Did the House act illegally in inviting Netanyahu?
That’s the headline on a National Constitution Center article today.
Since the announcement of the invitation to Netanyahu in January, much has been said about the risks of a rupture in the relationship between the United States and Israel. Whatever may be said further about that, a constitutional precedent is being set in the House chamber that could lead to a rupture in how the two elected branches of the national government deal with the most sensitive of issues over global security.
I don’t remember it being an issue when members of Congress told President Bush that “you’re not the boss of me”;
I’m thinking that Pelosi and her delegation to Assad, and Senator John Kerry’s delegation to Syria probably did more to harm our relations in the region than inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to speak to Congress, especially when the figurehead of our government, our face overseas, refuses to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu because he wants his nation to survive in the face of Iranian nuclear weapons.
There was no discussion about it when Pat Leahy was a mule for Cuban spy sperm from the US to the prisoner’s wife in Cuba. I’m not sure whether or not sperm samples are included in the embargo against Cuba, but I’m sure that facilitating the birth of yet another virtual prisoner into that vast prison yard is morally wrong on some level.
But I guess Democrat Congress members have their own private Constitution that they get to live by without being questioned by the complicit press.
Category: Foreign Policy
I’m surprised Hussein hasn’t written an executed order yet.
“Executive.”
And the rate at which he writes executive orders is less than any president in over 100 years.
So the implication you are making is bullshit.
He sure is sending a lot of “memorandums (memorandi ?)” to various agencies, directors and boards to do certain things (such as the DHS “memo” regarding imigration enforcement).
Very good point. Barry is up to all kinds of nonsense via memorandums, just as you said.
As all presidents do, because, you know, that is precisely what they are constitutionally mandated to do as the EXECUTIVE branch. That literally EXECUTE the day to day business of the government which requires a crap ton of memorandums.
So how about the President EXECUTE the laws that are on the books, instead of threatening agents for enforcing the law?
My guess is your are referring to the immigration amnesty. First, state and local jurisdictions do not have the legal authority to enforce immigration laws. Some are doing it anyway. This actually should be getting local agencies in more trouble than it has thus far. The only reason it has not been handled more severely is due to efforts to balance the political climate on the issue. A local law enforcement officer has no more than citizen’s arrest authority for an illegal immigrant. Any transport, jailing, or processing needs to be done by a federal enforcement authority. Second, Obama was speaking hypothetically if an amnesty was put in place. None was. If an amnesty had been put in place it would have been a violation for a federal officer to ignore the amnesty just as it was under the Bush and Reagan’s amnesties. Obama never received congressional support for an amnesty and never issued one under executive order. THe only thing that did happen has an internal DHS enforcement priority memorandum that listed which illegal immigrants should deported and which officers should not use resources to pursue and deport. These enforcement priority memorandums have a long precedent and have been issued internally by agencies since their founding. What made this one an issue is the heavily politicized climate and that this memorandum reflected Obama’s desire to reduce deportation. But lets be clear, in the past all enforcement priority memorandums have reflected with priorities set by the executive branch. The GoP just did not like Obamas priorities this time. The memorandum has no legal weight. Think of it as a commander’s line of effort priority list. Battle space owners usually resort the list to reflect their priority of needs in the battle-space and risk no legal consequences for doing so. Their OER however may not be as pretty if they cannot justify their divergent priorities with their commander. Law enforcement officers that do not heed internal memorandums can face poor career prospects. This memorandum was challenged in court, due to the political climate, and was blocked by a federal judge. Which… Read more »
Already drinking at the bar, huh Lars?
I issue here is that the ExO issued by the current Resident, 1700 Penn ave, regarding immigration is in contravention to clearly-expressed Congressional intent, and disregards current Federal law (along with regulations based on same). Though there may be other historical examples of a POTUS doing this via ExO, I can’t think of one.
That’s true even for past ExOs with great scope concerning immigration issues. Even Bush(41)’s “Family Fairness” ExO (which was arguably as far-reaching in the immigration field as this one, if not more so) was in accordance with Congressional intent. In multiple areas now, the current POTUS has issued ExOs that appear to be nothing less than an intent to “end run” explicit Federal law.
In effect, he appears to be trying to rule by decree, and give the finger to the process prescribed by the Constitution. That’s what p!sses most commenters here off.
Well, that and the fact that the man is incompetent, has no executive experience, doesn’t understand a damn thing about foreign policy, and is a Socialist at heart. Other than that, I’m sure he’s a helluva swell guy. (smile)
Actually Lars, his implication had nothing to do with the numbers or rate of the EO’s President Obama has written, but with the implications of them.
