Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+February 01, 2007 04:25 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ February 01, 2007 04:25 pm) Oh lord. I knew my lack of time last night and brevity would cause you to run with this.
Executive Agreements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional-executive_agreement#Scope_of_presidential_powers) are limited in scope to the powers already allowed by the Constitution of the United States.
manic
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:05 pm
I'm not talking about the Department of Transportation, I'm talking about the executive making agreements with other heads of state. Your example had nothing to do with this issue; stay on topic.
:lol:
It has nothing to do with the issue according to you because it directly refutes your argument that in the United States the Executive wields some kind of ultimate authority.
In fact the Dept. of Transportation example is far more relevant considering Chavez is claiming the power to nationalize an industry, which is an Executive decision about domestic policy, not foreign policy. Do you even understand the difference?
It is Congress that ultimately wields authority over just about everything. Whether they excercise that authority is their choice. The President's ability to act unilaterally through executive agreements is limited. The President's ability to act through executive orders is limited. In all cases those orders or agreements can be rendered meaningless through an act of Congress.
Explain how, at the end of the day, such a measure is wholly different from what Chavez is trying to gain.
It is a matter of degree. The President can enter into an agreement with Canada over something trivial like fishing boundaries. He cannot issue a new law by decree, since Executive Orders and Executive Agreements are simply administrative (implementation) decisions made within the intent of a law passed by Congress. These are vagaries that you do not understand nor would you admit to if you did.
To put it into language you can understand, think of it this way: Pretend you are married. Your wife tells you to pick up groceries on the way and gives you a list. You stop at Store A (your choice) and pick up a few extra items (again your choice). Those were your decisions but were made in the context of the stated intent, which was getting groceries. Those kinds of things the President can do. What the President cannot do, but which Chavez has granted himself the power to do, is to come home from work and inform his wife that effective Monday he's changed careers and the family is moving from Seattle to Miami.
Do you understand the difference?
I know you are going to ignore the details involved and simply claim it's all the same and that you're right. But regardless of your blathering, you are not even remotely correct nor do you appear to have a basic understanding of how the U.S. Federal Government works.
Are you even an American out of curiosity? [/b]
It has nothing to do with executive agreements. Stay on topic. This is about executive agreements and nothing else. Again, stay on topic and stop dancing around the issue.
Did I say the executive branch wields "some kind of ultimate authority"? No, I didn't, so don't put words in my mouth. You keep substituting irrelevant points in place of the argument you lack.
Chavez wants to have the power to make decrees. This bears quite a resemblance to the power that the US executive has in the realm of foreign policy. You have ignored this fact and kept citing domestic authority, when my original point had nothing to do with domestic authority.
Congress, in practice, is bypassed with executive agreements. Congress CAN render them meaningless, but when you look at history and the way the government functions, it doesn't in the vast majority of cases. We're looking at what actually happens, not at what could possibly happen. What actually happens is what you're ignoring.
No, it is hardly a matter of degree. The President's executive agreements can be and are far more important and possess far more gravity than fishing boundaries. He may not be able to rule by decree in the domestic realm, but executive agreements are virtually decrees in the foreign arena. The only thing that's vague here is why you refuse to acknowledge what is an accepted fact.
To put it in your own language: you go out and buy a Corvette without asking your spouse. You didn't get his/her approval, but you bought it anyway. On the other hand, your spouse decides to rearrange the living room without your approval. Those two actions share the same degree of difference that the US' executive agreements and Venezuela's decrees share.
I already know that you are probably going to try and tell everyone that executive agreements aren't what they truly are, and that you'll probably bring up domestic policy even though I never talked about domestic policy, but like all your arguments, your points are as false as they are insipid.
Are you serious, out of curiosity?