T Nation

McCarthy Was An Amateur

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pelosi is forbidden from doing anything but fact-finding, without executive permission. She cannot create expectations, suggest plans, suggest alternative policies (which she did - ask Israel).
[/quote]

Why?

How can anyone “fact-find” with out talking to people? For that matter, if she has no real power what does it matter if she wants to talk?

What does executive “policy” have to do with the legislative branch of government? I think you and others are “making a mountain out of a molehill.”

This is just a pissing contest. Is the executive branch of government the only branch that is allowed to disregard documents it finds inconvenient?

If the legislative branch of government cannot act in any official capacity without approval from the president then what is the point of having separate branches of government? The president cannot write legislature admin policy and how it chooses to do business.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why?[/quote]

Uh, because the Constitution vests that power solely in the executive branch?

“The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.? The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.”

Because “talking” in the way you want her to creates confusion on behalf of the world w/r/t what US foreign policy is. She can fact-find for legislative purposes - she cannot go forward and talk to Syria about a peace process with Israel.

Are you being serious?

The legislative branch - and pay close attention - cannot usurp powers constitutionally vested to another branch. The legislative branch can’t do whatever it feels like - it can do what it is permitted to do.

If you care about the Constitution at all - and you have mentioned it a number of times - you should learn how it basically works.

Mountain out of a molehill? Seriously, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Violation of separation of powers is one of the most serious things that can happen in American government. Otherwise, why pass the Logan Act?

Huh? Disgregard documents?

If you are making a hackneyed complaint about Bush “not caring about the constitution!”, you will need to do better than that, if, for no other reason, assuming you are right, two constitutional violations don’t make a right.

This has become beyond hilarity.

The legislative branch can act in its official capacty within its constitutionally delegated duties. It needs permission from the executive in matters of foreign affairs because:

  1. The legislative branch doesn’t have the power to exercise

  2. The executive branch does and it is theirs to give permission

The President isn’t “writing legislative admin. policy” (whatever that means) - the policy has no ability to be written.

Seriously, Lifticus, get some basics about your government down.

Congress did the same thing to Clinton as congress is doing to Bush now.

Tit for tat I guess?

They are all worthless.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Fascinating opinions but she still is not permitted to negotiate with foreign govenments. The Logan act prevents her from doing so.

What was she supposedly negotiating? A timeline for withdrawal from Iraq?

Two years from now, the only certainty is that Bush will be gone. It’s time to start fostering friendships that the Bush Administration has been neglecting.[/quote]\

With Assad? You’re kidding, right? We’re to foster friendships with a subhuman beast?

Libs…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why?

Uh, because the Constitution vests that power solely in the executive branch?

“The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations.? The [executive] department is entrusted with the whole foreign intercourse of the nation.”

How can anyone “fact-find” with out talking to people? For that matter, if she has no real power what does it matter if she wants to talk?

Because “talking” in the way you want her to creates confusion on behalf of the world w/r/t what US foreign policy is. She can fact-find for legislative purposes - she cannot go forward and talk to Syria about a peace process with Israel.

What does executive “policy” have to do with the legislative branch of government? I think you and others are “making a mountain out of a molehill.”

Are you being serious?

The legislative branch - and pay close attention - cannot usurp powers constitutionally vested to another branch. The legislative branch can’t do whatever it feels like - it can do what it is permitted to do.

If you care about the Constitution at all - and you have mentioned it a number of times - you should learn how it basically works.

Mountain out of a molehill? Seriously, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Violation of separation of powers is one of the most serious things that can happen in American government. Otherwise, why pass the Logan Act?

This is just a pissing contest. Is the executive branch of government the only branch that is allowed to disregard documents it finds inconvenient?

Huh? Disgregard documents?

If you are making a hackneyed complaint about Bush “not caring about the constitution!”, you will need to do better than that, if, for no other reason, assuming you are right, two constitutional violations don’t make a right.

If the legislative branch of government cannot act in any official capacity without approval from the president then what is the point of having separate branches of government? The president cannot write legislature admin policy and how it chooses to do business.

This has become beyond hilarity.

