Full Version: Is Pelosi exceeding her Constitutional powers?
House Speaker Pelosi visits Baghdad
The Pelosi delegation visited the heavily fortified Green Zone, site of the American Embassy, and met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, in brief remarks after the meeting.
Now, to be clear, Pelosi isn't anywhere near the first Congresscritter to make this sort of trip, and Iraq isn't the first foreign country to be a destination. Yet I find it odd that so many people, primarily on the Left, have continually slammed President Bush for trashing the separation of powers and/or working outside of the Constitution (as they see it), yet this visit appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers. Foreign policy is the bailiwick of the Executive, not Congress. Congress's expressed role in foreign policy is for the Senate to approve (advice and consent) treaties. The President is the one charged with appointing ambassadors, and receiving ambassadors, i.e., diplomacy.
So, the questions for debate:
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
The Pelosi delegation visited the heavily fortified Green Zone, site of the American Embassy, and met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, in brief remarks after the meeting.
Now, to be clear, Pelosi isn't anywhere near the first Congresscritter to make this sort of trip, and Iraq isn't the first foreign country to be a destination. Yet I find it odd that so many people, primarily on the Left, have continually slammed President Bush for trashing the separation of powers and/or working outside of the Constitution (as they see it), yet this visit appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers. Foreign policy is the bailiwick of the Executive, not Congress. Congress's expressed role in foreign policy is for the Senate to approve (advice and consent) treaties. The President is the one charged with appointing ambassadors, and receiving ambassadors, i.e., diplomacy.
So, the questions for debate:
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
Um, NO, not in the least, not even a little bit, and comparing it to GW is, well silly. We are not talking about spying on US citizens here, from the article you provided, bold part done by me:
were in the Iraqi capital Friday at the head of a delegation of House members on a fact-finding mission as the White House and Congress dueled over the expansion of U.S. forces in Iraq.
I will go a step farther- she was doing her job making sure one of the worst presidents in US history hasn't either A) Lied
been to stupid to breath (again) C) Mischaracterized the issues.
Pelosi has a DUTY to go to Iraq and investigate the presidents actions in Iraq, as regards to the "power of the purse" as a part of a check and balance against Executive branch's attempt to form a dictatorship.
ANY lawmaker can go on a "fact finding mission" when it comes to what they are spending our money on- in fact, has a duty to do so. This has been, on occasion, very dangerous for the lawmaker- anyone remember Jim Jones cult, and the lawmaker that died on THAT "fact finding" mission?
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
Not even close- now, had she sought to usurp executive power and order the troops out- we would have a problem- but simply visiting there and going on a fact finding mission is just fine, and her duty as a lawmaker.
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
Looks like the only place the constitution needs to be amended in towards the executive branch in the following areas:
1) Can not commit troops for more than 10 days in any action, without a 2/3 majority vote from both houses
2) Can go to jail for not disclosing ALL evidence to lawmakers from both houses dealing with the mobilizing of troops
3) Anything sustained more than a year should have a national vote, 2/3 majority, every year troops are mobilized.
4) May NEVER override a judicial request for documents, notes or anything, ever, when subpoened, under pain of death for any cabinet member level and above that does not comply within 24 hours. Shredded documents carry the same penalty.
MORE judicial and legislative checks are needed for executive power- NOT less.
Um, NO, not in the least, not even a little bit, and comparing it to GW is, well silly. We are not talking about spying on US citizens here, from the article you provided, bold part done by me:
were in the Iraqi capital Friday at the head of a delegation of House members on a fact-finding mission as the White House and Congress dueled over the expansion of U.S. forces in Iraq.
I will go a step farther- she was doing her job making sure one of the worst presidents in US history hasn't either A) Lied
been to stupid to breath (again) C) Mischaracterized the issues. Pelosi has a DUTY to go to Iraq and investigate the presidents actions in Iraq, as regards to the "power of the purse" as a part of a check and balance against Executive branch's attempt to form a dictatorship.
ANY lawmaker can go on a "fact finding mission" when it comes to what they are spending our money on- in fact, has a duty to do so. This has been, on occasion, very dangerous for the lawmaker- anyone remember Jim Jones cult, and the lawmaker that died on THAT "fact finding" mission?
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
Not even close- now, had she sought to usurp executive power and order the troops out- we would have a problem- but simply visiting there and going on a fact finding mission is just fine, and her duty as a lawmaker.
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
Looks like the only place the constitution needs to be amended in towards the executive branch in the following areas:
1) Can not commit troops for more than 10 days in any action, without a 2/3 majority vote from both houses
2) Can go to jail for not disclosing ALL evidence to lawmakers from both houses dealing with the mobilizing of troops
3) Anything sustained more than a year should have a national vote, 2/3 majority, every year troops are mobilized.
4) May NEVER override a judicial request for documents, notes or anything, ever, when subpoened, under pain of death for any cabinet member level and above that does not comply within 24 hours. Shredded documents carry the same penalty.
