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.