mc mark, what has undermined your thread, which was an excellent idea otherwise, is the title. Treason being such a strong word, it takes the true topic, the Republican House leadership attempting to both undermine a sitting president (you said that well - that's what they're doing), and attempting to conduct the foreign policy of the United States, most certainly NOT their job, and derails the focus on that. What Boner and his cronies are trying to do is outrageous. So outrageous that even a Fox News talking head like Chris Wallace says as much. And Netanyahu is equally to blame, if he accepts the "invitation" and actually makes the speech. Any Republican who says that this is not what's going on is either brain dead, being without a clue as to what our constitution says, or a total GOP tool, completely without shame. In my humble opinion.
I don't see how the Logan Act applies simply because it's not clear there is any 'acting' going on. It's an invitation to speak. So far as we know, no deals or promises are being made. Deck, I think you're right that it's an attempt to undermine the president's policy on Iran. But, I don't see that as a problem. This is divided government. They're supposed to fight. Something like the Logan Act is sensible, because we don't want people, even Congressmen, dabbling in foreign policy. But, this is just a speech; a way to bring political pressure and perhaps embarass the president, maybe affect voter sentiment, but they aren't forcing the executive to do anything.
You know you what you stated seems to be contradiction .The Speaker doesn't have the authority there is a sitting President as you stated this is a speech to bring political pressure and perhaps embarrass the President that's can be seen as attempt to change foreign policy.
Or it could be seen as what it is, the Speaker of the House inviting someone to speak in front of the House.....which is fully within his power. If the president feels embarrassed, it's his own fault and is entirely irrelevant. Why is this thread still going? This is a non-story.
It's an attempt to influence foreign policy, but it isn't exercising authority in foreign policy. What if, instead of Congress, NBC invited Netanyahu to give a speech on US' Iran policy and they'd make it a prime-time special? It'd probably be a big money-loser for them, but that's their free speech right, isn't it? What if I tried to influence our foreign policy by posting powerful arguments on a basketball forum that convinced millions of voters that Obama's approach to Iran is wrongheaded? Isn't that my right, and perhaps my duty as a citizen in a democracy? Now, if Boehner held secret meetings with Netanyahu and convinced him that if he attacked Iran, he'd be able to leverage the president into supporting the military action, that probably is and should be illegal.
Congress has the right to pass any bill it wants to even if the president doesn't like it and the president has the right to veto that bill. Furthermore, the congress can override that veto if they have the votes. Do you really need people to teach you American Government 101? Congressmen talking about what bills they plan on passing isn't treason. The fact that I had to actually type that out is ridiculous. He's a president, not a king, there's no crime against making him look like an ass when he says stupid things.
So you are perfectly fine with senators telling a foreign leader that they will side with him instead of their President on issues of foreign policy. Got it
Foreign policy doesn't really rest entirely with the executive. While diplomacy all rests there, the president needs to be of like mind with Congress on the big stuff. We need Congress to declare war, or authorize use of force, or in this case impose or lift economic sanctions. I think we could be more nimble and effective in foreign policy if sanctions worked like authorizations of force (after all, sanctions are essentially an economic war) in that it'd give the president latitude to adjust the force applied to target countries as they respond to that stick. Alas, that's not really how it works. Congressional inertia will make it difficult for the president to offer a carrot once the stick is brought out. It's a problem now with Cuba and Iran. It could become one with Russia, Venezuela, and North Korea later. (But still, even though I think the mechanism is dumb and the Republicans who won't cooperate with the president on foreign policy matters are dumb, it's not any sort of treason for Congress to decide for itself what it is going to do with its own sanctions. Maybe Kennedy should have resisted congressional action back when it got sanction-happy with Cuba to protect his own turf, but its way too late now.)
Absolutely.....and so would you if the president was a Republican and the congress was controlled by the Democrats. The president doesn't write legislation and he shouldn't speak as if he does. If he wants congress to go along with him then he shouldn't have created such a contentious relationship with them. Even if he wishes it weren't the case, he needs them.
The President who boasts about circumventing Congress to issue Executive Orders is mad that Congress didn't check in with him before inviting a foreign dignitary to speak? This is absurd to any rational person.
You need to check yourself. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, November 4, 2010
The right have went against just about everything the President has tried to do they have been the ones whom created a contentious relationship.
Ding. Well. "rational person" being the operative phrase. Shocker, members of the other party want a member of their party to win the presidency.....I bet that's never happened before. Yeah, they went against everything he tried to do because he wouldn't meet them in the middle. When you don't work with the party in control of congress, they won't work with you. How is that surprising? Clinton seemed to manage, but he was a much better politician than Obama.
It's important to remember that this president barely got anything accomplished when his party was in control of all of congress because of his refusal to compromise, it shouldn't shock anyone that his relationship with a congress controlled entirely by the opposition party would be a strained one.
Bobby stop man there you go you know that the GOP has not been willing to meet the President on the majority of all the issue that he has tried to fix or change.
