Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The Pelosi Seven's Unconstitutional Globetrotting

"Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from [multiple personalities in government] must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the Executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious... In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality."
-- Federalist No. 70 (emphasis added)
"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
-- Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA)
The danger inherent in Rep. Pelosi and her gang of seven's shameful trip to Syria was clearly foreseen by the framers of the Constitution. What Lantos doesn't understand is that how he views his job - and apparently how Pelosi sees hers - is directly at odds with the Constitution. In fact, how he "views his job" is irrelevant - his job description (at least as it relates to foreign policy) is pretty clearly laid out in the Constitution he swore to support and defend. In case he needs it spelled out, it doesn't include negotiations with foreign leaders in contravention of official US foreign policy.

The United States doesn't have separate Democrat or Republican foreign policies, it has A foreign policy. One. Period. And the execution of that foreign policy is the sole province of the President - the one the American people elected knowing full well he would be entrusted with that responsibility for the next four years, not the wanna-be one accountable to no one except a few hundred thousand hippies in the second smallest congressional district in the country.

It's bad enough when members of our government with more bombast than brains or influence do these kinds of things, like when Rep. McDermott went to Baghdad on the eve of war to show his support for terrorist-funding fascists over the President of the United States. This is the category in which I place the six shamefully seditious fools who followed Pelosi on her illegal errand, including the three Republicans. But when it's the Speaker of the House of Representatives, she's holding herself out as an alternative President - someone who will assure terror-sponsoring foreign leaders that they need not worry about the man in the White House who points out their evil or may impose sanctions. She's going as someone who announces - with credibility - that she has the power to thwart US interests and our Constitutional scheme, to the delight of our enemies. (And doing it while wearing a headscarf in submission to Islam, no less.) Whether that is her intent or not is irrelevant. She's aiding the enemies of freedom to the direct detriment of the people and the Constitution of the United States. What Jihadist can see one of the most powerful people in America treating a fascist terror leader as a statesman while wearing their religion's required attire and not believe victory over the blasphemy of liberal democracy is at hand?

This isn't a partisan issue, either. This is a precedent that, once set, can never go away. Imagine the howls that would have gone out from those now praising Pelosi had Newt Gingrich gone to negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic in between Clinton's ordered Tomahawk barrages. They would have been universal, loud, and correct. But not any more. There's no sanction for this beyond condemnation and outrage, short of a sedition charge (a card that sadly will never be played). If Pelosi gets away with this, we will forever have an "opposition foreign policy," with the party out of power seeking to undermine our own president in the halls of foreign governments.

Talk about the Constitution under assault.

Can any foreign power take a country seriously when independent factional heads each pursue their own foreign policies, each seeking to undermine the other? Lose tribal confederations do that, not Great Nations. Our Constitution gives us the method - we debate, then we decide, then one person acts with one voice beyond our shores. For two centuries, we've followed that model. Now the Speaker of the House (the only one of the seven with any real power, which is why her actions are the most worthy of scorn) has chosen to disregard that for her own short term ends. It's illegal and anti-American, and dangerous in the extreme at a time in history our lives and way of life depend on those who value freedom opposing theocratic fascism with one voice.

I can only hope the voters of this great nation choose to keep it so, and rebuke this behavior next year at the polls.


ModMilq said...

I think the problem is that nobody bothers read or understand the constitution. My guess is that most Americans don't understand the implications of the trip.

I agree with you on this, it is extremely troubling.

Arleta said...

I saw this on the news and couldn't believe it. This is CLEARLY illegal. I agree completely.

I have been trying to get constitutional studies put back in grade school - I think it wouldn't hurt to make Congress take it!

Juvenal said...

In fact, Pelosi might have committed a felony in visiting Damascus. Surely the attorney general is compelled to launch an investigation, not only to enforce the law, but also to demonstrate that no one (not the vice president's chief of staff, not the Speaker of the House) is above the law ...

PostalMed said...

Let's see... treason, sedition, violation of the Logan Act, probably a few other crimes that I as a non-lawyer am not aware of. I agree with the idea of bringing back the special prosecutor. The appropriate penalty should be criminal prosecution, jail time, and impeachment. But you know as well as I do that that will never happen, because our President and the Republican party has in the last couple of years become invertebrate. And as for her being voted out of office, you said it yourself, Orrin -- she was elected by a couple hundred thousand hippies from one of the most liberal places in the country, so that won't happen either.

Anonymous said...

Overreact much? You have to try to remember that we live under a *living* constitution, just as our forbears intended.