Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where does that letter say "this is an attempt to undermine policy?"
In 1984, it clearly was an attempt to undermine policy. There was no other reason.
How about his speech two months ago saying his intent for congressional action was to end negotiations full-stop. But yeah... a letter he wrote threatening to throw out any agreement reached should be considered separately from his desire to end the negotiations full-stop.
And I'm not even saying that what happened in 84 wasn't undermining policy, just pointing out the rank hypocrisy/lunacy of someone saying that Cotton doing exactly what he said he'd do to undermine the policy, doesn't count as undermining policy...
How about his speech two months ago saying his intent for congressional action was to end negotiations full-stop. But yeah... a letter he wrote threatening to throw out any agreement reached should be considered separately from his desire to end the negotiations full-stop.
And I'm not even saying that what happened in 84 wasn't undermining policy, just pointing out the rank hypocrisy/lunacy of someone saying that Cotton doing exactly what he said he'd do to undermine the policy, doesn't count as undermining policy...
It is not the President of the United State's job to make policy. It is the President's job to implement the policies approved by Congress.
It is not the President of the United State's job to make policy. It is the President's job to implement the policies approved by Congress.
Not internationally. At the very least the President can enter into executive agreements, which are at the discretion of the president. On top of that, Congress can upgrade that executive agreement to a treaty w/ a 2/3 vote. So no. The president doesn't need Congress to approve how he deals w/ other countries, as long as it's not breaking any laws.
Not internationally. At the very least the President can enter into executive agreements, which are at the discretion of the president. On top of that, Congress can upgrade that executive agreement to a treaty w/ a 2/3 vote. So no. The president doesn't need Congress to approve how he deals w/ other countries, as long as it's not breaking any laws.
But any agreement at the discretion of the President is NON BINDING.. The next President can tell the deal to go to hell.
Is that the impression we want the international community to have of us? That we dont abide by our word?
11 FAM 723.2-2(C) Agreements Pursuant to the
Constitutional Authority of the President
(CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)
The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject
within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not
inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its
constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the
President to conclude international agreements include:
(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation
in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public
ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.”
If you're really concerned about the impression of the international community, then you should be livid about these 47 morons that undermined the credibility of the office of the POTUS by ignoring this explicit Constitutional power. That undermines the office's ability to make ANY INTERNATIONAL agreements with ANY foreign leader for EVERY future President.
If you're really concerned about the impression of the international community, then you should be livid about these 47 morons that undermined the credibility of the office of the POTUS by ignoring this explicit Constitutional power. That undermines the office's ability to make ANY INTERNATIONAL agreements with ANY foreign leader for EVERY future President.
(1) The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation
in foreign affairs;
(2) The President's authority to receive ambassadors and other public
ministers, and to recognize foreign governments;
(3) The President's authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(4) The President's authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.”
Represent, does not bind the NEXT president, Represent is a position, not a legally binding law
Receiving ambassadors, again, isnt an act, legally biding the nation by law
Commander in Chief, is a war act, which isnt legally biding to the next President
And laws be faithfully executed, REQUIRE CONGRESS to actually WRITE THE LAW
All you did was prove the Republicans point.
NEXT
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
