General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

14. If foreign policy is the strict purview of the executive then why does Sen. Sanders get a pass?

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 06:56 AM

Jan 2015

He may not be inviting foreign leaders but he's still interfering with foreign policy.

And inviting a foreign leader to speak is not the same as negotiating. The President has ZERO authority over who speaks before Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Likewise, Sen. Sanders has ZERO authority to demand Obama open up TPP negotiations. The latter issue was decided back during Washington's administration.

If Congress doesn't like the TPP the Senate can decline to ratify.

If the President doesn't want sanctions on Iran he can veto.

Each party gets on TV and barks at the other while calculating the political costs of their respective positions. That's the way it works.

I know people would rather make a criminal out of Boehner because it's easier to just shoot the opposition than run a nation where opposition is allowed but Boehner and the GOP will probably be Obama's saving grace on the President's TPP foreign policy. Yeah, sure, we may not like that but then the President's own base finds itself being the opposition we once demanded be shot. Ironic, huh?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Boehner: 'We have a right' to invite Netanyahu to address House [View all] Panich52 Jan 2015 OP

Treason DUgosh Jan 2015 #1

No, it's not. Scootaloo Jan 2015 #2

Thank you markpkessinger Jan 2015 #10

Agreed. It was just a massive breach of protocol and a slap in the face to Obama and long Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #27

True, Bibi was hoping to boost his support in Israel's election, which btw, is AGAINST Israel's sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #51

That, apparently, is not the way the Village Beltway mass media sees it, all that matters, isn't it? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #54

But it is how the WH and the five nations involved in helping the President avoid a confrontation sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #57

Much as I can't stand those fuckers, they ain't enemies of the United States. Iggo Jan 2015 #4

I disagree. They, the Republicans. ARE enemies of the United States. IMO ladjf Jan 2015 #31

Yeah, but your opinion doesn't change the definition of treason. Iggo Jan 2015 #32

My post didn't pertain to the treason charges. I was countering the ladjf Jan 2015 #33

aH! Iggo Jan 2015 #35

No, it's not. GGJohn Jan 2015 #23

It's certain not treason but disrespect yeoman6987 Jan 2015 #29

Actually, he doesn't... TreasonousBastard Jan 2015 #3

actually he does onenote Jan 2015 #17

Not quite the same thing... TreasonousBastard Jan 2015 #18

if the foreign relations committees hold hearings on foreign policy matters onenote Jan 2015 #30

Foreign leaders have always been invited to speak to Congress SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #36

Not according to the Logan Act, he doesn't. In fact, he should be prosecuted for violating it. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #5

What about Sen. Sanders making demands on Obama's TPP negotiations? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #11

I don't understand your question. Has Senator Sanders negotiated with foreign heads of State or BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #13

If foreign policy is the strict purview of the executive then why does Sen. Sanders get a pass? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #14

So when was there never opposition? You are trying hard to make Sanders look bad and Rex Jan 2015 #19

I have no intention of making Sen. Sanders look bad. On the contrary Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #25

NO ONE's giving Senator Sanders a pass - but he's done NOTHING wrong. You're comparing apples and BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #39

"directly commencing or carrying on any correspondence with a foreign government, or agent thereof" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #40

Republicans *wanted* to charge her with violation of the Logan Act, but they knew it was political BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #44

"Not once...has the Speaker invited a head of a foreign country to speak to the entire Congress" Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #63

Wrong. onenote Jan 2015 #16

Hear! Hear! Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2015 #26

Should Nancy Pelosi have been prosecuted for her 2007 trip to Syria? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #42

You had to post this TWICE?? That reeks of desperation. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #46

Please proceed Mr Speaker C_U_L8R Jan 2015 #6

so where's the outrage for the pope speaking before congress? nt msongs Jan 2015 #7

His invite followed protocol Panich52 Jan 2015 #9

Proper channels? SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #37

Heads of state visiting another country are supposed to advise the host country geek tragedy Jan 2015 #62

So I guess SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #67

It can consider legislation and spending, but it has no consular or diplomatic authority. geek tragedy Jan 2015 #68

Make all of the SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #69

Sure, he has the legal right to do that, but it's also partisan and crass geek tragedy Jan 2015 #70

Yeah. 'Cause that's the same thing. lol...nt SidDithers Jan 2015 #34

Oh yeah, shift the blame Orange man benld74 Jan 2015 #8

Boner LIES for a living so.. you take anything he says as a fact. Cha Jan 2015 #12

Could be song by the 'Boner Boys' benz380 Jan 2015 #15

How pathetic, the GOP has defenders on DU. However it is not surprising in the least bit. Rex Jan 2015 #20

Ummm, no. GGJohn Jan 2015 #24

Nope, not at all SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #38

Yep. At least we know who they are. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #48

Of course he does. It may be crass, disrespectful, and a breach of protocol, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #21

It's pretty ridiculous tammywammy Jan 2015 #22

Boehner violated Federal law, specifically the 1799 Logan Act, 18 U.S. Code, subsection 953. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #41

Should Nancy Pelosi have been prosecuted for conducting foreign policy in Syria in 2007? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #43

Has Speaker Pelosi invited Assad to speak to a joint session of Congress in order to influence BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #45

So you'd be OK with Boehner traveling to Israel to meet with Netanyahu there, Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #47

I asked first. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #49

Actually the first question was asked by me in post 43, which you have still not answered. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #50

Still grasping at straws, I see. Anyway, asked and answered. Perhaps you need to reread my post BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #56

Sorry I made you twist yourself into such a pretzel (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #58

As I've guessed from the get-go...your arguments have no leg to stand on. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #59

Apology accepted. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #60

Thank you. But your apology isn't. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #61

LOL! You forgot to add nyah nyah. Demit Jan 2015 #53

Well, isn't it common courtesy and an act of mature propriety to answer a question first before BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #55

Well, I'd say a sign of maturity, if your goal is an exchange of information, Demit Jan 2015 #64

You're overlooking the fact that I HAVE answered the question, so I HAVE extended courtesy FIRST. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #65

I did read the thread. Demit Jan 2015 #66

Already totally debunked -- see post 16 onenote Jan 2015 #52

How many of our tax dollars is Boehner going to give him? Then they scream about the debt. . . B Calm Jan 2015 #28