Via HotAir, video of Joe Lieberman patiently explaining to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, pace Arlen Specter—who rumor has it is about to call for Congressional investigations into why there aren’t more Congressional investigations—that Nancy Pelosi’s bid to become a pinched and tucked version of Jimmy Carter was “bad for America.”
Sayeth Lieberman the apostate:
“I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because Syria  we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.
Never one to miss the point, Wolf Blitzer was quick to note that Syria was not behind the 911 attacks—to which Lieberman replied:
They have  let me tell what you they have got to do with what we’re into now. The Bashar Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today.
Syria has been implicated in the assassination of a very strong, popular Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria is supporting Hezbollah which is trying to unseat our ally, Siniora, in Lebanon. Syria is supporting the terrorist group Hamas against our allies in the Fatah Palestinian movement and, of course, Israel. The administration, in all fairness  people in Washington should know, if they don’t know, that the administration has been trying in many ways, in diplomatic discussions with Syria since 9/11, to get Assad to change his behavior and he has not. When Nancy Pelosi goes there, she sends a message of disunity. She legitimizes the Syrian government.
[my emphasis]
Nancy might reply that—sure, her trip legitimized a rogue, terrorist-sponsoring government. But, well, sometimes as a government leader you have to deal with unpleasant people or regimes. Which might be true, but the fact remains, she is not in charge of dictating foreign policy. Beyond that, as Lieberman notes, the Bush administration has been engaging in its own largely sub rosa diplomatic efforts with respect to Assad—and Pelosi’s trip undercuts that.
I have no idea why Democrats who are not elected to dictate foreign policy—be it globe trotting embarrassment Jimmy Carter, or John Kerry speaking at Davos (or meeting with enemy leaders in the heady days of medal tossing), or Nancy Pelosi peddling US weakness across the Middle East at precisely the time we should be maintaining strength—believe it is their right to subvert the policies and strategies of those elected to craft such things.
Not only is it arrogant, but it is also anti-democratic; and besides, it wasn’t even meant to truly effect foreign policy—but rather to bolster support from the Democratic base and cause more embarrassment for the Bushies.
Just as Carter broke the mold for ex-Presidents speaking out against the foreign policy of their successors—and winning fawning awards from transational progressives and anti-Semites alike for his craven defeatism and lifelong western guilt schtick—Pelosi’s self-serving and utterly feckless play sets a dangerous precedent, and should be condemned by those who favor the democratic process.
Pelosi is of course free to voice her opinions and push for the implementation of the liberal-Democrat’s foreign policy—either by way of persuasion or winning a Presidential election on that platform. But what she shouldn’t be doing as number 3 in line for the Presidency is undercutting the foreign policy of those with legitimate claims on what that foreign policy is and how it should be carried out.
As for Wolf Blitzer, someone needs to explain to him that many of the al Qaeda fighters of today weren’t involved in 911, either. Which, using his logic, would make it seem as if Blitzer would support, say, a terrorist grandfather clause—one that would allow the US only to target those actively involved in 911.
And given that most of them perished when they divebombed planes into our buildings, well, time to MoveOn!
Is there some reason Nana Pelosi can’t be charged under the Logan Act? Just to watch her splutter like Donald Duck when the U.S. Marshals laid the warrant on her would be priceless . . .
Lack of testicles at DOJ?
I would love to see all these doofuses (yes, the republicans, too) doing the perp walk for Logan violations. Probability of a conviction is pretty much null, but I’d like to see it anyway. And I’d dearly love to see Jimmuh get slapped around, “Airplane!” style.
Maybe congress can investigate, huh?
Ah, never mind.
You can explain all you want to Wolf Blitzer…he’ll not change. Any.
Arlen Spector has been an embarrassment for a very long time – so why stop now, right?
It is somewhat heartening to see some of the flak Pelosi has taken from normal Democratic supporters like USAT, WaPo, et al. Whether that serves as any deterent remains to be seen.
Give Wolf a break.
It takes not only a memory of some stuff that happened, but the capacity to form concepts based on stuff that happened, to see beyond “But [everybody] had nothing to do with 9/11!”
It’s a rare mind that can soar to such chilling heights of abstraction.
(Remember the election-era survey that disdained Fox viwers for perceiving a “connection” between “Iraq” and 9/11? I wondered what the criticism was. Murdoch made them Hegelians? Still don’t get it.)
