The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[DougHeil]

I don't really care about the who's fault is it that Obama didn't give his blessing for this visit/speech. What matters to me and Most Americans is the substance of Benji's speech. I actually thought it disrespectful of Congress to bypass Obama, but I also equally thought Obama and his entire admin boycotted the right of free speech.

I propose a 3 state trade. Don't worry, it works in the trade machine.

America gets:

Prime Minister Benji of Israel

Iran gets = Mr. Obama and a Delly sandwich

Israel gets = Their pick of any current American Congressman plus one more future top star of Congress. 2 for 1.

President of the United States = President Benji

 

[OptimusPrime]

Yeah, they can keep Bibi. And I'll send them everyone in Washington. And I ask for nothing in return.

 

[AZ_]

Holy shit it's a DougHeil sighting

 

[gourimoko]

I didn't see it, but I'm sure I already know what he said. It doesn't matter, he shouldn't have been here. According to the Constitution it is the authority of the president to receive these foreign heads of state. Not the Congress.

Point blank...

And yes -- I agree with him on the issue (surprise surprise)... But he shouldn't have been here.

 

[gourimoko]

I propose a 3 state trade. Don't worry, it works in the trade machine.

America gets:

Prime Minister Benji of Israel

Iran gets = Mr. Obama and a Delly sandwich

Israel gets = Their pick of any current American Congressman plus one more future top star of Congress. 2 for 1.

President of the United States = President Benji

Oh.. so should I pack my bags now or after the deadline? How will the concentration/refugee camps be here in the States? Do I need to buy sunscreen or will I have shelter? I was thinking of building a house, but maybe that's not a good idea considering the shelling of the ghettos...

Hmm... so many decisions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Fuck that guy... It's disturbing that we're so comfortable with foreign leaders coming here and seemingly usurping our own President. Democrat or Republican, it was disrespectful.

What does "seemingly usurping" even mean? He has zero authority in this country, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

He was invited by Congress to come here and speak to Congress. The only impact he can possibly have is persuasive, just like every other person Congress calls to testify or otherwise address that body. And Congress certainly has the right to oppose a Presidential policy if it believes that policy to not be in the national interest.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

According to the Constitution it is the authority of the president to receive these foreign heads of state. Not the Congress.

The Constitution does not limit Congress' right to ask anyone to speak in front of it.

There seems to be this weird belief on the part of some that Congress is a subservient, or lesser branch, and that it is required to obtain the President's permission to do things like this. It is a co-equal branch, and is under no obligation to defer to the President on anything unless its authority on a particular issue is expressly limited by the Constitution.

 

[macbdog]

What does "seemingly usurping" even mean? He has zero authority in this country, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

He was invited by Congress to come here and speak to Congress. The only impact he can possibly have is persuasive, just like every other person Congress calls to testify or otherwise address that body. And Congress certainly has the right to oppose a Presidential policy if it believes that policy to not be in the national interest.

Pretty much. Now, we all know Benji's purpose for the speech was about boosting his profile prior to elections and our Congress obliged. However, I would think being the head of one of the two countries that Iranians gather to wish death upon after prayer time each Friday would mean he has a viewpoint worth listening to.

 

[gourimoko]

What does "seemingly usurping" even mean? He has zero authority in this country, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

He was invited by Congress to come here and speak to Congress. The only impact he can possibly have is persuasive, just like every other person Congress calls to testify or otherwise address that body. And Congress certainly has the right to oppose a Presidential policy if it believes that policy to not be in the national interest.

How can you ask what it means when 3 people have already commented on this page. Are you actually more partisan than DougHeil?

Is anyone thinking about the future? From now on, whenever the opposition party happens to control Congress — a common enough occurrence — it may call in a foreign leader to speak to a joint meeting of Congress against a president and his policies. Think of how this might have played out in the past. A Democratic-controlled Congress in the 1980s might, for instance, have called the Nobel Prize-winning Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to denounce President Ronald Reagan’s policies in Central America. A Democratic-controlled Congress in 2003 might have called French President Jacques Chirac to oppose President George W. Bush’s impending war in Iraq.

Does that sound implausible? Yes, it was implausible — until now. Now we are sailing into uncharted waters. Those who favor having Netanyahu speak may imagine this is an extraordinary situation requiring extraordinary measures, that one side is so clearly right, the other so clearly wrong. Yet that is often how people feel about the crisis of their time. We can be sure that in the future the urgency will seem just as great. The only difference between then and now is that today, bringing a foreign leader before Congress to challenge a U.S. president’s policies is unprecedented. After next week, it will be just another weapon in our bitter partisan struggle.

--Robert Kagan, Brookings Institute

 

[OptimusPrime]

The Constitution does not limit Congress' right to ask anyone to speak in front of it.

