Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Feel free to provide examples.
Republicans
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
Feel free to provide examples.
Cotton picking on his pen pal:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/03/15/3633912/tom-cotton-alarmed-capital-iran-controlled-iran/Tom Cotton said:
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
The '83-'85 congressional revolt that lead to the US enacting sanctions against South Africa immediately springs to mind.
There was McGovern's communication with Cuba. The Kissinger state dep't reviewed McGovern's trip to Cuba against the Logan Act and found: "Nothing in [the Act] would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution."
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Ted Kennedy was known for going where ever he wanted and talking to whomever he wanted.
J
J
Nancy Pelosi went to Syria back in 2007 with State Department logistical support, but some of the signatories to the Cotton letter claimed she should not have gone because it could be seen as undercutting the President as the unitary voice on foreign policy.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The congress legislated sanctions on South Africa, eventually overriding the veto and imposing a position on the President by weight of law. At no time did any member or members of congress present themselves to the government of South Africa, individually or collectively, as a representative in negotiations on behalf of the United States.
McGovern, like every presidential candidate before and since, communicated with foreign governments, along with everyone else, in terms of "this is my belief" and "if I am elected I will pursue..." The world generally understands the title "presidential candidate" and as a presidential candidate even a sitting Senator is not going to be taken as representative in negotiations on behalf of the United States.
These Senators, who by their limited number do not even represent the authority to legislate, presented themselves to a foreign government as the authority to reckon with in ongoing negotiations. They not only represented the Senate as a negotiating entity, which by law it is not, they misrepresented themselves in that there are not enough of them to even claim they represent the Senate.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
You can go anywhere you want and talk to anyone who will listen to you. Dennis Rodman can hang out in North Korea, but neither you, nor Rodman, nor a US Senator, can present themselves as a negotiating entity on behalf of the United States.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
What's your point? No one signing the letter presented themselves, "as a negotiating entity on behalf of the United States."
J
The whole point of the letter is to tell Iran that the Senators, not Obama is the final say for the U.S. on the negotiations. It's hard to tell if it's a pen pal relationship or if Iran has signed up for a correspondence course on U.S. law that would be better served by the Iranians watching a few clips of Schoolhouse Rock.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Iran has done nothing to indicate that they understand international law, much less the American system.
J
J
Which makes them the perfect pen pal for a gaggle of GOP Senators - they have much in common.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
What exactly are they presenting themselves as, in your opinion? I see no other way to read their letter myself. They present the congress as the 'real' authority, on congressional letterhead. What conclusion can be drawn other than that they are saying 'to negotiate you must come to us'?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution:
"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;"
Senators are members of the upper chamber of the legislature, which is 1/3 of the US government (executive and judicial branches being the other 2/3.) The letter was fudgingg asinine, but to suggest that, as US Senators, they cannot involve themselves in foreign affairs is simply an indefensible position. They -are- the US government, just as much as any other elected federal office holder is (like, say, a President.)
P.S. - Notice that says "He shall..." We sure were sexist back then.
P.P.S. - No, I'm not really back. This is a drive-by posting.
Shouldn't the Senators in question stick to the Constitution and provide advice and consent to the President or to they think that Iran is the President?
Smellincoffee
Trekkie At Large
As much as I like the idea of Congress pushing back against a century of executive power accretion, foreign affairs is one of the few things the Constitution delegates to the president. 
So..bad call.
So..bad call.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It seems pretty clear that the President heard them. That has not been the case on other issues.
J
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Yeah the letter was bad but to call the whole thing treasonous is ridiculous.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
As much as I like the idea of Congress pushing back against a century of executive power accretion, foreign affairs is one of the few things the Constitution delegates to the president.
The constitution states that only if the "Senate concurs" can a treaty be enforced in the US. If it doesn't get the stamp of approval, then it is not worth the piece of paper it is written on. Here is a good article by former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/18/a-un-vote-is-irrelevant-to-the-iran-deal/
The title says enough, but you can read the article if you want to.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Agreed that it is not treasonous. Why was it bad? It seems to have accomplished its purpose quite well.
An agreement does not become a treaty until ratified. This does not mean agreements have no value, only that it is not law.
J
Similar threads
- Locked
