Has Pelosi Violated The Constitution?
April 4th, 2007
Big Mo has a wonderful post up at Hang Right Politics, showing us, according to James Madison, one of our founding fathers, why Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria which has been described by Rep. Tom Lantos as “an alternative Democrat foreign policy” is possibly going to get us into a constitutional crisis.
Some quotes:
For proof that what she and her party is doing is so outrageous, I give you none other than the father of the Constitution, James Madison, who explained the necessity for the separation of powers in Federalist #51:But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
From Federalist #53, speaking on House members:
And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation.
And in a speech on June 8, 1789, to the House, proposing the Bill of Rights:
The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
No matter who the president is and no matter if we agree or disagree with his foreign policy it is his turf and his turf alone. Certainly not the turf of the Speaker of the House.
Written by Jeanette
Posted in 10 Responses to “Has Pelosi Violated The Constitution?”
A big hello from over at Mac’s place!
The “house” and senate are made up of regional representatives…that one who lives outside that region..CANNOT VOTE FOR..nor seek to influence them in opinion. Pelosi doesn’t represent me, NOR my district, nor my state. I can’t vote her in or out as the result of her actions (or lack thereof). She is answerable to no-one other than her own local/regional consituency. The “president”, however, is our national representative who is answerable to all voters. The congress, as a whole, seeks to take the collective of all local/regional influence by rule of vote and agreement within that body and to serve as “oversight” …not seditionist.
This is “why” national/international..policy making is not in their realm. Because otherwise, an individual…like say…Pelosi could just go off on her own and have policy discussions with say….syria..and not be held to account or influence by anyone other than her own local constituency.
Funny, for some strange reason I thought the Congress represented the people of the United States.
God knows that we need representation.
The difference is the Constitution calls for a representative to be responsible only to his or her constituents in his or her congressional district. A congresswoman or man represents only his or her district and not the entire country when out of country.
Try to contact Speaker Pelosi from her website and you will get an email back saying you are not one of her constituents. She then tells you if you want to contact her as Speaker of the House to use a different email.
When the Code Pink women were protesting at her house she told them they were not her constituents and she didn’t have to talk to them.
The constitution provides for the Executive Branch to be our representative in foreign affairs and it is very plain in its language.
Cal:
Do you believe the Speaker of the House has the right to set and enforce Foreign Policy?
If you do please tell us what affords this person (no matter their party affiliation) that right. It could be an interesting Constitutional discussion.
No I don’t. Just like getting J going.:”>
Okay, sorry for intruding on the inside joke. lol
I agree with you 100%. I remember a time when the President ran foreign policy and the congress did domestic. That is no longer the way.
Just to clarify:
Actually, congress does have a role in foreign affairs and always has. That’s not the point. The point is..it’s a different role than the president (or executive branch) role and in different areas. And that more importantly..the reason for that is that there are over 500 memebers of house and senate who all represent and are only answerable via elections to district/local/state (and private) interests. The president however is answerable to every voter directly.
And further…even the constitution makes light of the fact that beyond the powers vested in the 3 branches..all other rights inferred or otherwise, go back to the “people” and states. Even the constitution recognizes the liberty and rights of the individual and collective “states” that make up the “union” are indeed seperate from the fed gov.
Further, our form of government is not a democracy…but a constitutional republic. It’s difference is significant..in that our constitution protects minority (as in the fewer in number) rights…much more so than a pure democracy would (where the “most” votes carry the day). Understanding these basic underlying principals…is inherently important if you want to even start discussing the roles that each branch may play in areas where their constitutional powers overlap.
Ms. Pelosi said she sought to represent and listen to all Americans when she was running for the Speakership. But then again, she’s said a lot of things and did quite the opposite once she’s gotten what she wants. It’s about her. It’s about power. It ain’t about us.
For all the pedantics in here about “constitutional republics” et.al…. Remember, human rights and the advancement of democracy formed our Constitution and not the converse… We’re supposed to be advancing the cause of democracy not sending our kids as rent-a-cops for every damned corporation who wants to screw the locals.
Check it out: We have military bases in over one hundred countries around the world with the military, black budget, spy agencies, “homeland security,” and the rest taking over sixty percent of our discretionary budget annually. That’s a whole lot more like Imperial Rome and a whole lot less than a “constitutional republic.”
So be careful when you imply that those who want democracy don’t understand the context. Or have you forgotten that the resident in the White House was never elected in the first place? Or that corporate dollars count more than votes do these days? “Constitutional republic ?” Right……