1) not a layman
2) don’t presume to know what knowledge I have or don’t have
3) I may have dumbed down/quoted/simplified a bit much.
4) all of the Congressional tools you mentionedd are NOT (other than Treaty/Declare war) express constitutional powers that allow Congress to SET/DECIDE/ENGAGE in foreign policy; rather it are checks on the power of the executive — AKA congress canact (pass a law/overrule a veto) if it wishes to (which it hasn’t in the past 7-8 years) if it wants to retrain/revoke/change Presidential agreements, etc.
5) Should congress get some balls, they could certainly influence and/or force the executives hand, but its not an express power to set policy.
6) It unfortunately really is all about semantics. If he chooses to call it EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, its not a TREATY .
7) Dumbass’ long-term agreement (undefined) with the Iraqi government to commit the US military to defending Iraq’s security may well exceed his contitutional powers, but that cannot be decided until such time as Congress decides revoke/rescind such executive actions… I have no doubt the Supreme Court would deny cert because it is a “polictical question”

Second, you clearly have no concept of what the Holland case or the Goldwater cases encompassed. I have read the original test of the Supreme Court cases. The Holland case involved the state of Missouri challenging a migratory bird treaty negotiated by the Department of State under a delegation of congressional authority. The legal priniciple was whether the reservation of certain rights to the states under the 10th amendment prevented the treaty from regulating (amongst other things) the hunting of migratory birds. Nothing in the holdings of the case or obiter dictum of the opinion addresses core competencies of the president in foreign policy. Goldwater v. Carter answers nothing since the court declined jurisdiction noting that the dividing line between Congressional and Executive authority in treaties is a political question.

Third, you lack a historical understanding of the treaty power under the constitution. The Senate was to advise and consent to the treaty. The founders honestly believed that they would have role in negotiating treaties. Strange but not actually unbelievable in those days. Obviously impractical nowdays.

Fourth, Congress impacts foreign policy on every single day. Let us start with the worst case situation – War and the power to declare it. Then there are treaties. Then there are Congressional/executive agreements on less earth shattering issues. Then there is the power of the purse.

The president conducts foreign policy for practical reasons:

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304 (1936). As stated in that case:

“…the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the Nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates.”

However, the President does not have a monopoly on setting foreign policy. Congress has the power to declare war, to defund military ventures, to impeach the president, to block arms sales to foreign countries, consent to the appointment of ambassadors and the Secretary of State and many other things in addition to approving treaties. Indeed, the fact that the Supreme Court held that the boundary between the President’s authority in foreign policy and the Senate’s authority under the treaty clause would be a politcal question actually acknowledges that there is a shared authority.

The president simply exceeds his authority by extending long term security guarantees to a foreign government. There simply have not been such agreements in the past. Not only does it usurp the authority of Congress, but it also places future executives in the position of either accepting open ended political agreements or abrogating such agreements relied upon by foreign governments. It is to avoid exactly such a situation that the Senate must advise and consent upon such agreements.

in the mean time, could you let me know what foreign policy setting powers Congress has besides the “approving treaties.”

Congress is upset because they allowed and tolerated being usurped years ago. They deserve what they get. But do Americans deserve cowards for Congress?

.

is good foreign policy – with Dubbya in charge, you can pretty much bet, that it’s not, as none of his policies have ever been “good” in any sense of the word.

#37 your right that my language might have been a “short cut” conclusion, but it is in essence true. Art II outines both the express and implied powers (which invariabely are further explained by SCOTUS as well as curtailed as outside the scope of the executive power) of the Executive. so I stand by it.

It’s hard sometime to know thas AGREEMENTS such as this rest with the President, but the check on this power is to have congress speak/act/overrule. Which given the track record of this session we are pretty much stuck with this deal until 1/20/09.

Congress should act. We have seen too much power assumed by the executive branch by essentially ignoring the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Does any one seriously believe that prior to this administration that:

1. The definition of water boarding as torture would even be debated?

2. The Patriot Act ever would have been tolerated?

3. A long term miliary defense pact not only against foreign but also against internal political threat would be concluded by executive agreement?

4. The doctrine of aggressive, pre-emptive war would become US policy?

The country has taken a very wrong turn on its path through history. Bush and the necons have used typical Orwellian political speak to attempt to initiate these changes. It is time to stop the trend.

Iwas taking issue with this quote

“Article II of the constitution clearly gives the President the ability to enter into “EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS” which by defination are not “TREATIES.”

Which will earn Biden a hearty “Go Cheney yourself, whatcha gonna do about it?” from the Chimperator….

Cheers,

more easily summarized via wiki, but feel free to read the cases below. as well as any Law journal arctile.

An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress.

For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations.

Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).

see Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) & Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

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.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Hilarious, and sadly true at the same time. Good one WitchyOne!

Wonder if the chymp in chief can do away with this via signing statement…