There seems to be this weird belief on the part of some that Congress is a subservient, or lesser branch, and that it is required to obtain the President's permission to do things like this. It is a co-equal branch, and is under no obligation to defer to the President on anything unless its authority on a particular issue is expressly limited by the Constitution.

Congress doesn't have rights. Congress has duties specifically laid out in the Constitution, none of which are receiving foreign diplomats or heads of state. The executive branch, however, does have that specific duty.

Their excuse is that the president has ignored the Constitution, which is 100% true, so they will do it too. I don't care if the president finds that disrespectful, I have no respect for the president. It is disrespectful to everyone who lives in this country and should expect the federal government to be bound by it's agreement.

 

[gourimoko]

Pretty much. Now, we all know Benji's purpose for the speech was about boosting his profile prior to elections and our Congress obliged. However, I would think being the head of one of the two countries that Iranians gather to wish death upon after prayer time each Friday would mean he has a viewpoint worth listening to.

It's not that Netanyahu isn't worth listening to, it's that the President specifically was bypassed.

That's a very disrespectful thing for another foreign leader to do. He's marginalizing our President. That's beyond politics.

Partisanship stops at the border.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How can you ask what it means when 3 people have already commented on this page. Are you actually more partisan than DougHeil?

Congress is absolutely within its own Constitutional authority to invite Netanyahu (or anyone else) to speak. There is no Presidential power being usurped. Just Presidential feelings getting hurt.

We can be sure that in the future the urgency will seem just as great. The only difference between then and now is that today, bringing a foreign leader before Congress to challenge a U.S. president’s policies is unprecedented. After next week, it will be just another weapon in our bitter partisan struggle.

--Robert Kagan, Brookings Institute

So what? It is equally unprecedented for a President to so blatantly ignore Congressional input on a key foreign relations question, including negotiating a deal like this without any intention of submitting it to the Senate, and asking Congress not to even discuss a bill to increase trade sanctions on Iran -- which is one of the relatively few specifically enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

The President himself has engaged in a number of "unprecedented" actions of his own as a way to evade Congressional authority. He's not only breached "protocol" by releasing Gitmo detainees without providing notice to Congress, he's breached an actual law requiring such notice. And, he's made it clear that he'll go to the absolute limits of his legal authority to accomplish his agenda, regardless of past practices or custom.

He's made it absolutely clear that the only thing that matters to him is the end result, not the process for getting there. So I'm glad to see Congress has figured out the same thing. Kagan's just butthurt that Congress is no longer just bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Congress doesn't have rights. Congress has duties specifically laid out in the Constitution, none of which are receiving foreign diplomats or heads of state. The executive branch, however, does have that specific duty.

Sure it does. It has the right to set its own procedures for carrying out its constitutionally-directed powers, which includes passing bills relating to foreign trade, etc.. There is nothing in the Constitution limiting whose input it may seek in carrying out that function.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's not that Netanyahu isn't worth listening to, it's that the President specifically was bypassed.

Again, Congress is a coequal branch. It is not required to obtain Presidential approval or consent when inviting someone to speak. The assumption that Congress' right to hear Netanyahu is contingent upon the President's approval is simply wrong.

That's a very disrespectful thing for another foreign leader to do. He's marginalizing our President. That's beyond politics.

It's Congress that has been marginalized by the President. And it is now fighting back.

Partisanship stops at the border.

That's good, because this is happening within our borders. Within the walls of Congress itself, actually.

The bottom line is that Congress is not obligated to follow the President's lead on matters of foreign policy. Never has been.

 

[gourimoko]

Congress is absolutely within its own Constitutional authority to invite Netanyahu (or anyone else) to speak. There is no Presidential power being usurped. Just Presidential feelings getting hurt.

Nonsense.

So what?

A constitutional tradition that runs back to George Washington has always placed the nation’s President in the preeminent position to conduct foreign policy without interference or embarrassment from any source – including Congress. President Washington started that tradition by flatly refusing a demand by the House of Representatives to turn over the secret papers about the negotiations with Britain of the “Jay Treaty,” ending the hostility that had lingered since American independence.

John Marshall, as a member of the House in 1800 (before he became the nation’s Chief Justice), made a bold comment that has reverberated down through the nation’s history since: “The President is the sole organ of the nation in external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”

In one of the Supreme Court’s strongest endorsements of that very idea, the Justices – with only one dissent – declared in 1936 that the centrality of the presidency in the nation’s foreign relations actually predated the Constitution, and when America became independent, the national government inherited the power that the English kings had over their American colonies’ dealings with other nations. With the new Constitution, the court said, that authority was lodged in the presidency.

That ruling, in the case of U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, has never been abandoned by the Court even though some of the language in the opinion has disturbing overtones of an imperial presidency.

--National Constitution Center