MORE judicial and legislative checks are needed for executive power- NOT less.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jan 26 2007, 01:13 PM) 
House Speaker Pelosi visits Baghdad
The Pelosi delegation visited the heavily fortified Green Zone, site of the American Embassy, and met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the others' point of view," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, in brief remarks after the meeting.
Now, to be clear, Pelosi isn't anywhere near the first Congresscritter to make this sort of trip, and Iraq isn't the first foreign country to be a destination. Yet I find it odd that so many people, primarily on the Left, have continually slammed President Bush for trashing the separation of powers and/or working outside of the Constitution (as they see it), yet this visit appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers. Foreign policy is the bailiwick of the Executive, not Congress. Congress's expressed role in foreign policy is for the Senate to approve (advice and consent) treaties. The President is the one charged with appointing ambassadors, and receiving ambassadors, i.e., diplomacy.
So, the questions for debate:
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
No. They have the right and perhaps, if they are to be involved as she is in the foreign policy debate, the duty to go and see for herself and the people who she represents. This is not a “treaty” issue but a visit to an ally in a war.
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
NO
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
There is nothing to my knowledge that prevents this and I see no reason to “add” anything either.
QUOTE
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
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 declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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 declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
the Constitution
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
I take from the question that there is a conclusion from the author that this is the case. But I don't see it and look forward to reading the author's take on this. Congress, both houses, has a significant role in the foreign policy of the United States. If anything, by not declaring war, Congress has abrogated its responsibility. I don't see any attempt to wrest powers from the commander in chief, but I do see Congresspeople investigating the war that they are paying for and seeing the conditions that their constituents are being placed in.
2) Is Pelosi treading upon Senatorial territory?
The lower house has the power of the purse. So no, not encroaching on the Senate unless Pelosi is negotiating a treaty.
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
I don't see the need at all. I think the above clauses all allow for these Congressional visits.
Again, I wait to read the argument implied in the question.
The answer to questions 1 & 2 is "no" and to question 3 the answer is - "it isn't necessary." The Yahoo story you linked says nothing to support this idea. Neither does this AP story from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/26/...D8MT4N7G0.shtml
As far back as I can remember members of Congress have visited War Zones.
I can’t find any such interpretation on even the most virulent talk radio show, though I wouldn’t bet on it not being there. Was this your original idea; if not, where did you get it.
You once accused some of us of being "anal retentive" about asking that Congress make a formal declarations of war as the Constitution demands. Uh.
This thread is much ado about nothing. Case closed.
BTW: The U. S. House of Representives does have a "Committee on Foreign Affairs."
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/
The mere existence of this committee suggests a House oversight function. What do you suggest they do, sit around twiddling their thumbs as an "augmentation" to Bush's "fiddling while Rome burns"?
QUOTE
(AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, both vocal war critics, were in the Iraqi capital Friday at the head of a delegation of House members on a fact-finding mission as the White House and Congress dueled over the expansion of U.S. forces in Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/26/...D8MT4N7G0.shtml
As far back as I can remember members of Congress have visited War Zones.
I can’t find any such interpretation on even the most virulent talk radio show, though I wouldn’t bet on it not being there. Was this your original idea; if not, where did you get it.
You once accused some of us of being "anal retentive" about asking that Congress make a formal declarations of war as the Constitution demands. Uh.
This thread is much ado about nothing. Case closed.
BTW: The U. S. House of Representives does have a "Committee on Foreign Affairs."
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/
The mere existence of this committee suggests a House oversight function. What do you suggest they do, sit around twiddling their thumbs as an "augmentation" to Bush's "fiddling while Rome burns"?
Now, to be clear, Pelosi isn't anywhere near the first Congresscritter to make this sort of trip, and Iraq isn't the first foreign country to be a destination. Yet I find it odd that so many people, primarily on the Left, have continually slammed President Bush for trashing the separation of powers and/or working outside of the Constitution (as they see it), yet this visit appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers. Foreign policy is the bailiwick of the Executive, not Congress. Congress's expressed role in foreign policy is for the Senate to approve (advice and consent) treaties. The President is the one charged with appointing ambassadors, and receiving ambassadors, i.e., diplomacy.
So, the questions for debate:
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
Absolutely not, their trip was part of a "fact-finding" mission, something they are more than entitled to carry out. There has never been a provision or court case about barring such visits. It would be difficult for them to pass laws regarding foreign policy or other matters if they themselves did not take a look at what was going on.
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
[/quote]
Absolutely not. You could argue that such visits are part of the legislative branch's power to pass laws.
So, the questions for debate:
1) Are Pelosi and other such Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle overstepping the separation of powers?
Absolutely not, their trip was part of a "fact-finding" mission, something they are more than entitled to carry out. There has never been a provision or court case about barring such visits. It would be difficult for them to pass laws regarding foreign policy or other matters if they themselves did not take a look at what was going on.
3) Should the Constitution be amended to reflect this practice?
[/quote]
Absolutely not. You could argue that such visits are part of the legislative branch's power to pass laws.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.