Pelosi pushes Syria on Hamas, Hezbollah links

[Mia]

She didn't negotiate anything. she talked about peace. She talked about stooping support for terrorist groups. Exactly what the administration is asking for.

[xyzer]

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.

Come on decider, the Presidents Treaty making role is obviously foreign policy! What do you think treaty making entails? And if you read the Constitution, the Senate, not the House, has the oversight role in approving foreign policy?
Where does that leave Pelosi? I agree with rmnunez! Pelosi may have a role in the funding of our nations business but that does not include visiting foreign nations(even hostile ones) that have nothing to do with her role. Where is there a budget in process in the House? Does it include Syrian relationships?

In addition Pelosi is in effect screwing up foreign relations(not policy) by misquoting the Israelis positions...what does she have to do with Israel? Sure Congress persons can make foreign trips as Governor Richardson of NM is doing now...but those are in conformance with our policies not to hinder them?
Sure Congresspersons can make information gathering ttrips(boondoggles) but they have to have some relationship to their roles. Pelosi was obviously grandstanding!

[The Decider]

Quote by: xyzer Come on decider, the Presidents Treaty making role is obviously foreign policy! What do you think treaty making entails? And if you read the Constitution, the Senate, not the House, has the oversight role in approving foreign policy?

Foreign policy goes well beyond treaty negotiations, xyzer.

So, no, "treaty making" does not equal "foreign policy." It is but one facet of a larger process that Congress, by virtue of its oversight role in the constitution, plays a critical part.

Quote by: xyzer I agree with rmnunez! Pelosi may have a role in the funding of our nations business but that does not include visiting foreign nations(even hostile ones) that have nothing to do with her role. Where is there a budget in process in the House? Does it include Syrian relationships?

Where does the Constitution prohibit Republican congressmen (or Pelosi) from visiting any foreign capital? Please cite the passage.

Quote by: xyzer In addition Pelosi is in effect screwing up foreign relations(not policy) by misquoting the Israelis positions...what does she have to do with Israel?

Did the Israelis say that Pelosi "misquoted" their message? Did they use the word "misquote?" Or even "misrepresent?" In fact, is there any evidence that Pelosi did not deliver the message given to her by Prime Minister Olmert in its entirety? The Israeli "clarification" addressed Pelosi's comments to the news media after the meeting, and even then we don't have the full text of those comments to see what Israel was trying to clarify. Perhaps someone can provide a transcript.

Quote by: xyzer Sure Congress persons can make foreign trips as Governor Richardson of NM is doing now...but those are in conformance with our policies not to hinder them?

Richardson is a special envoy in North Korea. Nothing in the US constitution prohibits congressmen from making foreign trips on their own.

Quote by: xyzer Sure Congresspersons can make information gathering ttrips(boondoggles) but they have to have some relationship to their roles. Pelosi was obviously grandstanding!

"Oversight" is an important congressional role. Ask the Republican congressmen who visited Damascus before and after Pelosi. Or former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Be consistent, xyzer.

[xyzer]

Nonsense! The Israeli government issued a report that Pelosis comments did notrepresent its official position! You read it and so did I?

Another thing you overlook decider, is that the foreign policy of this nation(or any nation) cannot sensibly be made by a number of sources? To be effective it must come from one authorised(unified) source. The old saying, "too many cooks spoil the broth" applies!

You make an inane reference to Pelosis trip as a follow on to the 'oversight' role of the House? Are you kidding? Thats the biggest stretch I've heard since the last taffy pull I attended. Try as you may you cannot justify mother Pelosis meddling and attempt to insert herself into areas where she has no business.
Another stretch? [QUOTE]Where does the Constitution prohibit Republican congressmen (or Pelosi) from visiting any foreign capital? Please cite the passage.
[QUOTE]
Where did I say it did? And where does it provide her the oversight role in foreign policy? You keep referring to the Congresses part in foreign policy approval..Have you forgotten that role belongs in the Senate? The House and Speaker have nothing to do with it? Pelosi has overstepped her assigned role and you know it.
I look for more of this disruptive meddling from Pelosi and her comrades!

