorly in international relations the legislature can step in to overcome those shortcomings? How does a foreign government know whether the US presidential foreign policy performance level is low enough to recognize in their legislature executive-type capacities for international relations?

This imbecile president is unable to recognize his blunders, even though a majority of US voters do. Why does he need to view a top federal official as undercutting his foreign policy rather than attempting to help extricate the nation from a quagmire war?

Simple partisan hackedness..