Tweet
Imran, let's keep current politics out of the discussion of the following.
It is my understanding that the executive conducts foreign policy and the legislature approves it or does not approve it by ratifying treaties, confirming abassadors and generals, legislating in the area of international commerce and funding the executive.
Legislative fact finding is as old as the hills and generally does not comprised "conducting" foreign policy as the legislators cannot agree to anything that would legally bind the United States. But, when the legislature asserts the power on the one had to cut off funding for a war, to set delines, to control troop deployment, etc., etc., and on the other begins direct negotiations with foreign leaders that are involved in the conflict to one degree or another, that combination is going a bit too far. The legislature is negotiating in a way that can affect the United States because the legislature can, in some measure, deliver on its promises by exercising the above-referenced power.
The combination of negotiation plus the power to act to carry out any aggreements is the problem. It is a major, if not total, ursurpation of excective-branch function to be the exclusive "conductor" of foreign policy. If it were not for the veto, the president may actually lose total control over foreign policy under these circumstances. But if he has to resort to the veto to control the legislature's foreign policy, he basically is no longer in control and is no longer conducting foreign policy.
No foreign leader will listen to him as they know they will have to deal instead with the legislature. The armed forces will now pay attention to the legislature which is calling the shots in every regard. The presidency will be reduced to a figurehead.
It is my understanding that the executive conducts foreign policy and the legislature approves it or does not approve it by ratifying treaties, confirming abassadors and generals, legislating in the area of international commerce and funding the executive.
Legislative fact finding is as old as the hills and generally does not comprised "conducting" foreign policy as the legislators cannot agree to anything that would legally bind the United States. But, when the legislature asserts the power on the one had to cut off funding for a war, to set delines, to control troop deployment, etc., etc., and on the other begins direct negotiations with foreign leaders that are involved in the conflict to one degree or another, that combination is going a bit too far. The legislature is negotiating in a way that can affect the United States because the legislature can, in some measure, deliver on its promises by exercising the above-referenced power.
The combination of negotiation plus the power to act to carry out any aggreements is the problem. It is a major, if not total, ursurpation of excective-branch function to be the exclusive "conductor" of foreign policy. If it were not for the veto, the president may actually lose total control over foreign policy under these circumstances. But if he has to resort to the veto to control the legislature's foreign policy, he basically is no longer in control and is no longer conducting foreign policy.
No foreign leader will listen to him as they know they will have to deal instead with the legislature. The armed forces will now pay attention to the legislature which is calling the shots in every regard. The presidency will be reduced to a figurehead.
Comment