to conduct foreign policy when she is just a legislator? Isn't this reservered for the executive branch of government?
2007-04-11 13:19:17 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes it is reserved for the Executive branch, look at the Logan Act
2007-04-18 08:13:40 · answer #1 · answered by Carlene W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not entirely. First of all, it is extraordinarily common for legislators to go on "fact-finding" missions overseas--sometimes with--but often without a President's blessing. Pelosi was not the only one: Republican lawmakers were there, too. As a general rule, these missions are good things, since it permits those making important decisions a first-hand look at things.
But foreign policy is not entirely the domain of the executive branch. Only Congress can declare war, precisely to keep too much power out of the hands of the President before formal hostilities begin. Only the Senate can ratify peace treaties. The Congress can also make limitations on foreign policy: the Boland Amendment in the 1980's, for example, forbade the U.S. from helping the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
The question is to what degree the Speaker of the House and the Senate Leader (or perhaps other leaders in Congress) should be involved in making foreign policy WHILE overseas. It was an importune remark on Pelosi's part: she should have saved her public comments until she returned.
That said, this was much ado about nothing...
2007-04-11 20:33:53 · answer #2 · answered by blueevent47 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She is the Head of the House, the first female head of house, she can do near anything she wants. And ususally it is reserved for the executive branch, but I don't think she really cares.
2007-04-19 17:07:58 · answer #3 · answered by Marie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is clearly written that no one is allow to talk for the United States without explicit authority to do so. By the old standards it was one of the death penalty crimes along with treason.
Go GET HER!
2007-04-19 17:57:41 · answer #4 · answered by p2ponly 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would suggest that if you study The Constitution of the United States of America,a few history books,and a newspaper or two,you will find this answer.
2007-04-18 04:23:12 · answer #5 · answered by R B 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We have separate BUT EQUAL branches of government.
It is part of her job AS a legislator. besides, she is not JUST a legislator, as Speaker of the House, she is 2nd in line for the Presidency. She CAN designate travel within the US or outside of the US on business of the house ( Rule 1 Section 10 of the Rules of the House of Representatives). Her trip was a fact finder based on the recommendations made by the President's Iraq Study Group. Remember those things he asked for and decided to ignore because he did not like it. They were presented to Congress which makes it part of THEIR business.
Anyway, why are you picking on her? Why no bitching about the 3 Republican legislators who went to Syria prior to her arrival. They were there 4/1/07. They were Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert Aderholt of Alabama. They go and they say they feel there is an opportunity for dialogue, yet when Pelosi does it, she is labelled everything from a sell out to "Palestine Pelosi"
What about the Republican that had been with her? Republican David Hobson
Or the one that was there the Thursday after her? Republican Darrell Issa of California.
She's a Dem so she should get flak but the Pubs, they get a pass. Pathetic.
2007-04-11 20:22:26 · answer #6 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Jimmy Carter has been involved in main peace talks over seas and he's not even a member of government anymore, we should hang him!
2007-04-19 18:03:41 · answer #7 · answered by Ferddaword 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well to be fair, congress isnt doing anything productive these days anyway, so why NOT? I mean its not like she has control over anything. Heck she cant even push her "cut and run strategy" that she campaigned on. And beyond that and raising minimum wage, do they actually have any plans for America? (besides endless useless investigations and accusations) like the "US attorney non-scandal."
So she goes over, talks to state sponsors of terror and gives them aid and comfort, what could possibly be bad about that?
2007-04-11 20:54:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but the current Executive branch is dismal at it.
2007-04-17 20:14:31 · answer #9 · answered by veronicaodden 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
She really freaks me out when they show her on the news with the gavel and that inordinate grin as she says 'The yeas have it'. You can tell she's insane.
She and Jimma Carter seem to grin in the most weird ways. I think it shows the insanity that power (or imagined power) brings.
2007-04-11 20:24:40 · answer #10 · answered by the_skipper_also 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