Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[DinoDoc]

Well to be fair, Kuci. They can end war as well.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Oooh scary nonbinding resolutions... political posturing.

Where do you get the idea that such resolutions are "non-binding"? Did you hear that word being thrown around in the media?

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Can you read?

I'm not the one having a problem with this tonight.

I've had enough for now. I think I'd rather talk with the 4th graders that my sister teaches. It seems like they would have an easier time understanding this material.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


As I said before, the House has the power to declare war. No more.

And as I said before... you are wrong.

Don't let pride prevent you from learning more about how the US government works.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

As I said before, the House has the power to declare war. No more.

Strictly on the text of the constitution, the House has the power to declare war, yes, as well as the power to regulate international commerce; and the president has the power to command the armed forces, make treaties, and appoint ambassadors. We are not going to war with Syria, and its unlikely that we will sign any treaties with Syria in the near future, so no one has jurisdiction. The Executive branch has traditionally claimed jurisdiction in cases like these (every president has to have his Mideast Peace Plan), but there is no constitutional reason that it has to be the president.

And for what its worth, the House actually has the power to pass binding resolutions, they just generally don't like to out of deference to the executive. Clearly, that is a deference that they no longer have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Admiral
Strictly on the text of the constitution, the House has the power to declare war, yes, as well as the power to regulate international commerce; and the president has the power to command the armed forces, make treaties, and appoint ambassadors. We are not going to war with Syria, and its unlikely that we will sign any treaties with Syria in the near future, so no one has jurisdiction. The Executive branch has traditionally claimed jurisdiction in cases like these (every president has to have his Mideast Peace Plan), but there is no constitutional reason that it has to be the president.

And for what its worth, the House actually has the power to pass binding resolutions, they just generally don't like to out of deference to the executive. Clearly, that is a deference that they no longer have.

Exactly... I wonder why some like to focus on the strict text of the Constitution to decide what powers the House has, but want to ignore that when the power of the Executive Branch comes up.

As pointed out, we aren't at war with Syria, and we aren't negotiating a treaty there, so using the same logic as those slamming Pelosi, one can say there is no reason for Condi Rice to be in Syria except for political posturing.

A lot of the powers over foreign affairs comes from an interpretation over Constitutional powers (as well as common law traditions involving the King's executive powers and Parliament's privileges right before the revolution). I'd imagine a body having the power to declare war, control over international commerce, the ability to define & punish offenses of international law, and having control of the general purse strings of the Republic confers some inferred power over foreign affairs. Not as much as the executive, but definitely enough to allow the head of the House the ability to attempt to influence foreign affairs.

[Kuciwalker]

The State Department (and its secretary) rather obviously ought to be involved with other nations. The House was pretty clearly conceived of as handling domestic affairs - even the power to regulate international commerce [with the United States] is at least as much a domestic affair as foreign.

And the ability to define and punish offenses of international law is really stretching it as a justification for general House involvement in foreign relations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The State Department (and its secretary) rather obviously ought to be involved with other nations. The House was pretty clearly conceived of as handling domestic affairs - even the power to regulate international commerce [with the United States] is at least as much a domestic affair as foreign.

And the ability to define and punish offenses of international law is really stretching it as a justification for general House involvement in foreign relations.

Ah, let us see what the State Department thinks:

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
June 1, 1999

Abstract

The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy. This report reviews and illustrates 12 basic ways that the United States can make foreign policy. The practices illustrated in this report indicate that making foreign policy is a complex process, and that the support of both branches is required for a strong and effective U.S. foreign policy. For a detailed discussion of how war-making powers are shared, see War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance.

Note: Treaty Ratification is NOT referenced as one of the important roles of Congress, since it only applies to one house of Congress.

Simple and concurrent resolutions also serve as a channel of communication between Congress and foreign countries. While often the communications to foreign governments are formal messages of sympathy, congratulations, and appreciation, at other times they are more substantive. H. Con. Res. 484 of August 8, 1988, called on President Zia of Pakistan, consistent with his pledge of May 29, 1988, to hold free and fair elections not later than November 16, 1988. H. Con. Res. 136 of May 24, 1989, called on the Chinese Government to resolve the political crisis in China without violence. Congress annually passed resolutions calling for Baltic Freedom and commemorating "Captive Nations Week" from 1959 until independence was achieved by Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in 1991.

To claim the role of the House was to have an almost non-existent role in foreign affairs is absolutely ludicrous. The power of the purse by itself gives it an incredible stick in domestic and foreign affairs (it allows oversight of the State Department, initiating funding laws for international programs, threatening to pull funding for international programs, etc).

As the State Dept article states, the House's power as a legislative body is essential in foreign affairs and that power has been used to great effect; but of course that means that someone like the Speaker of the House has no business going overseas to try to influence foreign policy .

[Admiral]

Yes, but the State Dept is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution.

Here's the thing. The House rarely delves into foreign policy, because individual member's constituents rarely care about foreign policy. But we just so happen to be at a point when actually quite a lot of Americans care about foreign policy, so you see members of Congress behaving accordingly. Does that make it a political stunt? Possibly, but in that case so is everything else the House does.

And frankly, Bush hasn't shown himself to be great with the negotiations. I think that it might be helpful for foreign leaders to interact with officials who aren't beholden to the president.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, but the State Dept is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution.

I'm not talking about explicit sanction. I cited the Constitution for the House because its powers are defined by that. The powers of the State Dept are defined by partly by statute and partly by the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

I will educate you, on the other hand. The Constitutional powers of the House wrt foreign relations is limited to declarations of war.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Prez on the other hand becomes CinC when Congress calls upon him to lead the military in time of war, and he negotiates treaties on behalf of the Senate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes, but the State Dept is not explicitly sanctioned by the Constitution.

I'm not talking about explicit sanction. I cited the Constitution for the House because its powers are defined by that. The powers of the State Dept are defined by partly by statute and partly by the Constitution.

A statute passed by Congress, exercising its powers defined by the Constitution .

Obviously the Congress cannot create an executive agency that has greater powers than those granted to the executive and legislative branches in the Constitution.

[SlowwHand]

[Admiral]

The point is, there are really no valid constitutional criticisms of Pelosi's trip. Which is not to say that there are no valid criticisms of Pelosi's trip. There are.

[Deity Dude]

Has anyone ever heardof the Logan Act.

What Pelosi did is punishable by fine or 3 years imprisonment.

Logan Act below:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

[Admiral]

Which is entirely irrelevant to Pelosi's trip. Its a frikkin Congressional delegation. She has the authority of the United States. And btw, everyone goes on them. In 1997, Gingrich went to China, and angered the Clinton administration when he took a significantly harder line on Taiwan than Clinton wanted to take.