"... the president also directs U.S. foreign policy. Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments, and negotiates treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds vote of the Senate.[citation needed]
Although not constitutionally provided, presidents also sometimes employ "executive agreements" in foreign relations. These agreements frequently regard administrative policy choices germane to executive power; for example, the extent to which either country presents an armed presence in a given area, how each country will enforce copyright treaties, or how each country will process foreign mail. However, the 20th century witnessed a vast expansion of the use of executive agreements, and critics have challenged the extent of that use as supplanting the treaty process and removing constitutionally prescribed checks and balances over the executive in foreign relations. Supporters counter that the agreements offer a pragmatic solution when the need for swift, secret, and/or concerted action arises." wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#War_and_foreign_affairs_powers
------------------------
Clearly it is the president of the United States who establishes and administers the country's foreign policy, not the Congress of the United States. pl
****************
"A visas are issued to "representatives of a foreign government traveling to the United States to engage in official activities for that government." A visas are granted to foreign government ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, as well as other foreign government officials or employees traveling on official business [A-1 Visa]." Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_States#Visa_denial
-----------------------
Clearly it is within the legal powers of the president of the US to grant or deny a visa to enter and/or reside in the US to foreign persons who apply for such a visa. It is not within the power of any member of the Congress of the United States to grant a visa to enter to enter the United States.
IMO it is entirely inappropriate for the Speaker of the House of Representatives to seek to bring a foreign head of government to the US for the purpose of undermining the constitutional foreign policy authority of the presidency.
The US Congress is not the UN. Bibi has no right at all to enter the US to address the Congress of the United States without the agreement of the US president. President Obama should require Bibi and Boehner to come to Canossa hat in hand to beg for such a visa. pl
All
There are some real hard liners in Congress now. We should all pray that Bibi's visit does not cause the CongressCritters to pass new sanctions to the nuclear deal with Iran .
Posted by: alba etie | 21 January 2015 at 08:00 PM
AE
They will have to pass them into law over Obama's veto. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 21 January 2015 at 08:09 PM
Col Lang
My concern is that the 'red hots ' in the Senate , -such as Senator Robert Menedez D New Jersey will find the needed 67 votes to override President Obama's veto . Our Overton window after the mid term election has taken a decidedly , IMO, hard right turn regarding overseas adventures. Perhaps this will be the time that Senator Paul stands up and helps defeat the neocons attempt to slap new sanctions on Iran. It is appalling that Boehner has invited BiBi to instigate this fight over the Iran deal . This is the same 'usual suspects ' that has wanted all along to 'destroy Iran" - by any means necessary .
Posted by: alba etie | 21 January 2015 at 09:20 PM
I know it makes me sound like a cranky old coot, but Boehner and the rest of the Israel firster congressmen and senators could just get their own visas, trot over to Jerusalem and kiss Bibi's ass in front of the Knesset. These periodic displays of fawning over Bibi in the Capital are just revolting.
Looks like Shoigu just signed a military cooperation pact with Iran. The S-300s may be on their way before long. Bibi must be apoplexic. Maybe he'll make like Rumpelstiltskin and stomp his feet so hard the earth opens up and swallows him.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 21 January 2015 at 09:56 PM
Netanyahu was born in Israel and attended some (or all) high school in the U.S., and also went to college in the U.S. Is he also a U.S. citizen? If not, does he have a green card?
Israel is not a party to the U.S. visa waiver program; I was concerned that Obama was going to crater and help push through the fairly recent attempt in Congress to pass a law making Israel part of that program, but fortunately that has not happened so far.
In my opinion, the existing visa waiver program should be cut back with fewer countries having that legal privilege.
Posted by: robt willmann | 21 January 2015 at 10:03 PM
THANK YEW, Colonel! I cannot tell you how incensed I am by the Speaker's action.
Posted by: MRW | 21 January 2015 at 10:07 PM
Call Boehner's office: (202) 225-0600. *Traitor*.
Posted by: MRW | 21 January 2015 at 10:13 PM
Can Bibi and KSA deliver 67 votes in the Senate?
Actually, I would not be surprised.
Posted by: oth | 21 January 2015 at 10:40 PM
Barbara Boxer, Rand Paul work together on Iran bill
Their proposal would offer an alternative to a sanctions bill gaining steam in Congress.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barbara-boxer-rand-paul-iran-bill-114446.html#ixzz3PX6wfpeO
Posted by: johnf | 22 January 2015 at 02:29 AM
I fear that the Republicans added by some Democrats that are in the pocket of Israel can garner enough votes to override Obama's veto. Perhaps if we are enmeshed in another war thanks to Israel, it will bring more Americans out to vote in 2016.
Posted by: NancyK | 22 January 2015 at 03:30 AM
oth
Nor would I ..