This is one more instance that proves the left-liberal belief that they are smarter and more civilized than the rest of us. Their profound arrogance is a severe problem and in this case may make the situation worse.
They appear to think that everyone else in the world thinks like they do, and has values which are the same as theirs. It seems impossible for them to grasp the idea that there are humans on this planet who prioritize in a completely different manner than they. Then again, they can’t even come to terms with people who think differently in what is ostensibly their own country (they live here, but often don’t seem to want to claim ownership on that basis).
I’m not sure what might shock them out of their mindset. Even 9/11 had no effect on most of them. I think they might see the light when their fellow travelers are lined up against a wall and shot by the enemy they seek to placate, but at that point the struggle will be over and we will have lost.
How is it that CNN can afford to make transcripts available like that?
Why is it that if a Republican shakes a tyrant’s hand, it’s evidence that the GOP has been in collusion with all the world’s tyrants, and forever will be, amen?
Yet a Democrat can dance with a tyrant, or sit down to tea with a tyrant, or get down on her knees and suck a tyrant’s cock, and it will never be evidence of anything more than the Democratic Party’s mastery of nuance and subtle diplomacy?
I’m not sure of the answer, but I’m pretty sure it involves ALL CAPS!
Just want to say . . . Zbigniew Brzezinsky!
. . . ‘cause when you mention Carter, don’t forget his “Mimi Me”!
Squid, it’s all about intentions. Democrats, you see, mean well, while Republicans, clearly mean for bad things to happen so they can enrich themselves. And, really, isn’t meaning well the only thing that matters?
Please, Gary—cover your mouth when you sneeze.
“But what she shouldn’t be doing as number 3 in line for the Presidency is undercutting the foreign policy of those with legitimate claims on what that foreign policy is and how it should be carried out.”
Can we hear some more about these “legitimate claims”? How about some text on them? Pelosi may be #3 in line for the executive branch, but she is up there in the legislative branch. And looking at legislative powers, there are definately some that affect foreign policy there: declaring war; regulating commerce with foreign nations; regulating the value of foreign coin; define piracy, offenses of the seas and against the law of nations; spend on the armed forces; give permission to states to engage in war and compacts with other nations; and, of course, everything necessary and proper to carry out the above. And thats ignoring things like the Iraq Liberation Act.
So there certainly is quite a bit of text for her claims. Where is the executive claim spelled out?
“Is there some reason Nana Pelosi can’t be charged under the Logan Act?”
Probably because a court will smack that law down as unconstitutional so quick that anyone charging her would be close to committing malpractice.
I can just see Wolf posing this to FDR;
“But Mr. President, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, so why are we getting into a European quagmire fighting the Germans?”
According to the Supreme Court, the President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution, not the legislature.
On the other hand:
True, but the powers of the legislature are limited to affecting foreign policy through the office of the president, not directly treating with foreign powers. They most definitely do not include individual members engaging in diplomatic initiatives. The Logan Act expressly forbids that. And there is no reason to assume that a law that has been on the books for over 200 years would be deemed unconstitutional though it’s true it’s never been applied.It came into being to address an issue after the fact, and was later amended to cover a situation that just slipped the boundaries of the act, but again, after the fact.
BTW:
I forgot to mention – the Logan Act was proposed and passed because a legislator (named Logan) bypassed the executive office and treated with another country with which there were current tensions.
So again, it’s unlikely it would be considered unconstitutional if it were applied in and for the same circumstances it was proposed and passed for.
Answer your questions, emma?
The country in question when the Logan Act was passed was France. Syria is a former French territory.
“So again, it’s unlikely it would be considered unconstitutional if it were applied in and for the same circumstances it was proposed and passed for.”
What the hell does that have to do with whether it is constitutional?
“Answer your questions, emma?”
I still don’t see where in the text it says that its only the president with legitimate claims on foreign policy. I do see that he receives ambassadors—and that congress approves of the ones he sends out. But plenty of text gives the legislature the ability to set things that we consider foreign policy. I know you studied meaning and all that. Can you show me where in the constitution you get your meaning from?
Or perhaps all we have is supreme court opinions. vs. the constitution.
OK emma,
Let’s have 536 voices on foreign policy.
That seems wise.