The legislative branch can act in its official capacty within its constitutionally delegated duties. It needs permission from the executive in matters of foreign affairs because:

  1. The legislative branch doesn’t have the power to exercise

  2. The executive branch does and it is theirs to give permission

The President isn’t “writing legislative admin. policy” (whatever that means) - the policy has no ability to be written.

Seriously, Lifticus, get some basics about your government down.[/quote]

Lifticus has been own-icuss-ed.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because “talking” in the way you want her to creates confusion on behalf of the world w/r/t what US foreign policy is. She can fact-find for legislative purposes - she cannot go forward and talk to Syria about a peace process with Israel.

.
.
.

This has become beyond hilarity.

The legislative branch can act in its official capacty within its constitutionally delegated duties. It needs permission from the executive in matters of foreign affairs because:

  1. The legislative branch doesn’t have the power to exercise

  2. The executive branch does and it is theirs to give permission

The President isn’t “writing legislative admin. policy” (whatever that means) - the policy has no ability to be written.

Seriously, Lifticus, get some basics about your government down.[/quote]

Why can’t a person from the US talk about a peace process between Syria and Israel? That has nothing to do with the US? Are you suggesting that the US does not wish for peace between these nations. Again, what does that have to do with US foreign policy?

I think you are wrong and are turning this into something that it is not. Does anyone (w/r/t foreign policy) really take her more seriously than the figurehead of our government? She is not acting outside of the constitution because she is not making policy for our government–if that were even possible.

This is all smoke and no fire.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

With Assad? You’re kidding, right? We’re to foster friendships with a subhuman beast?

Libs…

[/quote]
Thought maybe you’d understand my glib use of the term “friendship”. What is wrong with being on speaking terms with ones “enemies”–in a diplomatic sense? It worked with Russia…

How many of your neighbors do you have a strong dislike for yet still act civilly toward? More importantly, how many of your neighbors do you think actually like you as a person?

If a sex-offender moves next door it will be easier to assess the threat to your family if you actively engage him or her than if you rely on the gossip of neighbors you barely get along with.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because “talking” in the way you want her to creates confusion on behalf of the world w/r/t what US foreign policy is. She can fact-find for legislative purposes - she cannot go forward and talk to Syria about a peace process with Israel.

.
.
.

This has become beyond hilarity.

The legislative branch can act in its official capacty within its constitutionally delegated duties. It needs permission from the executive in matters of foreign affairs because:

  1. The legislative branch doesn’t have the power to exercise

  2. The executive branch does and it is theirs to give permission

The President isn’t “writing legislative admin. policy” (whatever that means) - the policy has no ability to be written.

Seriously, Lifticus, get some basics about your government down.

Why can’t a person from the US talk about a peace process between Syria and Israel? That has nothing to do with the US? Are you suggesting that the US does not wish for peace between these nations. Again, what does that have to do with US foreign policy?

I think you are wrong and are turning this into something that it is not. Does anyone (w/r/t foreign policy) really take her more seriously than the figurehead of our government? She is not acting outside of the constitution because she is not making policy for our government–if that were even possible.

This is all smoke and no fire.[/quote]

The danger you’re ignoring is SEPERATION OF POWERS. The 3 branches were set up to prevent one branch from becoming dominant. Ms. Pelosi, in her journey to Damascus, blurred that distinction. Is THAT the sort of person who should have power? She’s either too stupid to understand WHY the Republic was set up as it was, or she’s evil and doesn’t care. In either case, she should NOT be given a Speaker’s gavel to enforce her views.

She is a whack job, as I pointed out. She may also be evil. I suspect she is evil. Now she’s our Speaker.

Serious questions to the lefties on this site: bradley/beowolf/tme:

Do you think the syrians are ignorant about the American Constitution?

Don’t you think they were using pelosi to try to undercut Bush?

Aren’t you guys a little embarrassed that pelosi claimed to be carrying a peace initiative from the Israeli’s only to have the Israeli P.M. publicly refute any such initiative was ever given?

Open question to the whole board: Is anyone surprised at how ineffective and blundering the democratic Congress has turned out to be?

Thanks in advance.

