Should Israel's PM speak to Congress?

[Zaac]

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 - 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...

Bold my emphasis

I understand and already knew that. Boehner isn't in the Senate. ANd this has nothing to do with giving advice or consent.

This is about a near treasonous act by the SOH.

 

[Zaac]

"its not the place of congress to make new laws".......




Somebody help this guy out.

Here let me word it so that your mind can make the connection.

None of this matters. He's the President and he CONSTITUTIONALLY directs foreign policy. It is not the place of Congress to direct foreign policy anymore than it's his to make new laws.

 

[carpro]

Here let me word it so that your mind can make the connection.

None of this matters. He's the President and he CONSTITUTIONALLY directs foreign policy. It is not the place of Congress to direct foreign policy anymore than it's his to make new laws.

It is the presidents job to conduct foreign policy...with the advise and consent of the Senate. they do not have to be silent and he can make no treaty nor appoint an ambassador without their consent.

The House, while having no direct say in foreign policy except for the power to declare war, still can play an important part. Our fore fathers understood that U.S. foreign policy could be influenced by what George Washington referred to as "enlightened" public opinion.

The House, with the most direct contact with the public has a duty to keep the public "enlightened" and to share the opinions of the public with the president. That becomes especially important with a liar and islamic sympathizer for a president.

Furthemore, with their power of the purse, they can limit the presidents ability to make agreements not in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

It is in the spirit of enlightenment that they have invited a knowledgeble voice to speak to them.

Good for them.

 

[Zaac]

More like the spirit of treason.

 

[carpro]

More like the spirit of treason.

Ridiculous.

 

[righteousdude2]

I don't care what Obama has done. HE is the President. He was elected to decide foreign policy.

And the more I think about Boehner and the Israeli Ambassador's collusion to bypass the President and forge their own foreign policy, the more it starts to sound treasonous.

I don't know if Boehner was wrong, The Congress is an equal partner in the tri-fold branch of this government, and that gives them the right to invite whom they wish to invite to speak.

If Congress should not be making foreign policy, why do they have the right and responsibly to declare war? Is that not foreign policy?

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know if Boehner was wrong,

I do, the answer is no. He is not wrong. The President is not above congress. Further the President has an old aid helping the opposition candidate for Netenwhathisface with his campaign. Talk about meddling.

 

[Zaac]

I don't know if Boehner was wrong, The Congress is an equal partner in the tri-fold branch of this government, and that gives them the right to invite whom they wish to invite to speak.

If Congress should not be making foreign policy, why do they have the right and responsibly to declare war? Is that not foreign policy?

Umm, no it's not.

 

[Zaac]

Ridiculous.

Not really. The case can be made. It might be a stretch, but I can definitely see an angle for someone to make that case.

 

[righteousdude2]

Umm, no it's not.

Are you always SO contrary? :laugh:

 

[Salty]

If Congress should not be making foreign policy, why do they have the right and responsibly to declare war? Is that not foreign policy?

Umm, no it's not.

You are joking - aren't you?

If war is NOT foreign policy - than what is it.?


Now - lets understand the separation of powers.
The Congress makes law
The President Executes the law

 

[carpro]

Not really. The case can be made. It might be a stretch, but I can definitely see an angle for someone to make that case.

No, it can't. Not even close. But a case could be made against the president.

Israel is not an enemy. Iran is.

So we have an angry president, increasingly desperate for vindication of his failed foreign policy, accelerating both his appeasement of Iran and his attacks on Israel. The good news is that the Republican party and the conservative movement—and most of the American people—stand with Israel and against President Obama.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama is throwing a temper tantrum. Nothing more

 

[righteousdude2]

Obama is throwing a temper tantrum. Nothing more

Great .... we have an immature Muslim sympathizer leading the greatest nation in the world. Someone needs to lock the nukes up. If we are worried about N. Korea and Iran, what about a temper throwing POTUS?

 

[church mouse guy]

I do, the answer is no. He is not wrong. The President is not above congress. Further the President has an old aid helping the opposition candidate for Netenwhathisface with his campaign. Talk about meddling.

And the meddling in Israel is paid for by the American taxpayer. If a white president did that, he would be impeached.

 

[Zaac]

Are you always SO contrary? :laugh:

I stated that it was near treasonous. The contrarian would be the ones who said it was not.

 

[church mouse guy]

Great .... we have an immature Muslim sympathizer leading the greatest nation in the world. Someone needs to lock the nukes up. If we are worried about N. Korea and Iran, what about a temper throwing POTUS?

It's not his fault--he didn't know anything about it until he saw it in the news and his big-boy pants are at the cleaners so he can't put them on.

 

[carpro]

Great .... we have an immature Muslim sympathizer leading the greatest nation in the world. Someone needs to lock the nukes up. If we are worried about N. Korea and Iran, what about a temper throwing POTUS?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-israel-problem_830240.html

Why has Obama been lashing out? Because he had a dream. He was to be the American president who would preside at, and take credit for, the founding of a Palestinian state. Obama would be to Palestine what Harry Truman was to Israel. Now it's clear that's not going to happen during his presidency. Obama's frustrated that it's not going to happen. So he lashes out.

But Obama is still pursuing another dream: to be the American president who goes to Tehran, who achieves with Iran what Richard Nixon achieved with China. And he thinks Israel, and Israel's friends in the United States, stand in the way of achieving that dream. So he has another reason to be angry.

Of course, it's not Israel but reality that stands in the way of Obama's dreams.

 

[church mouse guy]

Thanks, Carpro, for the information that Obama wants to be the father of the Palestinian State in order to leave a legacy when he goes out of office. Perhaps he can claim a legacy as the father of the Iranian atomic bomb and the ensuing nuclear war.

 

[Zaac]

You are joking - aren't you?

If war is NOT foreign policy - than what is it.?

Gosh, I'm hoping YOU'RE joking. Maybe that's what's wrong with the GOP. Somebody has convinced yall that WAR is a foreign policy.

War is a response to an adverse action. It is not an ongoing RELATIONAL policy.