Posted on 12/30/2016 5:17:26 AM PST by HomerBohn
Your list sucks except for Reagan.
Congress can specify in State Department funding bills not to support specific bilateral initiatives. They have even inserted the construction of an new embassy building in a specific location over the objections of the executive branch.
Congress approved the relocation of our Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They included giving the President a wavier to make such a decision, but they did not have to. Jerusalem Embassy Act
"The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened. The act also called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel. Israel's declared capital is Jerusalem, but this is not internationally recognized, pending final status talks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel's capital. The proposed law was adopted by the Senate (93–5), and the House (374–37)."
"Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch's constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests."
Congress levied the requirement that the State Department provide an annual human rights report.
These reports, mandated by Congress in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974, describe the performance of government that receive U.S. foreign assistance and of all United Nations member states, in practicing their international commitments on civil, political, individual, and worker rights, as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN and the Chinese government produce similar reports.
Then give me yours
Same here. I won't be around to read it, alas, but when historians gain access to all the currently classified docs of this administration and begin publishing 0's treasons fifty years from now, I'm confident that Scoundrel #44 will be judged THE worst president ever.
“Can you tell me what Article and Section gives this power exclusively to the Executive? I’ve been trying to find it.”
Article II Section 2. The senate is required to approve treaties, the President alone can negotiate them. Diplomatic appointments, again, must be approved by the Senate, but the power to appoint is exclusive to the executive.
As for the power to remove ambassadors, or dismiss ambassadors from other countries, the Constitution is not explicit on the matter, but the writings of the founders, and subsequent case law, make it clear that this power belongs to the President alone. It is implicit in his exclusive power to appoint ambassadors that he is the only party who can decide what nations to recognize and establish relations with.
Well yours wasn’t so bad except for Kennedy.
1-Reagan
2-Ike
3-Bush-W
4-Bush-HW
5-Nixon
6-Ford
7-LBJ
8-JFK
9-Clinton 9-Carter (tie)
11-Obama
So with respect to Israel, the negotiations that the Administration conducted regarding the UN resolution should have consulted the Senate and received 2/3 approval before it went to the Security Council?
No, a UN security council vote is not a treaty.
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.