[brien]

Decider; You can go into all of the long harrangues you wish to here but the bottom line is the Foreign Policy is the property assigned to the Executive Office as defined in Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution. So if you can't see what is wrong with a member of Congress, particularly a House leader, attempting to conduct foreign policy by meeting with the leaders of foreign countries, then perhaps you are merely unwilling to recognize Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. Hey, that's your priviledge, just admit it, because if you agree with Article 2, Section 2, I fail to see how you could condone the Speaker's trip. I don't care who has done this in the past because it doesn't make it any better by repeating past mistakes in Foreign Policy. Responsible members of Congress realize their best shot at influencing Foreign Policy in the US is from the halls of Congress and not from the sands in the desert.

Edit to add: Wouldn't it be quite humorous if 535 Congress people dispatched themselves around the world to discuss Foreign Policy. Why not, if Pelosi can do it, why not every other Congress person. This is the logical conclusion for those who support this type of activity. Wonderful.

[rmnunez]

Totally agree with the Washington Post editorial:

Pratfall in Damascus - Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: "As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish. Pratfall in Damascus - washingtonpost.com

[brien]

She didn't negotiate anything. she talked about peace. She talked about stooping support for terrorist groups. Exactly what the administration is asking for

This matters not because she is making all the appearances of conducting Foreign Policy. Ergo, not her Constitutional responsibility. Ergo, it is a mistakle on her part.

Bottom line here: The Executive Office is charged solely with the responsibility to conduct Foreign Policy in the Constitution. The Congress has no such authority in the Constitution. This is the difference yet apparently some refuse to acknowledge the Constitution's authority to govern the US. So be it.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Decider; You can go into all of the long harrangues you wish to here but the bottom line is the Foreign Policy is the property assigned to the Executive Office as defined in Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution. So if you can't see what is wrong with a member of Congress, particularly a House leader, attempting to conduct foreign policy by meeting with the leaders of foreign countries, then perhaps you are merely unwilling to recognize Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution. Hey, that's your priviledge, just admit it, because if you agree with Article 2, Section 2, I fail to see how you could condone the Speaker's trip.

Here's relevant passage on the president's constitutional powers over foreign policy in Article 2, Section 2 again:

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

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 president can "make treaties" and "appoint" Ambassadors. Where does it say that he can prevent any member of congress from visiting another country? Where does it say that the president has exclusive rights to foreign policy in general?

The Republican delegations (and Pelosi) were not negotiating treaties. They weren't appointing ambassadors.

The US Constitution is NOT your best evidence, brien. Try again.

Quote by: brien I don't care who has done this in the past because it doesn't make it any better by repeating past mistakes in Foreign Policy.

Have you conceded your point on Pelosi's "dangerous precedent?" If so, please make your outrage appropriately non-partisan. Until you do, you're just another water boy for the Bush crew.

[rmnunez]

Where does it say that he can prevent any member of congress from visiting another country?

This was not visiting like a tourist or something, Pelosi went to Syria to have a "pow wow" with the Syrian president and discussed with him matters of US foreign policy. Besides, the president can and does limit US citizens interaction with foreign governments (as occurs relating to Cuba, North Korea and specifically -with Syria).

I can't find anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the legislature can conduct foreign policy, except implicitly through the treaty ratification process.

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider Here's relevant passage on the president's constitutional powers over foreign policy in Article 2, Section 2 again: Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments 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 president can "make treaties" and "appoint" Ambassadors. Where does it say that he can prevent any member of congress from visiting another country? Where does it say that the president has exclusive rights to foreign policy in general? The Republican delegations (and Pelosi) were not negotiating treaties. They weren't appointing ambassadors. The US Constitution is NOT your best evidence, brien. Try again. Have you conceded your point on Pelosi's "dangerous precedent?" If so, please make your outrage appropriately non-partisan. Until you do, you're just another water boy for the Bush crew.

Decider; Show me in the Constitution where it specfically states the Congressional members have the authority to conduct foreign policy in face to face meeeting with foreign leaders. It is the priviledge given to the Executive Office. It is the repsonsibility of the Department of State. Give it up Decider.

