Posted on 03/02/2015 5:28:10 AM PST by mac_truck
House Speaker John Boehner’s annoyance with President Barack Obama is turning into a grudge match against the Constitution.
His decision to invite a foreign head of government to address Congress without first consulting the sitting president has no precedent in American history. And for a simple reason. It’s unconstitutional.
Boehner (R-Ohio) fully admits that his failure to communicate with the White House was not an oversight. Like a schoolboy passing notes when the teacher turns to the blackboard, he sneaked behind Obama’s back to set the date for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech with his country’s ambassador to the United States. Boehner asked the foreign dignitary not to tell the U.S. president.
"I wanted to make sure,” Boehner later explained on Fox News, “there was no interference.” Netanyahu is now scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on March 3.
This is unheard of in U.S. history.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Flak being taken -— must be over the target.
House is run by the Speaker. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President given any input is how it is run, who is invited to speak, etc.
The author is a Demagogic Party shill from California, what a huge surprise.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Elizabeth+Cobbs+Hoffman
When the President refuses to act, Congress must do it themselves.
as gambits go, Bohner’s is a winner. The invitation and the acceptance are absolutely brilliant moves
I’m having a difficult time understanding how merely inviting a foreign dignitary to speak to a joint session of congress, or one of the house/senate separately is unconstitutional.
Is it explained in the article, or is it just so because the author says it is? I can’t bring myself to provide a hit to the moronic author or their charge.
Story that Boehner blindsided Obama on Netanyahu invitation was manufactured agitprop
NYTimes: Correction: January 30, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.
There is one key job, however, that the founding fathers assigned to the president alone. The Constitution says that the president “shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers” from foreign governments.
From Article 2 Section 3. No other cites mentioned.
Didn’t Boehner invite Bibi previously and the white hut failed to respond when asked?
Reuters lecturing us on the Constitution. Maybe they will lecture us next on how to put one foot in front of the other?
I wonder why this isn’t being emphasized. Oh wait, the news lies.
Yes naughty John Boehner. Why I well remember the caterwauling on the left when Jim Wright was conducting separate negotiations with Nicaragua while Reagan was trying to end that conflict and when John Kerry was conducting separate talks with the North Vietnamese in Paris. And as for respecting the Constitution we all know the present incumbent in the White House is a stickler for keeping to the letter of the laws and the Constitution.
The whole of the article in question reads:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
One could read that and think the president is merely obligated to welcome the ambassador since the constitution states "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;". Why is the author's view any more valid than my interpretation? I am using standard dictionary / legal definitions here, so I just don't see why this twit has his panties in a wad WRT this article of the constitution (other than the fact that he is intentionally twisting the words of the constitution to fit his agenda).
Heck, the constitution also states immediately after the section cited by this dunderhead (very ironically in this case) "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
I'm sure the Netenyahu invitation was meant as a giant middle-finger from Boehner to Obama, but there is nothing unconstitutional in Congress inviting a foreign leader to address it.
What dis ho be talkin’ about? “Unconstitutional.” We don’t use da Constitution in America no mo. We have a pen and cell phone form of gubmint now!
AL Reuters had better check with Alan Deschowitz. He knows a heck of a lot more about the constitution than some hysterical, shrill, paid shill from AL Reuters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.