And Congress is responsible for passing laws.
Obama bypassed that how many times?
The standard US policy is that there are no speeches/meetings from world leaders when an election is coming up. We do this in order to maintain some semblance of impropriety of not meddling in other countries politics.
The moron bhoener once again shows he's unfit to hold his position and continues to be one of the worst speakers of the house in history.
He's only coming in a bid to derail the Iran nuclear talks. I fail to see how that is at all in the US interest.
Inviting him now was petty and irresponsible.
I also remember Obama campaigning in Europe for Presidency of the United States.
In other words, "the sky is falling" reactions to Netanyahu speaking in front of congress is partisan at best.
Get over it.
I believe the President is responsible for all Diplomacy.
Article 2 Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
that's about all the Constitution says about it.. While it says the President shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers, it does not say only the President.
I do not know the minds of Congressional leadership, but I bet if someone wanted to use a Constitutional argument, it could be argued that since the President routinely ignores the part about laws being faithfully executed, then the part about meeting ambassadors can too be ignored.
on a slight tangent, I bet not many people know that the President is not required to deliver the State of the Union as a speech in front of Congress, nor is the Congress required to invite the President to speak. Up until Woodrow Wilson I believe, the SOTU was delivered to Congress as a letter.
anyway.. there really is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from inviting a foreign leader or anybody else to come speak at a joint session.
Read my link.
I also remember Obama campaigning in Europe for Presidency of the United States.
In other words, "the sky is falling" reactions to Netanyahu speaking in front of congress is partisan at best.
Get over it.
Correct. However this isn't "diplomacy".
This is about sanctions. Sanctions are done by Congress.
I don't understand the WH's prissy fit over this. I would understand if it was about diplomacy. E.g., Like a Congressional delegation going to visit a country we have suspended diplomatic relations with etc. This is completely different. Israel is an ally etc. No negotiations regarding Israel are to be held. Congress asked, and BN agreed, for him to come over and give his thoughts/info on the Iranian nuke issue.
Besides, Obama knew in advance he was coming. Umm, he hasn't been here yet and the Obama admin has been bitching about this for weeks.
I would also guess the State Dept knew. I would think the Israelis are going to need diplo visas to visit. Who knows who all they are bringing.
Congress has authority over who they invite to address them. I've never heard of this Presidential approval thing before.
Given the several times Obama has proceeded without Congressional approval (giving away the 5 AQ prisoners, bombing Libya etc) it's more than "rich" that he bitches about this.
If Obama doesn't want to meet with him, fine. But these juvenile hysterics are over-the-top.
Fern
Article 2 Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
that's about all the Constitution says about it.. While it says the President shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers, it does not say only the President.
I do not know the minds of Congressional leadership, but I bet if someone wanted to use a Constitutional argument, it could be argued that since the President routinely ignores the part about laws being faithfully executed, then the part about meeting ambassadors can too be ignored.
on a slight tangent, I bet not many people know that the President is not required to deliver the State of the Union as a speech in front of Congress, nor is the Congress required to invite the President to speak. Up until Woodrow Wilson I believe, the SOTU was delivered to Congress as a letter.
anyway.. there really is nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from inviting a foreign leader or anybody else to come speak at a joint session.
Giving a speech is not diplomacy. At times different people have spoke before congress like church leaders. Usually it is because they have a unique perspective that is not being addressed. Since the president is a failure on the world stage and only talks to Islamic Terrorist Groups like CARE and the Muslim Brotherhood, the House has a right and a responsibility to hear from both sides. At times the president seems to care only about Muslims and seems to have hatred for white people and Christians.
Obama hasn't played nice with Congress and I'm shocked that Congress doesn't play nice with Obama....shocked I tell you!
That's an interesting reading. I'm sure a since it only says shall it doesn't mean only the President can give the state of the union, can execute the laws of the US, and can Commission officers of the US.
That passage also says the President shall make recommendations to Congress. Are you suggesting that nobody else is allowed to make recommendations to Congress?
The reason Congress can't execute the laws of the US isn't because the President shall do so, it is because Congress wasn't given executive power to do so. Congress, however, does have the legislative power, which includes the power to gather information to guide them. Since a foreign leader is capable of providing such information, Congress has the power to consult said foreign leader.
How on earth are sanctions not diplomacy. That's a new one.
This is such a grave breach of how things are done I've been genuinely surprised to see near universal condemnation from across the political spectrum. Only the ultra right seems to think it is a good idea.
If you run part of congress you don't invite a foreign leader to come to your legislative chamber and attack your own country's foreign policy. I can't believe this even needs to be said. It was exceptionally foolish. Boehner saw an attempt to score political points and took it without thinking. Now it has backfired.
Definitely a dumb idea but I doubt either gives a shit about anything except their own agendas at this point. The bridges have been burned.Who cares about playing nice? Presenting a fragmented foreign policy where the legislature tries to undercut the head of state is a dumb idea for America.
Nice ideas are dumb sometimes. Not-nice ideas are dumb sometimes. This idea is dumb. Just another example of people acting irresponsibly.
The president is the head of state. Congress, by inviting another head of state to give a policy speech in opposition to the US head of state's policy it is conducting a parallel foreign policy in opposition to official US foreign policy. This is a really bad idea for reasons that should be obvious.
Congress is not asking him for information. It is inviting him to give a policy speech. If they just wanted information he could have just emailed it. The idea that this is for informational purposes only fools literally no one.
I mean, come on.
The CBD needs a world full of psychosis and home grown villains to thrive.
It's a far worse idea for the head of state to deny a request by Congress to have a foreign leader present a speech to Congress when said head of state could have easily extended an invitation to the foreign leader to give the speech while expressing his regret that the office of the President cannot formally receive him because of a policy not to receive foreign leaders shortly before an upcoming election.
Frankly, the President's behavior sends a message that he is opposed to the foreign leader shortly before the election, so the President has failed to adhere to the policy of neutrality.
A policy speech provides information. Further, the U.S. has a policy of recognizing information presented verbally as an important source. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments and trial courts require witnesses to appear to provide oral testimony rather than simply submitting a written statement under penalty of perjury.
It doesn't matter at all if it is for information purposes only, it is sufficient that even a tiny sliver is for informational purposes.