Can you give a few examples of some orders that seem egregious?
I am sure he has issued a few. Most Presidents have. Some mind blowingly authoritarian orders. Especially war time Presidents.
However, so far the ones I have seen listed as Obama’s worst offenses are completely fabricated examples. There is a list of Obama’s worst orders being passed around and even posted on “journalism” sites that is a complete fabrication. Not only do the orders not say anything close to what this viral article claims but most of the orders were not issued by Obama.
It’s not the number that’s the problem, it’s his overstepping the bounds of his office. The problem is libtards care not one bit about their fellow citizens that disagree with their insane policies. Defacto executive amnesty is nothing more than importing more Democrat voters in order to enact more of the insanely stupid libtard policies that half the voting citizenry is absolutely against.
Gerald Ford and George HW Bush were 100 years ago?
I said “rate’ at which he is issuing executive orders.
You listed two one term presidents.
The only way to account for the different lengths of time in office is to base it on the “rate” at which they issue them (number per day).
Obama is currently lower than any President since Grover Cleveland.
And you also stated “any President”. And I was being snarky. Perhaps you should get your PTS meds increased?
It was a mistake, because, you know, no edit feature in the year 2015.
fair enough. I have shit ton of typos on these forums as well.
Kind of a dumb question anyway. In this context what does “illegal” mean anyway? Can the president send his goon squad to the capitol to arrest Boehner?
Um, that would be “NO.” Congress and the president are co-equals in the Constitutional scheme which means that the President has no more right to tell Congress what do do than Congress can tell the President what to do. Separation of powers.
Correct. The idea of separation of powers seems to be lost on a lot of morons. (Maybe because it isn’t taught in schools anymore).
I hear we have some trolls hanging out here
This is what comes of constantly placing political gamesmanship over common sense. Harry Reid didn’t like filibusters so instead of discussing concerns over appointees he initiated a decision to go with simple majorities of 51. There are many such examples and they all lead to this outcome. a Congress acting irresponsibly with respect to foreign policy and domestic policy for that matter.
The Congress doesn’t negotiate treaties they either ratify them or they don’t and the house’s role is irrelevant.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
I don’t see a mention of Speaker of the house there, nor do I see anything about the House needing to hear the words of foreign dignitaries while negotiations are ongoing. In fact Article 2 makes it clear the Senate, not the House is to advise and consent.
Boehner was out of line, plain and simple, to invite Netanyahu at this point. He at the very least should have contacted the White House. Just because the other guy does wrong doesn’t make your wrong any more appropriate.
You can’t have it both ways here, if you are going to blast the president for actions that press the envelope of constitutionality you must also question when the guys supposedly on your side pull the same or similar horseshit. Otherwise one risks appearing quite the hypocrite.
There is no moral high ground to be had when both parties are busy trying to find the lowest point in the gutter to press their concerns.
Since no treaty is being discussed (Lurch is in Switzerland talking with Iran), why should the House or Senate be constrained in who they invite to address a joint session?
Veritas Omnia Vincit, Congress is going to be debating over additional sanctions on Iran. Lat I checked sanctions are voted on by BOTH houses of Congress. So, having someone who has first hand experience dealing with and would be impacted by Iran come in and address Congress prior to this debate wouldn’t fall into the bad idea category in my book. Just because the President doesn’t want Congress to impose new sanctions and has a long history of animosity with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, shouldn’t factor in. Besides at this point who would you want to hear from when it comes to Iran: some one who announces the death of an American at the hands of terrorists then returns to the golf course 30 sec later and is trying to secure his legacy even if it means making bad deals and selling out our historical “friends” or someone who has a long history of making tough decisions and defending their country, even when the decision to do so may not be popular on the “world stage”.
I’ve no quarrel with Netanyahu addressing congress…
This is from the house.gov website: As precedent has evolved, however, the House has tended to use unanimous consent, rather than a resolution, for the purpose of receiving a foreign leader.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Foreign-Leaders/
From what I’ve seen there’s hardly unanimous consent. So this creates a precedent like Reid did where all our elected leaders do is create more chasms.
Just because “well they started it” is true, doesn’t make quid pro quo more palatable.
Of course YMMV…as it most probably should.
I disagree. It’s not a precedent if it has been done before. Further, “tended to” does not mean always.
Actually that’s what precedent means exactly, that it’s been done before.
Unanimous consent since the end of WW2 has been the defacto standard…
In this instance “tended to” means they use unanimous consent mostly instead of resolution which is the other rare option.