If the Constitution set about specifying what the three branches of government COULDN'T do, the document would be two miles thick. No, Article 2 section 2 specifically gives the powers of Foreign Policy to the Executive Office, not Congress. If the FF wanted for Congress to share in this power, they would have specifically given Congress that right, which they clearly did not. Pelosi's trip was, to quote the Washington Post, a "foolish mistake".

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Decider; Show me in the Constitution where it specfically states the Congressional members have the authority to conduct foreign policy in face to face meeeting with foreign leaders. It is the priviledge given to the Executive Office. It is the repsonsibility of the Department of State. Give it up Decider.

In other words, you can find no prohibition for the Republican delegations' visits to Damascus in the US Constitution. Just as I thought.

Nor have you presented evidence that gives the president exclusive authority (ie privilege) to talk with foreign leaders about any subject. Just as I expected.

Quote by: brien If the Constitution set about specifying what the three branches of government COULDN'T do, the document would be two miles thick.

Actually, brien, read the US Constitution again. You'll find passages labeled: "Limits on the powers of the Legislature" and "Limits on the President." They were quite specific, brien. But they left alot of wiggle room.

By the way, are you conceding the "Pelosi dangerous precedent" argument or not?

[rmnunez]

Pelosi did establish a dangerous precedent. Now "rulers", "strongmen" and "leaders" from places like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba or North Korea, who are having difficulties getting along with the president, can try and bargain with Pelosi and other legislators. Then the State Department and its diplomats can advocate for deals that are different and even contrary to those the president seeks. In due course some legislator could be demanding action from the State epartment to advance policy pursuits totally against stated presidential foreign policy. Maybe the situation could degenerate to the point where foreign governments recognized united statians with different rights while abroad depending on their state of residence.

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider In other words, you can find no prohibition for the Republican delegations' visits to Damascus in the US Constitution. Just as I thought. Nor have you presented evidence that gives the president exclusive authority (ie privilege) to talk with foreign leaders about any subject. Just as I expected. Actually, brien, read the US Constitution again. You'll find passages labeled: "Limits on the powers of the Legislature" and "Limits on the President." They were quite specific, brien. But they left alot of wiggle room. By the way, are you conceding the "Pelosi dangerous precedent" argument or not?

Decider, give it up Nice try but the Constitution is specific in delegating the authority for conducting foreign policy to the Executive Office.

Your suggestion that members of Congress are protected by the Constitution in conducting foreign policy by not specifically allowing them to do so is almost as absurd as your conclusion that 535 members can traipse around the globe conducting meetings with foreign leaders and not labeling it foreign policy. I can just see it now, 535 members of Congress all dispensing their own brand of Foreign Policy while the Executive Office and the State Department lose all credibility now and forever, around the globe.. Your support for allowing members of Congress to engage in FP is merely absurd.

But hey, let's run with it. From here on out, all members of Congress, no matter who is in the White House, can make trips to meet with Foreign leaders to undermine the State Department when they disagree with the Executive Office and its views on any foreign policy. Sure, that's intelligent.:rolleyes:

Hell, let's just dispense with the Department of State, for that matter. Why do we need them when we have 535 little State Department representatives. Hell, while we are at it, let's just tear up the Constitution and throw it away since no where in the Constitution does it not allow us to do it. I yi yi :rolleyes:

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez Pelosi did establish a dangerous precedent. Now "rulers", "strongmen" and "leaders" from places like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba or North Korea, who are having difficulties getting along with the president, can try and bargain with Pelosi and other legislators. Then the State Department and its diplomats can advocate for deals that are different and even contrary to those the president seeks. In due course some legislator could be demanding action from the State epartment to advance policy pursuits totally against stated presidential foreign policy. Maybe the situation could degenerate to the point where foreign governments recognized united statians with different rights while abroad depending on their state of residence.