Especially in places like the Middle East.
plus Jimmah makes 537
why? we don’t have 536 voices on what the policy of the government is when congress uses domestic powers. Whats special about foreign ones? Take my first enumerated power: there’s still only 1 declaration of war. It passes or it doesn’t. Even thought there may be 536 or hell even more than that—different opinions on whether there is a war or not. Or look at one of the others. There can be lots of opinions as to whether there ought to be a ban on trade with Iran or Cuba. But there’s still only 1 policy, the law on the books, as passed pursuant to congressional power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
If you don’t like the powers the constitution gives congress, change it. Don’t pretend its not there. Overall, I don’t see why having lots of voices is a problem. Still only 1 policy. The one that passes congress and is signed by the president.
A. They’re foreign.
B. Because they are foreign policies (plural) they have varying aspects in all those different countries. That’s why we have embassies and that’s why the ambassadors and those embassies answer to the President.
What the Speaker did last week was to offer a different policy. Sorry, your argument doesn’t stand up.
“B. Because they are foreign policies (plural) they have varying aspects in all those different countries. That’s why we have embassies and that’s why the ambassadors and those embassies answer to the President.”
There are executive branch officials domestically too. US attorneys, for example, carrying out different policies.
“What the Speaker did last week was to offer a different policy.”
So? anyone can do that. Besides by the first amendment, its part of what happens in our system. Congress passes laws that the president might not like. Congress, for example, has a role in deciding how much military aid to send to Egypt and Israel. Quite “necessary and proper” to go and talk to those countries and their neighbors about what those figures should be.
Now, people might feel that separation of powers and checks and balances are a bad thing. But thats not what makes them go away.
Though I do see one argument, that foreigners might not know us enough. I’ve heard, for example, that ahmaninejad doesn’t have control over foreign policy. And yet people seem to act as if he is in charge there. Who knows what the truth is? Perhaps the people who deal with this stuff know. Its not like our administration is full of morons.
I’m still waiting for an argument that has in it some text from the constitution. Though maybe you’re all penunbralists…
And that is where the rub comes, emma.
Do you believe it is right and proper for the Speaker (or anyone else) to present their positions as authoritative pronouncements of the U.S. government in the absence of the approval of the President? My understanding of the Constitution certainly does not lead me in that direction. I did not vote for Nancy Pelosi. I did vote for the President.
The framers understood that disticntion. From Federalist #75 concerning the omission of the House of Representatives from the treay making function:
And on why the President should have the greater authority than the Senate:
“Do you believe it is right and proper for the Speaker (or anyone else) to present their positions as authoritative pronouncements of the U.S. government in the absence of the approval of the President?”
nope. not proper. You’ll have a hard time convincing anyone of a right to mislead or misrepresent your power like that. But I don’t see the problem with them saying what they want the US policy to be. And under what terms they would make it. Specially if they have legitimate claims to setting policy. Which the constitution clearly gives to congress.
I don’t doubt the president has authority—and in some areas of setting foreign policy greater authority. Thought the federalist papers still aren’t the constitution. And, as you may imagine, there are other powers besides making treaties that constitute foreign policy. I listed them above. Declaring war, spending, embargoes, etc… All just fine for congress to do. All just fine for a congressperson to say what they want them to be.
A congressman can go to Syria, decide after talking to Assad that the guy is a fuck, and come back and introduce a bill to increase aid to Israel. Quite constitutional.
This dog won’t hunt.
We have supreme court opinions that determine whether laws or legal findings are consistent with the Constitution, not supreme court opinions. vs. the constitution as you put it. The Supreme Court considered the Logan Act as one of the basis for the majority opinion in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp for example. In doing so, the precedence of the act was established. The text of that opinion rendered was closely followed in my earlier comment. That established that the Logan Act was indeed constitutional. Of course that could be overturned by another Supreme Court ruling, but that in turn is VERY unusual to the point of being unheard of. Clarified, yes, overturned…
But you’re right in that I should have been clearer and simply said ‘It’s highly unlikely a ruling based on the Logan Act would be overturned on constitutional grounds.’
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that the White House would try using the Logan Act against Pelosi. They’d have to show that she was clearly attempting to negotiate with a foreign power for one, and for another she’s done enough damage foreign policy and to herself already so why bother at this juncture. Deciding whether or not to apply the Logan Act is a are consideration quite separate from whether the Act itself is constitutional.
No. No text does that. The separation of powers is integral to the Constitution but the Constitution doesn’t cover every eventuality. Without running down your list, congress sets domestic policy. The fact that those policies are sometimes set in response to policies held by foreign powers doesn’t make them foreign policy. This is a very important distinction that the Supreme Court has examined many times.
