Congress of State

twofbyc · Mar 10, 2015

Tidewater said:
Well, I don't know. All the Senators did was to remind the Iranians (and the President, incidentally) that any deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons will run aground in the Senate and not be ratified. Then all that will be left will be an Executive Agreement, which, if resorted to, can be overturned by the next President.

Congress is not intended to be bystanders in foreign policy. For example, in the 1790s, Congress passed a statute authorizing the President to have the Navy intercept neutral ships bound for any French port. Capt. George Little intercepted a Danish ship headed from a French port. Capt. Little was sued for damages, and lost. The Supreme Court said Congress had the supremacy even over the orders of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Little was liable for the damages to the Danish ship owner. That gives you an idea of how involved the Founders wanted Congress in foreign affairs.

As for Congress passing laws over the last few years, if the Democrats had just knuckled under and done whatever the Republicans wanted, there would have been lots of laws passed. The budget would have been passed on time, there would have been no shutdowns, everything would be peachy keen in Washington. If only the Democrats had done whatever the Republicans wanted.

I just now stopped laughing. Like everything the Republicans proposed was the right thing to do...wow, that's a good one. Did you forget the blue font?

twofbyc · Mar 10, 2015

Tidewater said:
Well, I don't know. All the Senators did was to remind the Iranians (and the President, incidentally) that any deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons will run aground in the Senate and not be ratified. Then all that will be left will be an Executive Agreement, which, if resorted to, can be overturned by the next President.

Congress is not intended to be bystanders in foreign policy. For example, in the 1790s, Congress passed a statute authorizing the President to have the Navy intercept neutral ships bound for any French port. Capt. George Little intercepted a Danish ship headed from a French port. Capt. Little was sued for damages, and lost. The Supreme Court said Congress had the supremacy even over the orders of the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Little was liable for the damages to the Danish ship owner. That gives you an idea of how involved the Founders wanted Congress in foreign affairs.

As for Congress passing laws over the last few years, if the Democrats had just knuckled under and done whatever the Republicans wanted, there would have been lots of laws passed. The budget would have been passed on time, there would have been no shutdowns, everything would be peachy keen in Washington. If only the Democrats had done whatever the Republicans wanted.

They have no right granted by the Constitution to negotiate them either.

Tidewater · Mar 11, 2015

twofbyc said:
I just now stopped laughing. Like everything the Republicans proposed was the right thing to do...wow, that's a good one. Did you forget the blue font?

I did forget the blue font, actually.
My point was that in a republic, various entities (or factions within an entity) have certain powers and prerogatives. If one faction says, "Screw you. I am going to do what I want. I neither want nor care if the other faction comes along," then, well, the world turns, and majorities are temporary things. For cooperation to happen, both factions have to decide to cooperate. If either (or both) decline to cooperate, things get bumpy.

Tidewater · Mar 11, 2015

twofbyc said:
They have no right granted by the Constitution to negotiate them either.

If only all provisions of the Constitution were interpreted that narrowly...

You are correct, though, the Senate does not have much power in the way of negotiating with foreign entities.
They do have the power to grant or withhold consent from whatever comes out of the President's negotiating.
I took what they said as declaring that a bad deal will not get their consent.

I think it is not entirely certain that this President is unequivocally opposed to Iran getting their bloody hands on nuclear weapons. I think he really wants an agreement with Iran on his resume, and may be willing to turn a blind eye to loopholes that will enable Iran to get a nuke at some point down the road.
I don't live in Tel Aviv, New York or Washington (or the downwind fallout zone of either), so I am not worried.
Looking at his performance in the cases of Bergdahl and Cuba, I'm not too impressed with this President's negotiating prowess.

Bama Reb · Mar 11, 2015

Tidewater said:
If only all provisions of the Constitution were interpreted that narrowly...

You are correct, though, the Senate does not have much power in the way of negotiating with foreign entities.
They do have the power to grant or withhold consent from whatever comes out of the President's negotiating.
I took what they said as declaring that a bad deal will not get their consent.