JeffR

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The danger you’re ignoring is SEPERATION OF POWERS. The 3 branches were set up to prevent one branch from becoming dominant. Ms. Pelosi, in her journey to Damascus, blurred that distinction. Is THAT the sort of person who should have power? She’s either too stupid to understand WHY the Republic was set up as it was, or she’s evil and doesn’t care. In either case, she should NOT be given a Speaker’s gavel to enforce her views.

She is a whack job, as I pointed out. She may also be evil. I suspect she is evil. Now she’s our Speaker.

[/quote]

Does this also apply to US presidents?

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The danger you’re ignoring is SEPERATION OF POWERS. The 3 branches were set up to prevent one branch from becoming dominant. Ms. Pelosi, in her journey to Damascus, blurred that distinction. Is THAT the sort of person who should have power? She’s either too stupid to understand WHY the Republic was set up as it was, or she’s evil and doesn’t care. In either case, she should NOT be given a Speaker’s gavel to enforce her views.

She is a whack job, as I pointed out. She may also be evil. I suspect she is evil. Now she’s our Speaker.

Does this also apply to US presidents?

[/quote]

Yes. The President is the executive branch, the branch that ‘executes’ the will of the American people, as expressed through the laws and so forth witten by Congress. The Executive also acts as a check on the actions of Congress through the use of the veto.

Thunder can (and will, I hope) explain it much better than I.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Aren’t you guys a little embarrassed that pelosi claimed to be carrying a peace initiative from the Israeli’s only to have the Israeli P.M. publicly refute any such initiative was ever given?

… [/quote]

That is embarrassing for all Americans. Even the WP and other traditionally left leaning papers have spoken out against her visit and especially her lies regarding the fictitious Israeli proposal. Of course the furor has already died down over that but I honestly think that what she did on this trip warrants her removal from the House speaker position. It should be the Dems that do it themselves.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The danger you’re ignoring is SEPERATION OF POWERS. The 3 branches were set up to prevent one branch from becoming dominant. Ms. Pelosi, in her journey to Damascus, blurred that distinction. Is THAT the sort of person who should have power? She’s either too stupid to understand WHY the Republic was set up as it was, or she’s evil and doesn’t care. In either case, she should NOT be given a Speaker’s gavel to enforce her views.

She is a whack job, as I pointed out. She may also be evil. I suspect she is evil. Now she’s our Speaker.

Does this also apply to US presidents?

Yes. The President is the executive branch, the branch that ‘executes’ the will of the American people, as expressed through the laws and so forth witten by Congress. The Executive also acts as a check on the actions of Congress through the use of the veto.

Thunder can (and will, I hope) explain it much better than I.

[/quote]

So why be pissed because of her and not Bush?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why can’t a person from the US talk about a peace process between Syria and Israel? That has nothing to do with the US? Are you suggesting that the US does not wish for peace between these nations. Again, what does that have to do with US foreign policy? [/quote]

Is this a serious set of questions? Are you saying you don’t understand the implications of having more than one foreign policy presented to the world and the various nations involved in delicate, explosive negotiations?

Hmmm. If you don’t know, maybe you are beyond learning at this point.

Pelosi’s trip explains it all - she went to Syria (a country the US is trying to isolate) and suggested a new direction on a peace process with Israel. Problem is, the sovereign state of Israel authorized her to make no such suggestion, and suddenly had to call Washington to see what the hell was going on. Israel wound up issuing a statement to reverse Pelosi’s nonsense.

Consistency matters in foreign relations. And it certainly matters to the US - not only is the US acting as go-between in many foreign disputes, Pelosi is not traveling to Syria in her private capacity to speak generally about Israeli-Syrian relations. She goes over there acting under color of US authority.

Well, not to be insulting, it doesn’t matter what you think - you simply have no idea how it works. You think something sounds good, therefore you leap to the conclusion it must exist because you want it to. It doesn’t.

I don’t want anyone to prosecute Pelosi for what she did - but I do want her actions laid bare in the public debate, so we can have a go at it at the national level.

Clearly, yes - or else Syria wouldn’t be listening to her and Israel wouldn’t be issuing statements and getting pissed at the US for losing control of the process.

But that is irrelevant anyway - we don’t want our foreign policy to be measured by who a foreign head of state “believes” or “doesn’t believe”.

