By Lisa Mascaro and Micheal A. Memoli
The GOP lead Congress (click here) has been angling for this moment: the chance to give the President his first stinging override since he took office....
Satisfying political goals is hardly the reason for a veto override.
Congress alone cannot write and ratify changes to foreign policy. It is the participation of the Executive and Legislative Branches that make changes to foreign policy. Congress has the responsibility of ratification, but, not carrying out the negotiations.
Congress is over reaching and interfering in Executive Branch powers. Why bother having a President for checks and balances of power if all Congress has to do is override a veto?
This bill has far ranging consequences besides. Saudi Arabia has been a strong ally to the USA in the Middle East since 1933. The USA could not have functioned all those years if it weren't for a close relationship with Saudi Arabia, primarily because of oil. In passing a law that bypasses Executive Powers to negotiate foreign policy, the USA Congress is telling the world, "You have to deal with us now."
There is the question of the future relations between Saudi Arabia and the USA. If Saudi Arabia decides to cut off relations with the USA, there goes OPEC. Saudi Arabia is a major player in OPEC and if Saudi Arabia decides to end the relationship with the USA, most countries in OPEC will follow that lead.
I remind, Congress foolishly passed a law allowing the export of USA oil and gas.
What happens then? The balance of power will start to tilt more dramatically to Russia and China. The USA, except for Israel and perhaps Jordan, will have lost most of it's allies there.
I think this Congress is among the most foolish of Congresses in history. Their override will prove to be devastating to USA foreign policy and the USA will be more alone than it has ever been before.
Not only foolish, but, lacking of natural resources to back up the veto.
...Events have confirmed that together the President and Congress (click here) make foreign policy, but they have not resolved the question of which branch originates or finally determines policy. The two branches share in the process and each plays an important but different role. The question of who makes foreign policy does not have a more precise answer for several reasons.
First, U.S. foreign policy is not created in a vacuum as some sort of indivisible whole with a single grand design. Rather, making foreign policy is a prolonged process involving many actors and comprising dozens of individual policies toward different countries, regions, and functional problems.
Second, the complex process of determining foreign policy makes it difficult to decide who should be credited with initiating or altering any particular foreign policy. The two branches constantly interact and influence each other. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to trace an idea back to its origin, determine when a proposal actually influences policy, and decide when a modification creates a new policy.
Third, the roles and relative influence of the two branches in making foreign policy differ from time to time according to such factors as the personalities of the President and Members of Congress and the degree of consensus on policy. Throughout American history there have been ebbs and flows of Presidential and congressional dominance in making foreign policy, variously defined by different scholars. One study classified the period 1789-1829 as one of Presidential initiative; 1829-1898 as one of congressional supremacy, and 1899 through the immediate post World War II period as one of growing Presidential power. Another study defined three periods of congressional dominance, 1837-1861, 1869-1897, and 1918-1936, with a fourth one beginning toward the end of the Vietnam War in 1973. During the Reagan and Bush Administrations the pendulum swung back toward Presidential dominance, reaching its height in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. In the post-Persian Gulf war era, both President and the Congress are confronted with issues in foreign policy that may well define which branch of government will play the dominant role during the first decade of the twenty-first century....
