No one should be allowed to do anything without President Obama's consent, imo.

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive

Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

(03-05-2015 01:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive

Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

Oh please

Bless your heart

Uhm...

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

I think that's pretty simple to use HOD... that's what sanctions are.. commerce deals.

Well, I will let Owl or one of the other lawyers put on a Constitutional Law clinic. I don't have time for it today.

This won't be fun.

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:37 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I actually have no problem with it. Even if it was a democrat controlled congress wanting to call in someone. We have 3 branches of government for checks and balances. I think the legislative branch which makes laws has just as much a right to invite foreign diplomats to speak as the executive branch does. I don't think we should hold the executive branch to some higher standard in this regard.

Bringing in a foreign leader in the way they did weakens the systems of checks and balances.

Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

The Republicans were wrong on this one, in just about every way. Celebrating them for it shows great disregard for the system of checks and balances you mentioned.

Except I would argue that our Executive branch (not just Obama) has gone off and politicized our foreign policy when it suits them, so that kind of defeats the original premise of our framers.

They likely never envisioned just how corrupt and self-serving those serving in this government would become. In fact, I'd surmise they would advocate another revolution if they were somehow transported to today..........this, after marveling at our gadgetry and sheer size.

(03-05-2015 01:36 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

What would the right's reaction have been if the President of France was brought in to address Congress about Bush not getting us involved in the Iraq war?

It already happened... George Galloway spoke in front of a joint session of Congress about precisely that (5/7/05), and the left absolutely adored him after the speech....

Bush didn't try to stop it... and he didn't whine about how it wasn't "right" to have him there.

So pardon me for thinking the lefties need to shut the hell up with their whining about Netanyahu.

2005? The Iraq war started in 2003.

And Galloway was a member of the British Parliament and he testified at a Senate hearing led by a Republican regarding the Oil for food scandal. He didn't address a joint session of Congress. And the testimony took place on May 17th.

But hey...you spelled his name right. Geez.

And he went off on a rant about how we shouldn't be in Iraq, Tom.... Hell, that was his entire 'argument' that the US govt was "acting for oil companies by being in Iraq". Cause FOX news pretty much ripped into him, while MSNBC defended him after the speech.

That was the major dividing line when FOX news and MSNBC both actually drew up their political stances, and refused to budge on their opinions.

Oh wow.. i missed the date by 10 days... Woe is me!!!

And you're right, he was called to testify in front of the Senate not the entire Congress (although it got as much news-coverage as the PM's speech did).

So this event bore absolutely no equivalence whatsever to Bibi's speech or the point I made.

-The guy was not a head of state. Much less from France as in my hypothetical.
-The left didn't invite him.
-He didn't speak to a joint session of congress. He didn't speak to the senate either.
-He spoke to a Senate Panel, chaired by a Republican. So he would have most likely been invited (summoned) by Republicans.
-He was accused by that Senate Panel of criminal activity in the UN Oil-for-food program.

Trust me...the 10 days is the least of the problems with your rebuttal.

British Lawmaker Scolds Senators on Iraq

Quote:WASHINGTON, May 17 - In an appearance that seemed to catch a Senate committee off-guard, George Galloway, a maverick British member of Parliament, denied as "utterly preposterous" on Tuesday the committee's charges that Saddam Hussein's government had given him the rights to buy 20 million barrels of oil to sell at a profit.

Mr. Galloway also used the committee's invitation to testify under oath to turn the tables on his accusers, charging that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had "found me guilty" without having given him an opportunity to defend himself against allegations he had profited from the United Nations oil-for-food program.

"I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf," he said. "The real sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians," he continued, but "your own companies with the connivance of your own government."

(03-05-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive

Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

Oh please

Bless your heart

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

Hm. They didn't "specifically" put foreign policy into the hands of the executive. They did, however, "specifically" frame it for the "separation of powers" between the legislative and executive....as they did with a vast majority of issues.

(03-05-2015 01:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:37 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I actually have no problem with it. Even if it was a democrat controlled congress wanting to call in someone. We have 3 branches of government for checks and balances. I think the legislative branch which makes laws has just as much a right to invite foreign diplomats to speak as the executive branch does. I don't think we should hold the executive branch to some higher standard in this regard.