Both sides are doing this now, dropping old rules that encouraged bi-partisan approval to favor one party rule. It doesn’t bode well for us long term I fear.
In reality both sides have moved farther and farther left since before FDR won his first term. I don’t consider bi-partisanship to be the Progressives get there way, but it takes them 10 to 20 years to do it. The only way this country is going to get better is if Republicans grow a backbone, and start playing to win. Doubtful since the establishment in both parties can get rich off amnesty, and any fool with connections can suck on the green energy teet. This isn’t even a fart in a hurricane towards putting this country back on track.
This whole argument is useless because Netanyahu is not going to be speaking at a private golf course, so why would Odumbass really care(or notice)?
There is no ‘moral high ground’ to be had, regardless.
And the root problem is NOT our politicians.
Anyone who continues to beat the ‘partisan politics is bad’ drum deserves whatever is coming our way as a nation next.
Kinda surprised to see you down in the muck dissecting an issue that is as shallow as anything else leading the news these days VOV, you’re usually more intuitive than that.
Long day yesterday perhaps I didn’t explain the moral high ground part as well as hoped. Republicans had a heart attack over the filibuster change, once they took power they could have informed the white house of the intent to have Netanyahu and played their political football with that should the white house request Netanyahu be disallowed from speaking. Bypassing the white house completely means all are playing the same win or die game with our futures. By jamming this speech into the session this way he could easily have alienated some dems who would normally be very pro-Israel and Netanyahu and forced those dems to respond with partisan resistance when the alternate approach gives the opportunity to allow those dems to support the position of the house on the grounds it’s a formality to inform the white house not a request for permission. I would disagree the drumbeat of partisan politics is bad because that frames things as having only two sides republican and democrat and that is truly bad. Bi-partisan allows the centrists on both sides to get some work done. Our parents and grandparents from the greatest generation often could not stand the political positions of the other side but after fighting WW2 they knew that sometimes to get the job done you worked with guys whose views you despised and whose character you questioned because there wasn’t a choice in getting the heavy lifting done without that other guy. We have a partisan war of politics that brings things to a standstill regularly, you can blame Obama or Bush or whoever you like, but the reality is neither side will hold a supermajority very often and the republicans have never held one in the last 80 years. So republicans can shit in one and wish in the other and see which fills up first or they can put on their big boy pants and start figuring out how to work with the other side whether they like those guys or not….supermajority in 2016 with the white house is about as likely as me hitting the 350… Read more »
No, the house did not act illegally. Can anyone cite a law or Constitutional passage saying otherwise? No.
I started to read the link to the National Constitution Center, but stopped shortly after this passage;
“WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
A constitutional tradition that runs back to George Washington has always placed the nation’s President in the preeminent position to conduct foreign policy without interference or embarrassment from any source – including Congress.”
There is no point continuing to read an article containing that nonsense.
Actually,an argument in favor of that position can be made based on Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution – which gives the POTUS the authority to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers”. However, I don’t think the Constitution limits Congress’ power to address either House of Congress as a private individual on an area of personal expertise. So as long as Congress doesn’t attempt to negotiate an agreement or otherwise conduct governmental business with Netanyahu or Israel directly, it would appear that Netanyahu addressing Congress unofficially would be permissible on those grounds. While unusual, it’s not unique to this instance. It’s happened at least twice before.
That section does not make it illegal for the House, or anyone else, to have him speak to it.
It can be taken to reserve to the POTUS the power to receive Ambassadors and other Ministers for the purposes of conducting formal government-to-government negotiations on the part of their nation. However, short of attempting to conduct business directly with Netanyahu in his capacity as Prime Minister of the state of Israel, you are correct. So long as Congress refrains from doing that, Congress is indeed IMO free to request he address them informally on any subject they desire.
As I noted above, precisely this (informal address to Congress by a visiting Minister/Head of State) has happened at least twice before in our history.
“you are correct.”
Gee, thank you so much.
Bingo.
” … without interference or embarrassment from any source …”
I can’t think of any President, going back to pre-WWI, that isn’t more deserving of being not just embarrassed, but humiliated, than Barack H. Obama.
And by extension, every moron who re-elected him.
Once we’re finally rid of this POS, we can work on restoring respect for the Office of the President, and the Constitution.
The invitation was given as as Congress is gearing up for a debate over additional sanctions on Iran. So that would include both the House and Senate would seem appropriate in my book.
Not to pile on, but in total, 110 leaders and dignitaries have addressed Joint Meetings of Congress.