Posted by: alba etie | 22 January 2015 at 04:52 AM
More proof that the Israel lobby owns congress. As pro-Israel money continues to flow into local elections, post-Citizens United, an increasing number of dangerous representatives in the U.S. are getting elected. You can foresee where this dark path is leading. Ironically, one of the best hopes for curing the loaded bias in the U.S. election cycle is for the Israeli voters to cure themselves of the growing numbers of pro-war representatives in their own house. There must be some way for U.S. (and the World's) interests to speak to everyday Israelis, to help them see the human race more objectively. Humans are not inherently evil, despite the evil acts that some of us do. If the Israelis cannot come to see this, is not interminable war in our collective future?
Posted by: DC | 22 January 2015 at 08:36 AM
This may complicate matters:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/netanyahu-mossad-split-divides-u-s-congress-on-iran-sanctions
Posted by: Lars | 22 January 2015 at 08:48 AM
P.L. To answer your question in the post Article II Section 2 of the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TREATY RATIFICATION BY THE SENATE.
THE LANGUAQGE EXTRACTED:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; . . ."
And an extract from Article VI:
This Constitution, . . . ; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, . . ."
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 22 January 2015 at 09:21 AM
WRC
I understand that POTUS needs senate consent for TREATIES but we are not speaking of a treaty. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 22 January 2015 at 09:25 AM
TTG: It's really a question of Obama's political courage. He should inform the House & Senate that Bibi has not been invited by the White House and a visa will not be issued.
Predictably, the Congress will then let Bibi appear by video-link. Obama would make a statement that Bibi was not invited and we do not cotton him interfering in American foreign policy. Obama should also tell the Democrats that he expects them to skip the video uplink.
Finally, Obama should invite a very important guest to the White House at exactly the same time.
Posted by: Matthew | 22 January 2015 at 09:46 AM
Matthew, agree with you 100%. Perhaps he should invite the Pope?
Posted by: Swami Bhut Jolokia | 22 January 2015 at 10:14 AM
@ robt willmann
"Is he also a U.S. citizen?"
You can't be a US citizen and represent or is in the govt of a foreign country.
That's why both US citizens who were invited to represent Israel as its Ambassadors in DC had to give up their US citizenship before taking that function.
The same for the dual citizens working at Foggy Bottom: you can't vote for the legislatives of your "foreign" country whilst you are a State Dept employee.
Posted by: The Beaver | 22 January 2015 at 10:24 AM
I see this bears watching again:
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets 29 standing ovations from Congress"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asGvjbfIASA
Anthony Lawson's primary thesis: Congress pays billions to Israel; Israel implicitly/explicitly supports AIPAC with millions; AIPAC pays thousands to Congress. The second leg is unclear, but on the whole the big picture seems pretty accurate. This forms an "iron triangle" which is indefinitely self-sustaining. It's also an amplification feedback loop, driven by the fourth-leg power source of the American taxpayer.
Implications: Like loudspeaker feedback into a microphone, this self-amplifying circuit is expected to increase until it saturates (can't increase any further, tops out). It is only effective because Congresscritters can be bought for such amazingly low dollars. When the price of Con-men goes up, either the influence of Israel is expected to decrease, or the flow rate of grants to Israel / funding of AIPAC is expected to increase.
Funding runs on drama. The main source of drama is wars. Bibi desperately needs to divert attention from Palestine, for at least another four years until the Gaza water supply reaches 100% incapacitated and irrecoverable, and the U.N. / ICC initiatives. Congress has already voted to follow Israel into war against Iran, once Israel pre-emptively attacks in righteous self-defense. America also needs to divert attention away from its economy with poor fundamentals. The neo-cons have already successfully declared war on Russia, something unthinkable even a year and a half ago.
I see the potential for this being a lot more serious than a mere speech.
Posted by: Imagine | 22 January 2015 at 10:59 AM
You're missing the point, actually two points:
Politics - at that level - is hardball. Obama likes to play hardball.
Now Boehner (finally) is playing it too.
As for the Constitution, well again Obama apparently has his own version, so what's good for the goose is...........
Posted by: tv | 22 January 2015 at 11:47 AM
Obama on one side, Boner and Netanyahu on the other.
Is there any way everyone involved can lose?
Posted by: Tyler | 22 January 2015 at 12:19 PM
I think a US-Iran treaty that buries the proverbial hatchet and opens a new chapter in the bilateral relations is an excellent idea.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 22 January 2015 at 12:49 PM
Alba -- In this case Boehner is looking for a "two-fur": destroy Iran and make Obama look bad. Hopefully, he has miscalculated on both and cooler heads will prevail. This look like governance by spite.
Posted by: Laura Wilson | 22 January 2015 at 01:11 PM
impossible for earth to swallow Eretz sized ego.
Posted by: Charles I | 22 January 2015 at 01:45 PM
ironically, or sickeningly, more than 90% of BN's election funding comes from Americans, 50% of it from 3 entities:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/meet-the-american-families-bankrolling-netanyahus#.yyJaVPDEA
Posted by: Charles I | 22 January 2015 at 01:49 PM