Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Why shouldn't Congress have a foreign policy of its own?

Because: Then the President wouldn't be King. I would go a step further and suggest that each state should have a foreign policy of its own -- subject to approval, veto, etc., from the three Federal branches. Finally, individual voters should have a foreign policy of their own, subject to the oversight of the state and federal governments -- which, incidentally, voters can change.

The neocon attempt to bring back the good ol' days for presidential power makes the mistake of believing such invigoration can only be effected by cocooning the presidency and working apart from the other segments of the union. Discourse is not allowed; but, happens anyway.

As long as the Congress operates in accordance with the Constitution, they may do whatever they like. In order to do what is necessary, they need to leave their own cocoons.

I would suggest that the answer to your question, "Why shouldn't Congress have a foreign policy of its own?" is Article II, Section 2., of the Constitution of the United States. Ms. Pelosi should stay within the bounds of Article I to continue to influence the Executive Branch (as she is appropriately doing by controlling funding for the war.) The operative question for any action any branch of the Federal Government may take is, "where in the constitution do you derive the power to do that?" The 10th Amendment clearly deals with things not covered in the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is the ultimate rule set. We thought enough of it to insist that Iraq develop one. I don't think its time for a rule set reset (for the Constitution.)

Al, I think you are reading more into Article II Section 2 than is there. The Congress can't advise nor consent if they do not have a policy in mind, that is, a guiding rule or measure, by which to judge their level of consent or to offer advice.

Furthermore, per Article I, Section 10, even individual states can enter into agreements with foreign powers, go to war, etc., etc., if they have the consent of Congress. How would Congress be able to judge its level of consent, if it didn't have its own foreign policy to follow?

Well, I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I'll admit, far from it; but I can read.

All good comments, Curtis. I was addressing the specific comment, "Why shouldn't Congress have a foreign policy of its own?" While I'm relatively sure Dr. Barnett was being just a little bit facetious, I was making the point that only the President is empowered by the Constitution to conduct foreign policy (directly addressing his specific comment.) Congress developing and negotiating its own Foreign Policy to include directly negotiating with Foreign Heads of State (as Ms. Pelosi appears to be doing) violates the principle of separation of powers and (some may say) Constitutional boundaries. In fact (as I suspect we both know) Ms. Pelosi’s trip is political theater. Congress’ tool is the purse strings. The President controls the State Department, an Executive Branch organization led by the 4th in line for the Presidency and the principle tool of this country’s Foreign policy.

I disagree with your read of Article 1, section 10; however, that's probably a topic for a long debate over a drink or two. The literal reading indicates that States may respond to a direct threat, not go to war. I’ll once again refer you to the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, reading the constitution isn't enough. Understanding it within the context of the times which it was written and grammatical usage during those times is a required skill. Smarter people than either of us continue to disagree over the meaning of certain sections of the constitution and the meaning of the placement of punctuation (the punctuation of the second amendment and its meaning being one of my favorite issues.)

My comments merely reflect a common conservative interpretation of the Constitution and do not reflect my support for this President or his Foreign Policy. Fortunately, we have the 22nd Amendment to remedy our current political situation.

Re: Article 1 Section 10, the first para is 100% prohibition, the second is prohibition unless Congressional approval (and the money goes to the federal government), and the third para requires Congressional approval AND invasion/imminent threat thereof. Needless to say, the third para is irrelevant in today's world.

Foreign policy is wholly within the purview of the executive; I agree that Congress should have a say, but that say is legislative in nature. Pelosi's little field trip is hypothetically permissible as a fact-finding mission, it seems a bit odd for a congresswoman from California to be jetsetting around the ME.

(FWIW, I think McCain's in the same boat on this -- it's a political stunt and undermines the authority of the prez.)

There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that makes foreign policy exclusively an Executive bailiwick, and there are many aspects of the enumerated Legislative powers in Art. I, Sec. 8 that do relate to foreign policy. In any event, it is really a question of practicality, not legality. In my opinion, the Bush Administration, by combining ideologues at VP/DOD with ineffective careerists in State, has driven the credibility of US foreign policy to its lowest level in my memory, arguably lower than the Carter Administration. Under these circumstances, I think it is useful for other political figures, particularly the Speaker of the House as the leader of the Legislative Branch, to send a message to the world to sit tight, have faith in the USA, and expect changes in 2 years.