I think it is not entirely certain that this President is unequivocally opposed to Iran getting their bloody hands on nuclear weapons. I think he really wants an agreement with Iran on his resume, and may be willing to turn a blind eye to loopholes that will enable Iran to get a nuke at some point down the road.
I don't live in Tel Aviv, New York or Washington (or the downwind fallout zone of either), so I am not worried.
Looking at his performance in the cases of Bergdahl and Cuba, I'm not too impressed with this President's negotiating prowess.

Neither does he, nor is he worried what will happen when Iran eventually a obtains nuclear weapon. Why should he worry? He'll be living in Hawaii..

bamacon · Mar 11, 2015

Displaced Bama Fan said:
Yep that's pretty dumb. Like BiB said, the Senate's role is to approve any treaties, not negotiate them. That's the Prez's role. While I don't particularly care for the current Prez, I still respect his Constitutional role.

Which here routinely ignores while also ignoring the role CONGRESS has. They are sick of it. Really, both parties should be concerned because they should promote the power they have. The executive branch was destined to become more and more powerful over time. After the end runs Obama has constantly done this should surprise NO ONE save for the fact they actually showed some backbone.

bamacon · Mar 11, 2015

twofbyc said:
They have no right granted by the Constitution to negotiate them either.

And nobody said they did. All they did was tell Iran that just because the President routinely ignores the Constitution doesn't mean we will.

cbi1972 · Mar 11, 2015

bamacon said:
And nobody said they did. All they did was tell Iran that just because the President routinely ignores the Constitution doesn't mean we will.

They will, though.

bamacon · Mar 11, 2015

cbi1972 said:
They will, though.

True that

Tidewater · Mar 11, 2015

cbi1972 said:
They will, though.

Two things.
First, taking no action means the treaty is disapproved. It takes a positive act (of a super-majority of the Senate) to ratify. Inaction means defeat for any treaty.
Second, I think that, while the Senate generally gives lip service to American interests, it takes Israeli interest much more seriously and I do not think the Israelis are keen to allow the Iranians to get a nuke.

bamacon · Mar 11, 2015

twofbyc said:
They have no right granted by the Constitution to negotiate them either.

While they aren't necessarily involved in direct negotiations it is odd that they would be left out entirely from discussions as to what the President was proposing. Usually if you know that you need their support on it later it makes sense to keep them in the loop and even ask their thoughts. Obama simply doesn't care what they think. He has used that approach with the opposition party his entire administration. This is nothing new.

Tidewater · Mar 12, 2015

This is pretty funny.
The Logan Act of 1799, "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.”
There is a petition on line with 165,000 signatures calling for the Republican Senators to be tried for "treason."

bamacon · Mar 12, 2015

Tidewater said:
This is pretty funny.
The Logan Act of 1799, "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.”
There is a petition on line with 165,000 signatures calling for the Republican Senators to be tried for "treason."

What's funny is that if you asked, the Repubs would probably appoint an independent counsel to investigate their action, and then they would prosecute themselves to prove they aren't what the Dems and media call them.

Tidewater · Mar 12, 2015

BamainBoston said:
People can be really stupid.

I can see accusing them of bad taste, inappropriate conduct or counterproductivce behavior. But treason?

Timberline Tide · Mar 12, 2015

The Parties’ Role Reversal on “Interfering” with the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Tidewater · Mar 12, 2015

Timberline Tide said:
The Parties’ Role Reversal on “Interfering” with the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Interesting choice of words. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Foreign policy is something slightly different. Clausewitz said war is subordinate to politik.

Search

Congress of State

twofbyc

Hall of Fame

twofbyc

Hall of Fame

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

Bama Reb

Suspended

bamacon

Hall of Fame

bamacon

Hall of Fame

cbi1972

Hall of Fame

bamacon

Hall of Fame

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

bamacon

Hall of Fame

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

bamacon

Hall of Fame

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

Timberline Tide

All-American

Tidewater

Hall of Fame

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!