Nunez, you are WAAAAY behind the curve in this debate. Brien made the claim, which still stands, that Nancy Pelosi set a "dangerous precedent" as a Speaker of the House defying a president's wishes concerning foreign travel and commentary on policy. I reminded brien that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did essentially the same thing in 1997 when he visited Israel and openly lobbied against Clinton's support of the Oslo Accords. There's the precedent.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Decider, give it up Nice try but the Constitution is specific in delegating the authority for conducting foreign policy to the Executive Office. Your suggestion that members of Congress are protected by the Constitution in conducting foreign policy by not specifically allowing them to do so is almost as absurd as your conclusion that 535 members can traipse around the globe conducting meetings with foreign leaders and not labeling it foreign policy. I can just see it now, 535 members of Congress all dispensing their own brand of Foreign Policy while the Executive Office and the State Department lose all credibility now and forever, around the globe.. Your support for allowing member of Congress to engage in FP is merely absurd. But hey, let's run with it. From here on out, all members of Congress, no matter who is in the WHite House, can make trips to meet with Foreign leaders to undermine the State Department when they disagree with the Executive Office and its views on any foreign policy. Sure, that's intelligent.:rolleyes:

Where's your concession on the "dangerous precedent" claim?

[rmnunez]

The argument the constitution has to explicitly state the powers a president or legislator has is ridiculous, that's not the way it was written. There are those "inalienable" rights which everyone has, then there are the rights recognized to the states and what's left over is federal. The judiciary has established the parameters in different fields like trade through numerous constitutional interpretations.

These unusual quasi-official visits to foreign countries by members of different branches of government are supposed to be coordinated under the State Department because they often do produce deals and arrangements which then have to be integrated within the policies pursued. This is particularly problematic in cases where there are difficult relations (like where the local ruler doesn't get along with the US president).

Mexico frequently has visiting united statian legislative, judiciary, military and law-enforcement delegations which announce joint resolutions to apply different inter-institutional arrangements. In every case those arrangements are vetted by the State Department which can limit their substance and effect. The same is true of other governments who send delegations from their institutions to make deals with counterparts in the US. They are presumed guided by their respective State Departments and the deals made are integrated within their country's foreign policy.

Pelosi didn't counsel with Rice, took no messages from Bush, nobody was told of what was on her agenda until afterwards.

[brien]

There's the precedent

So you are saying since it has been done before it is all right. Sure....

[brien]

Where's your concession on the "dangerous precedent" claim?

No concession because I strill believe it is true. Because she, perhaps wasn't the first, it doesn't make it right. Btw, which heads of state did your examples meet with, anyway? Keep in mind Pelosi meet with a President, not merely "military officials."

Edit to add: Once again, if you don't see the problem with 535 members of Congress acting as little diplomats, then you have no idea how the Constitution is set up because these powers are specifically reserved for the Executive branch of the government. The FF knew exactly what they were doing by assigning the conduction of foreign policy as the sole territory for the Executive. But, if we follow your logic Decider, we don't need the State Department because we already have 535 members who can conduct foreign policy anyway. Lets' just eliminate the Cabinet Post and the whole Department of State. Who needs them?

[The Decider]

Quote by: rmnunez The argument the constitution has to explicitly state the powers a president or legislator has is ridiculous, that's not the way it was written. There are those "inalienable" rights which everyone has, then there are the rights recognized to the states and what's left over is federal. The judiciary has established the parameters in different fields like trade through numerous constitutional interpretations.

You have yet to make any case against the constitutionality of the unofficial Republican/Pelosi delegations in Damascus. Please cite the "interpretations" that would prohibit their visits. Be specific Nunez and provide a link.

Quote by: rmnunez Pelosi didn't counsel with Rice, took no messages from Bush, nobody was told of what was on her agenda until afterwards.

How do you know what Bush knew or didn't know about the Republican/Pelosi delegations? Just because they weren't officially sanctioned by King George doesn't mean that he or his minions weren't aware of the meeting agendas. You'll have to do better than claim a lack of consultation---please provide evidence.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien No concession because I strill believe it is true. Because she, perhaps wasn't the first, it doesn't make it right.

First you say Pelosi made a dangerous precedent (meaning she was the first SOTH to undertake an unauthorized overseas visit) and then you claim "perhaps [Pelosi] wasn't the first." You really have to make up your mind brien. Did she set precedent or not?

Quote by: brien Btw, which heads of state did your examples meet with, anyway? Keep in mind Pelosi meet with a President, not merely "military officials."

Gingrich met with Middle Eastern heads of state before publicly dissing Clinton's Middle East policy.