Ambassador Pelosi?
Published by Kedar April 5th, 2007 in Congress, Constitutional Law, Current Events, Foreign Policy, Politics, Supreme Court
Conservatives are outraged at the recent junket that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has taken this week to speak with Syrian leadership. First they were upset about Pelosi’s decision to go over the protest of the Whitehouse, but once she got there, they went into convulsions over her decision to wear hijab in a Mosque. The liberal blogs countered that the Presidents own wife and favorite cabinet member had both recently worn hijab.
An interesting Constitutional issue arises when members of Congress decide to travel abroad. Congressional representatives frequently visit foreign nations in order to discuss topics of interest to both countries. Normally, these trips are topics of very little discussion. These junkets becomes significantly more problematic when the come in conflict with the desired goal of America’s chief diplomat, the President. The Constitution only explicitly delegates the power to make and sign treaties and appoint ambassadors to the President. Congress, on the other hand, is given the power to ratify or reject the President’s treaties, confirm Ambassadors, and, of course, provide funding for nearly everything.
Normally these silly little Congressional junkets give Congressmen a chance to stay in swanky international hotels and meet with quasi-important bureaucrat from exotic nations on the taxpayers dime. Fine. The President (usually) has no qualms with Congressmen traveling the world and singing the praises of democracy, but does the President have the power to tell his friends across town when and where they cannot go?
The President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties” (Per Article II, Section 3, I firmly deny the existence of numbered clauses in the Constitution.) The Speaker’s trip appears to seriously meddle in the President’s ability to create treaties. Moreover, Mrs. Pelosi may have actually made the situation in the Middle East marginally worse by engaging in a little creative diplomacy. For this discussion, we will have to ignore the harm she may have done to her party.
Granted, this is not the first time that a member of Congress has ventured overseas. If foreign countries become the chic place for ambitious members of Congress to build up their resumes, American foreign policy could be in serious trouble. It is difficult for me to say that the Democrat’s foreign policy is better than the Republican’s or vice versa because lately one has just been a reaction to whatever other does, but the debate needs to be kept within our political branches of government. The Democrats newly formed ‘alternative foreign policy‘ is great, but the democrats should not push it abroad without first making it compatible with the executives views issues around the world. America’s foreign policy should be one that is debated within the country, but spoken to the world with a singular voice.
Lets get back to the original question, Does the President have the power to tell members of Congress where they can and cannot go? Probably not. I simply cannot conceive of a way in which the President could limit the travels or speech of Congress without abridging very serious boundaries placed on the executive (and for very good reasons.)
So, until this issue can be more formally resolved, it looks like the good ol’ Speaker Pelosi’s Lonely Hearts Club Band will keep touring around the world. Check your local political leader for details.
Hmm, that’s really interesting. I think the line is that she made a very public, ‘make-my-own-foreign-policy’ trip. It wasn’t some sort of vacation, or a time to make contacts. She was specifically going against the White House at the time. I guess this will probably never come up in the Supreme Court, but it does seem like a really problematic issue.
Nancy was trying to establish a relationship with the middle east separate from the president, blatantly displaying the segregation of our country. I suppose she was trying to show that not all Americans hate Syria, but the fact is, she shouldn’t have gone to a country that the US has repeated had problems with. I think Congress should be able to visit other countries, but I think Nancy was over the line on this. She should have respected the president’s wishes and to have not interfered with his foreign policy, even if she doesn’t agree with it.
On the hijab note, fuck the conservatives. The majority of them would love to have their women in burkas. They don’t mind inequality (gays, women, minority races, just to name a few). They probably would have flipped a shit if she wasn’t wearing one.