Some notable examples (complete list here: http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Joint-Sessions/):
Marquis de Lafayette, a French General who served in the Revolutionary war, addressing each on December 10, 1824
King Kalakaua of Hawaii was the first foreign leader to do so in 1874
Ambassador André Lefebvre de La Boulaye of France following in 1934
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, December 26, 1941, also in 1943 and 1952
Cuban Ambassador Guillermo Belt 19 April 1948
Mexican President José Lopez Portillo on February 17, 1977
President Nelson Mandela of South Africa in 1990 and 1994
Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin of Israel in 1976 and 1994
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, 2011, 2015
President Poroshenko, Sep 18, 2014
Source: http://conginst.org/2014/09/25/history-of-foreign-dignitaries-appearing-before-congress/
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Foreign-Leaders/
House Rule 4:
“The Hall of the House shall be used only for the legislative business of the House and for caucus and conference meetings of its Members, except when the House agrees to take part in any ceremonies to be observed therein. The Speaker may not entertain a motion for the suspension of this clause.”
As precedent has evolved, however, the House has tended to use unanimous consent, rather than a resolution, for the purpose of receiving a foreign leader.
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Foreign-Leaders/Foreign-Leaders/
The entire flap is bullshit and is a distraction from the fact the Obama is choosing to side with Islamic terrorist groups and nations over our long time ally, Israel.
And since when do Obama and his boot lickers care about the law? President GolfPants TemperTantrum and his party are on the wrong side of history.
The open Jew hatred coming from so many people and nations 60 years after the holocaust is just mind boggling.
^^^THIS^^^
Word!!
In the simplest of terms: Congress does not need permission from the executive branch to invite heads of state to their chambers. The President doesn’t need permission from Congress to invite members of foreign legislatures, parliaments, or whatever ruling body might make foreign laws to dinner.
This just is not complicated.
There is a legal precedent for settling the dispute between Barry Soetoro and John Boehner, i.e., the final resolution of the differences between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton in Weehawken, New Jersey on 11 July 1804.
As far as I know dueling has been outlawed in most if not all states.
I take that back, a quick Internet search revealed that as of Feb 2013 Dueling was still legal in Texas according to sections 22.01 and 22.06 in the Texas penal code.
“The law states that any two individuals who feel the need to fight can agree to mutual combat through a signed for or even just verbal or implied communication and have at it (fists only, however). As long as no “serious” bodily injury occurs and both participants know what degree of risk they are hazarding, mutual combat is a defense for a criminal or civil suit that may be leveled against you.”
Granted it still isn’t going to happen…Only duel I see happening is on the golf course, since the CINC appears to spend much of his time there anyway.
Source: http://baylorlariat.com/2013/02/19/viewpoint-duke-it-out-mutual-combat-duels-still-allowed-in-texas/
Or, beer at the taxpayers’ expense.
Back in the ole’ days in New York if you wanted a dual, you would go to New Jesery!
Or is it duel?
I don’t friggin’ know!
Dual usually is two of the same type/thing.
Duel is 2 people(with their seconds), 2 black powder pistols (or swords) and 20 paces.
Usually the local doctor and undertaker was there to deal the necessities after the duel.
Also there would be a witness or 2 in order to judge if the Rules for that particular duel were being followed.
I hope this helped.
Marie ** civilian
Restore Code Duello from coast to coast!
the last few I have wished that the late Sen. Byrd were still around. That would be interesting.
And the reason that Obozo won’t officially meet with Bibi is just. plain. self-serving. political. stupidity.
“Because it might affect the upcoming Israeli elections.”
W-T-F! It’s already been alleged (proved?) that there are DemonRat agents in Israel attempting to rig and throw the election against Bibi.
By the way, anyone can watch PM Netanyahu’s live at here. 8am Pacific, 11am EST.
Was inviting Bibi Netanyahu to speak to the House of Represenatatives illegal? If he’s invited there as a guest speaker, how could that be any more illegal or objectionable than inviting me or Jonn Lilyea or Annie Sprinkle to speak on some subject.
But while you have all been debating this question, no one has addressed the real issue, which is this: just what is it that creates this antagonistic attitude by bodaprez toward the Jews?
I’m bringing this up because my sister voted for bodaprez. She’s Jewish, but when I told her in the beginnning of his campaigning that he dislikes Jews, she refused to accept that. Haven’t heard from her about it lately, but then I don’t rub her nose in it, either. I have not seen anything anywhere that explains it.
This question is valid, because no one has asked or answered it. It has a great deal to do with his antipathy toward the State of Israel, but no one is addressing it at all and I think it deserves some serious, up-close examination.
If you choose to answer, the obvious responses (he’s a muslim, etc.) don’t work. It goes deeper than that, because I do not believe he gives a shit about anything other than his golf game.