Bringing in a foreign leader in the way they did weakens the systems of checks and balances.

Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

The Republicans were wrong on this one, in just about every way. Celebrating them for it shows great disregard for the system of checks and balances you mentioned.

Except I would argue that our Executive branch (not just Obama) has gone off and politicized our foreign policy when it suits them, so that kind of defeats the original premise of our framers.

They likely never envisioned just how corrupt and self-serving those serving in this government would become. In fact, I'd surmise they would advocate another revolution if they were somehow transported to today..........this, after marveling at our gadgetry and sheer size.

I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.

(03-05-2015 11:14 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A class I had in college presented in the exact opposite. Sunni's more modern. Shia fundamentalists. This actually surprises me quite a bit that you present it the way you do.

I tend to see it that was as well. The Turkish girl I dated was sunni so I mainly learned about that stuff from that perspective. Pretty sure there are traditionalist/fundamentalist on both sides though.

It seems like the analogy works, but I'd say that Shia seems more like the Catholic Church if it followed the teachings of 7th day Adventists... hierarchical like the Catholic Church, but somewhat off of "mainstream", like the Adventists. A pretty good proportion of both will tend to ignore doctrine that is inconvenient, but the same people that may party in Lebanon and shift toward Salafi teachings at the drop of a hat. I doubt the Fundamentalist/Catholic analogy works well at either extreme - the Hezbollah/ISIS extreme or the Muslim that will party and drink alcohol. For the 60% in the middle, it is probably pretty good. At the extremes, they probably look the same.

(03-05-2015 01:51 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive

Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

Oh please

Bless your heart

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

Hm. They didn't "specifically" put foreign policy into the hands of the executive. They did, however, "specifically" frame it for the "separation of powers" between the legislative and executive....as they did with a vast majority of issues.

(03-05-2015 01:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:51 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive

Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

Oh please

Bless your heart

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

Hm. They didn't "specifically" put foreign policy into the hands of the executive. They did, however, "specifically" frame it for the "separation of powers" between the legislative and executive....as they did with a vast majority of issues.

No?

I guess "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" is no longer foreign policy, then.

Welp.

(03-05-2015 01:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  They likely never envisioned just how corrupt and self-serving those serving in this government would become. In fact, I'd surmise they would advocate another revolution if they were somehow transported to today..........this, after marveling at our gadgetry and sheer size.

Are you kidding? They would have been extremely aware of this by seeing the British government in action.

And I suspect you're incredibly wrong about your revolution assumption.

My point still stands, Tom... you see leftists whining over the speech of Netanyahu, and yet those same leftists DEFENDED the rant that Galloway went on, and it was a RANT. You can try to claim it was "testimony" but we know the truth.

Again, my point is.. the left cheered every accusation that Galloway made against the United States govt. Not ONE accusation was made by Netanyahu, but Netanyahu shouldn't have spoken up, but Netanyahu's visit was a "political backstab of the president"?

And I just double checked.. there have been 110 foreign dignitaries to speak before various sessions of congress (although that number looks like it was a case of "speak before the house and then another speaking engagement before the senate"). Some were heads of state, others weren't (some were just ambassadors).

I didn't realize that Netanyahu now has addressed Congress as many times as Churchill (3?)

(03-05-2015 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:37 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 12:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He had no business being in our congress or speaking to them. The right hates Obama for ignoring rules, decorum, and the like but celebrate themselves when they do it. Hypocrisy at its finest!

I actually have no problem with it. Even if it was a democrat controlled congress wanting to call in someone. We have 3 branches of government for checks and balances. I think the legislative branch which makes laws has just as much a right to invite foreign diplomats to speak as the executive branch does. I don't think we should hold the executive branch to some higher standard in this regard.

Bringing in a foreign leader in the way they did weakens the systems of checks and balances.

Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

The Republicans were wrong on this one, in just about every way. Celebrating them for it shows great disregard for the system of checks and balances you mentioned.

Except I would argue that our Executive branch (not just Obama) has gone off and politicized our foreign policy when it suits them, so that kind of defeats the original premise of our framers.

They likely never envisioned just how corrupt and self-serving those serving in this government would become. In fact, I'd surmise they would advocate another revolution if they were somehow transported to today..........this, after marveling at our gadgetry and sheer size.

I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.