Nor does congress initiate a declaration of war. They do not have that power to do that. The president places a request before the congress to recognize a state of war or a request to declare war as an extension of foreign policy by the president. They do have the power to recognize a state of war, declare one IN RESPONSE to the president’s request, or not. A vital distinction again related to separation of powers. War being the most extreme foreign policy, the Constitution makes it a requirement of the president that he seek the approval of congress, but it is still his call on whether or not war should be considered. The congress can agree or disagree, but not determine whether the question should be considered on their own.
Pelosi to Assad: Increase your work on destabilizing Iraq. We’ll ensure the president has no support for a meaningful response and when Obama’s president, he’ll make continued aid to Israel contingent upon the return of the Golan Heights.
We’re losing the focus here by the way.
The question isn’t whether the congress has influence on foreign policy. It does through multiple dynamics.
The question is whether anyone other than the president or someone duly authorized by him has the power to negotiate on behalf of the US with foreign powers. They don’t. And attempting to do so is against the law.
“That established that the Logan Act was indeed constitutional. Of course that could be overturned by another Supreme Court ruling, but that in turn is VERY unusual to the point of being unheard of. Clarified, yes, overturned”
Its hard to say that the logan act is constitutional, since its never been ruled on. But it is certainly nonsese to say its constitutional as applied to what congress was considering when it passed it. Interestingly, the case you cite is about how much discretion congress is allowed to give to the president
“congress sets domestic policy.”
Don’t you think its foreign policy to regulate commerce with foreign nations? To declare war? To decide how big to make the army? To fight piracy? You think those are domestic issues?
“The president places a request before the congress to recognize a state of war or a request to declare war as an extension of foreign policy by the president.”
That may be how it works in your world, but thats not what the text of the constitution says.
I think there is no question that, under the Constitution, the President has the sole authority to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. The extent of the President’s inherent powers in the sphere of foreign relations in light of legislative action or judicial decisions is certainly open to debate, but that does not mean that legislators or judges have any authority to conduct diplomacy.
I find it interesting that emmadine is making an appeal to a purely textual interpretation of the Constitution. Not even a textualist like Justice Scalia believes this to be the case with respect to separation of powers issues.
See here
Just to get this one out of the way;
I stressed that the act and it’s amendment were both after the fact.
To continue;
The Constitution is not a cookbook. It’s been necessary to amend the Constitution to accommodate the determination that some issues are not defined in it, but over 250 years of rulings on law based on the concepts in the Constitution exist.
The ambiguity in the Logan Act is that it refers to ‘authority’ rather than a specific branch of government. The ruling I cited defines that authority as the office of the president. It in turns cites the ruling from 1816 that I already mentioned:
‘The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution’
Which is why the ruling I cited is commonly referenced in discussions of the Logan Act. Some constitutional scholars believe that the Logan Act would be declared unconstitutional if tested before the supreme court. Those who disagree cite the ruling I mentioned.
Note that the president is responsible to the Constitution on matters of foreign policy, not the congress.
Baloney. See above. The supreme court opinion said that although the Constitution is not explicit, it does implicitly grant all ability and power to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the office of the president. The ruling has nothing to do with what congress allows. It has to do with what the Constitution allows for. It does say that the president is still bound by the Constitution to seek the advice and approval of the Senate on treaties, but that he and he alone has the power to negotiate. It further specifically says that the congress has no power to speak and or listen foreign powers in matters of foreign policy.
No. Nor does the supreme court. Whose opinion supersedes yours. (See above) You are still intentionally conflating foreign with domestic policy except in the case of declaring war. Which brings us to:
That’s how it works in your world as well as mine. The congress has no power or authority to declare war on it’s own because it has no authority to set foreign policy. They cannot instruct the president to commence a war on their own. It would go to the supreme court and be shot down (see above).
The law does require that the president submits his determination that war is ongoing or necessary to congress for their approval. The congress approves the request by declaring a state of war exists, or disapproves, and it doesn’t. The right of congress to act as a check on military adventurism by the office of the president is an Constitutional exception to the presidents right to conduct foreign policy. If anything, it’s the exception that proves the rule that the power to represent the nation in all other negotiations with foreign powers resides in the office of the president.