Can you please give examples of this? I keep trying to find evidence that he hates Jews and it just is not there.
Not actual information. I see a lot of people claiming it. But I heard that even during the campaign. But you frequently here that from the right about democrat presidential nominees. If the blogs are to be believed Clinton hates Jews as well. In fact you can put the name of almost any prominent politician at the front of the phrase “__________ hates Jews” and there will be a crap ton of articles arguing that it is true. Including Elizabeth Warren.
So can we discuss actual facts?
I don’t know if it counts as “hates Jews,” but I have to wonder about a president who threatened to shoot down IAF aircraft over Iraq airspace if they tried to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.
From your lips, Prime Minister, to the ears of the Most High.
Baruch HaShem Adonai!
Oh I don’t know Lars, how about if we look at the voting records of politicians when the subject is related to relations with Israel.
We can probably gauge their level of acceptance of the Jewish State by seeing what their support level is when it is time to vote for issues that directly affect Israel.
I would also expect that you would have to look closely at the voting records of certain politicians to see if they support Israel when they need to be re-elected and are then a little wishy washy the rest of the time.
As for our current president, you need examples? How about this current treaty negotiation with Iran? Is that anti Israel enough for you? And please don’t tell me how allowing Iran to achieve entrance into the nuke club is good for the world. Or the Mid East. Or especially for Israel. Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Wont talk to Bibi because he “doesn’t want to influence upcoming Israeli elections” while his party (DEMOCRATS) send political operatives over there to assist Netanyahu’s opposition. And his administration attempts to make a shit treaty with a country who vows to destroy Israel.
So in summary, is that good enough? If not Fuck You.
How about this current treaty negotiation with Iran? Is that anti Israel enough for you?
I don’t know yet, I wasn’t aware of all the details of the treaty nor am I aware of the Senate offering consent if the terms of the treaty suck…I don’t mind the president attempting to talk, the Senate can refuse to ratify the treaty if it really sucks…
Not talking will let Iran do whatever it wants, no inspectors poking around and some weak kneed sanctions…under that scenario Iran can become the Norks of the ME..isolated, defiant and continuing to work on nukes with the help of their Russian friends or perhaps their new Chinese friends who might like access to the resources of the ME by soliciting influence.
Bush couldn’t fight a war in the ME without bumbling around because of that asshole Cheney, and Obama has done a worse job. What in the last 40 years gives you the confidence to think the US has a stomach for taking the fight to Iran?
Talks are better than nothing at the moment, if those talks go south so be it…dismissing it out of hand is premature until we see the actual parameters. Bush and company knew that in 2005 and it’s no different today.
The reality is that a country on the path to a nuke will get there, they can’t be stopped short of annihilation. So how best to delay the progress? How best to monitor what’s happening? We have no access to Norkland, no idea what’s happening in deep sources…
If there is no choice to a treaty other than destruction of Iran be prepared for Iran to forge ahead with the nukes because we are not attacking them and destroying their stuff…at least not for a couple of years and without monitoring that might be enough time for the Iranians to get further than anyone thinks…
VOV, going to respectfully disagree with you here. Tried to post a link with an article in USA Today online that sort of breaks things down Barney Style as to what both sides are trying to accomplish. Bottom line to me is that the Iranians are trying to get a deal done that removes sanctions before they comply with any of the treaty provisions. There is a big disparity in the number of centerfuges the Iranians want and we want them to have. There is a disagreement on how long the treaty should last, 10 years or 20 years after which time it appears the Iranians will be able to do whatever the hell they wish. So it looks to me like we just kick the can down the road so that the president can claim a foreign policy victory. And leave his mess to whoever comes along behind him. I have not read of how we will be able to verify that Iran is in compliance with any of this either if a treaty is in fact signed. My guess is a third country who would be our proxy. Another very important piece of this puzzle, by alienating Israel when their leadership feels their survival is at stake, we negate our “big brother” relationship that allows us to keep the Israeli pit bull on it’s chain when its first reaction is to eliminate all threats. If Israel attacks, be it full scale or limited attacks just to destroy Iranian nuke capability, that will not bode well for the rest of the Mid East. Do the Arab nations come to the aid of their Persian cousins against Israel? Who the hell knows. But if they did, it would be nasty and brutish. Iran is already the Norks of the Mid East without the isolation. They are a big player in several countries as the Israeli Prime Minister pointed out today. And their influence is corrosive to everything they touch. I do not see this ending well. A treaty that we seemingly cannot monitor or have to monitor through the help… Read more »