I don't disagree. I also think however they would be aghast at the power the Federal government has commandeered, particularly the executive branch. They never envisioned what we have today, in fact I would argue it's what they attempted to stay away from through the various checks and balances they attempted to invoke.

(03-05-2015 01:56 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You're missing my argument Tom... you see people whining over the message that Netanyahu gave...

And yet, the left DEFENDED the rant that Galloway went on.

A) I just double checked.. there have been 110 foreign dignitaries to speak before joint sessions of congress. Some were heads of state, others weren't (some were just ambassadors) I Just read that Netanyahu now has addressed congress as many times as Churchill (3?)

DSF, the problem is that when he testified in 2005, we already knew the Iraq war was a disaster. Bibi gave nearly the exact same speech 20 years ago on how Iran was about ready to start lobbing nukes.

A) Likely correct. And this was the only time the President didn't invite them or beforehand approve of it, yes?

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

Approving treaties is the responsibility of the Senate, but realpolitik has blurred that responsibility in recent decades.

Both Congress and the President have screwed the pooch on the constitutional responsibilities of foreign policy and war powers over many decades.

It's a mistake to View this in terms other than political maneuvering by genuine statesmen. I think it's an embarrassment on all sides, but we basically have childish idiots running our government at this point in time and there's nothing we can do about that now. I don't know of a national leader at this stage that I'd consider a true statesman, and I don't see one coming around the corner any time soon.

It served the Republicans interest to have Netanyahu address Congress and it served Netanyahu's interests. It serves Obama's interest to govern via fiat (executive order), Constitution be damned. That's the environment we have at the national level now. They are all to blame.

edit: My point above is that if Obama signs a treaty with Iran and congress refuses to ratify it, what do you have? You have a treaty with Iran that the US will still honor, and that's because realpolitik has rendered ratification irrelevant. That leads to preemptive action by Congress, which contributes to the political childishness that you see now.

(03-05-2015 01:55 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:53 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:51 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:44 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Article I, Section 8 is like wut????

Oh please

Bless your heart

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

Hm. They didn't "specifically" put foreign policy into the hands of the executive. They did, however, "specifically" frame it for the "separation of powers" between the legislative and executive....as they did with a vast majority of issues.

No?

I guess "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" is no longer foreign policy, then.

Welp.

Article II Section III Clause IV

More importantly, what that has been interpreted to mean since the 1790s.

(03-05-2015 01:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think their biggest issue would be the fact we elect our senators, which aborted our entire system. The Federal system was not supposed to be a parallel system to the states or a highly politicized one, which it is today.

I think this has had enormous unintended negative effect, and current trends are to further shift power toward the national government by direct election of the President, which was also not what it was originally intended. I don't see that movement as nearly as harmful as direct election of Senators.

(03-05-2015 02:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Foreign policy is entirely in the realm of the President, not Congress.

Bringing people like this in just politicizes a process outside of Congress' direct control. That isn't good for our government. The framer's specifically put foreign policy in the hands of the executive so that our foreign policy wouldn't be politicized.

Approving treaties is the responsibility of the Senate, but realpolitik has blurred that responsibility in recent decades.

Both Congress and the President have screwed the pooch on the constitutional responsibilities of foreign policy and war powers over many decades.

It's a mistake to View this in terms other than political maneuvering by genuine statesmen. I think it's an embarrassment on all sides, but we basically have childish idiots running our government at this point in time and there's nothing we can do about that now. I don't know of a national leader at this stage that I'd consider a true statesman, and I don't see one coming around the corner any time soon.

It served the Republicans interest to have Netanyahu address Congress and it served Netanyahu's interests. It serves Obama's interest to govern via fiat (executive order), Constitution be damned. That's the environment we have at the national level now. They are all to blame.

That's a narrow restriction on the broad power of the President.

The President conducts foreign policy. Policy and treaty are two very distinct things.

The legislative branch has a very, very, narrow level of control in international affairs. It was framed that way.

Bringing foreign dignitaries in under these circumstances expands on the power and influence the legislative branch has, which, as I said, is extremely narrow.

Congress is not intended to play any part whatsoever in the conducting of foreign affairs and policy. Approving a treaty is a separate issue. The power of treaties is reactive while the power of the Executive in foreign policy is proactive.