Too bad the founding fathers operated under the assumption that voters would have sufficient common sense that it wouldn’t be necessary to spell out every fucking detail in the instructions.
Let us look at Article I:
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
OK, now Article II:
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
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 he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
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.
Where is the foreign policy responsibility and power of Congress? Advise and Consent. Indian Nation and Foreign Commerce. Power of the Purse. Ratify Treaties.
So where do we get the Speaker of the House Shall Conduct Her Own Negotiations And Also Shall Serve As the High Representative Of the State Of Israel, Incorrectly?
No, it is expressly not foreign policy.
It is domestic policy: All the examples above require no negotiations or meetings with any foreign powers at all.
Heck, we could pass laws right now regarding the things you cited above with regard to extraterrestrials, but when the saucers show up, it’s going to be the President out front talking to them….
What Gray said. Expressed with far more clarity in one sentence than what I tried to convey in far too many sentences.
In pursuit of that all-important Syrian dictator vote.
The place to talk about what you want U.S. policy to be, is in the U.S., to the voters therein. Not to Bashar el-@#$!!ing-Assad.
“I stressed that the act and it’s amendment were both after the fact. “
What would that have to do with whether it passes the first amendment?
“Baloney. See above. The supreme court opinion said that although the Constitution is not explicit, it does implicitly grant all ability and power to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the office of the president.”
It said it wasn’t an unlawful delegation of lawmaking:
“The determination which we are called to make, therefore, is whether the Joint Resolution, as applied to that situation, is vulnerable to attack under the rule that forbids a delegation of the lawmaking power.”
“In the light of the foregoing observations, it is evident that this court should not be in haste to apply a general rule which will have the effect of condemning legislation like that under review as constituting an unlawful delegation of legislative power.”
“It is enough to summarize by saying that, both upon principle and in accordance with precedent, we conclude there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President…”
The court discusses both the delegation of power by congress and the president’s own constitutional power.
“The congress has no power or authority to declare war on it’s own because it has no authority to set foreign policy.”
Ok. Because I read “he Congress shall have power to .. declare war” and thats all I conclude. But you found something else in there. All I want to know is where.
“Heck, we could pass laws right now regarding the things you cited above with regard to extraterrestrials, but when the saucers show up, it’s going to be the President out front talking to them…. “
And if a congressman wants to meet them before passing legislation on policy towards them…. just fine. But I gotta say, its a strange world where how much foreign aid we spend isn’t “foreign policy.” I guess I just don’t live there. Enjoy it!
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were stupid.
There is no logical knot you wouldn’t tie yourself into to try to exonerate Nancy, Crazy Eyes, Pelosi.
‘Cuz, you know, sucking Assad’s Arab cock is ‘foreign policy’.
“There is no logical knot you wouldn’t tie yourself into to try to exonerate Nancy, Crazy Eyes, Pelosi.”
Exonerate? Nahh. Just looking at how Congress certainly has some claims—textually specific claims—to do foreign policy. And it comes out quite ok.
But we’re back to the cocksucking here, as opposed to reading the constitution. Like I said: its a strange world, enjoy it!
Either you know what I meant and how inane this response is or you’re too stupid to be trying to discuss this.
But not how much discretion congress is allowed to give to the president, which is what you specifically said. The definitions of and constraints on presidential power and responsibility comes from the Constitution, not in any way, shape, or form, at the discretion of congress.
If this fact continues to escape you, I recommend you review your high school civics notes.
The Constitution is not a cookbook. Look beyond it to the rulings that have come out of the supreme court. And research it yourself for a change.
What you’ll find if you’re inclined to do the research rather than continue to play stupid is the relationship between the presidential power to set foreign policy, negotiate with foreign powers, and command the military defense of the nation. Based on these fundamental powers invested in the office of the president – and NOT in congress – formal Declarations of War are considered instruments of foreign policy and occur only upon prior request by the President.
Congress has never tested this by debating a Declaration of War without a prior request from the president because the president could refuse based on his power to negotiate and set foreign policy.
Unlike yourself, and Nancy Pelosi, the presidents and most of congress have been smart enough for over 200 years to understand the relationship between a Declaration of War from congress and the powers vested in the president without forcing the issue in front of the supreme court.
It certainly appears that you don’t. Or rather are too willfully obtuse to realize that you do.
You’re correct, Jeff, but way too kind to Comrade—I mean, Madame—Speaker Pelosi