To avoid that problem, they listen and believe one branch of government - if you don’t like a given policy, that is completely irrelevant. In order to change this approach, you would have to amend the Constitution.

You keep making the same mistake over and over and over - she has no ability to go over there and even suggest policy. She went to Syria not as a private citizen, but as a government official on government business (although under the Logan Act, even private citizens can’t go suggest policy either).

You have this weird - completely made up - fantasy that if the Constitution doesn’t prohibit her from doing it, she can go do it. That is absurd on its face. The Constitution grants powers to the branches of government - foreign affairs is vested in the executive branch. It is that branch’s power alone.

In your bizarre - completely made up scenario - the nine members of the Supreme Court could go vote in the Senate: after all, the Constitution didn’t tell them they can’t…?

Nonsense. This would be a lot more interesting if you understood the basics.

And this “making policy” threshold you invented out of whole cloth is more nonsense - before policy is made (assuming a treaty, for example), much negotiation goes into it. Pelosi has no power to affect those negotiations - no power to present an alternative plan, or get involved.

Perhaps you hope that, but this will be a problem politically for her. I don’t think any will sue - and they shouldn’t - but the cat is out of the bag on Pelosi and her desires.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And this “making policy” threshold you invented out of whole cloth is more nonsense - before policy is made (assuming a treaty, for example), much negotiation goes into it. Pelosi has no power to affect those negotiations - no power to present an alternative plan, or get involved.

[/quote]
Well she certainly has the power to affect who votes on what in the congress concerning American foreign policy if it should ever come to that. I’d rather have someone who is speaking to our enemies making that policy than one who refuses to making it.

Why is the president allowed to lie to foreign leaders but not a congressman?

And just food for thought - Pelosi, being an elected Representative, doesn’t even vote of treaties presented by the President.

Only Senators do that.

I raise this because even outside the context of separation of powers between the branches of government, there is even one more level of separation within the legislative branch itself. The HOR doesn’t have foreign affairs powers - she is even more out of her depth than even an ordinary separation of powers approach suggests.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Well she certainly has the power to affect who votes on what in the congress concerning American foreign policy if it should ever come to that.[/quote]

Well, then - she should be stumping in Poughkeepsie or Minehaha or Kissimee, not Syria.

Last I checked, Syrians don’t vote her district or for the Presidency.

Stop wasting my time.

It doesn’t matter what you’d rather have - it matters what she can or cannot do. You are making a value judgment on the policy being offered - i.e., you wish someone else with a different agenda was controlling foreign policy. That is meaningless for the purposes of determining whether Pelosi - I am going to bold it - [u]can or cannot exercise the power[/u].

Just because you prefer a different policy doesn’t mean someone other than the President has the power to go push the policy you like better.

This is so weird - you think that because you want something to be a certain way, it therefore is that way. You’re not even following ordinary reason.

Your silly approach to the question aside, the answer has already been explained to you. You are just floundering now.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Open question to the whole board: Is anyone surprised at how ineffective and blundering the democratic Congress has turned out to be?
[/quote]

What, you don’t think the first 100 hours were thoroughly spectacular?

[quote]nephorm wrote:

What, you don’t think the first 100 hours was thoroughly spectacular?[/quote]

Well, never forget, the gavel of the House is finally back in the hands of the children…

…so that has to count for something.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Stop wasting my time.
[/quote]

That is a physical impossibility for two reason.

  1. Time, at least how we currently understand it in context to “macroscopic reality”, cannot be “wasted” because that implies that it can be saved.

  2. I have nothing to do with how you choose to use your time.

The way I see it there are two solutions–well, one actually. You can either work faster which will slow other’s perceptions of time relative to your clock down or you can move to a more massive system.

Trust me, though the gains you would see from gravitational effects are larger than would be observed due to special relativity (i.e., your clock from an outside observer’s frame of reference appears to move slower in a non-inertial frame of reference compared to an inertial frame of reference) it wouldn’t be worth the trouble because time still elapses at its same rate for you.

How is that for a time waster?

Relativity is a very important concept because it forces observers to take into account before making valuations, his or her own reference frame and the particular influences that affect what is being observed. I believe this ties back to the OP.