Constitutional Boundaries

Did US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi overstep her boundaries during her recent trip to the Middle East? While she claimed that “her message” was “the president’s message”, the administration insisted that they had strongly discouraged her from undertaking this trip for fear of sending “mixed signals” to a regime that should be isolated because of its questionable practices related to international and regional conflicts. Syria has long been accused of sponsoring terrorism and has also been at a near-constant state of war with Israel for years though in recent years by proxy through Hezbollah. Current intelligence indicates that there has been recent movement across the Syrian border with Lebanon as Hezbollah is apparently rearming itself with help from Syria and perhaps even while Ms. Pelosi was there affirming “the president’s message”.

The United States Supreme Court has addressed horizontal separation of powers: "By allocating specific powers and responsibilities to a branch fitted to the task, the Framers created a National Government that is both effective and accountable. . . .The clear assignment of power to a branch, furthermore, allows the citizen to know who may be called to answer for making, or not making, those delicate and necessary decisions essential to governance."— Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757-58

It is more than a little arrogant to put oneself in a position of speaking on behalf of a president who did not authorize the trip. Yes, she is the speaker of the US House and she is in line behind the vice-president in succession to the presidency, but is Ms. Pelosi not getting a little ahead of herself by leading a delegation into a volatile part of the world surely knowing that the leaders with whom she would meet are well aware of the political situation in her own country, knowing that she is no supporter of the US president and knowing that she is part of a growing demand to end the US presence in Iraq? How could she not know that her “message”, whatever it may have been, would likely not be received as consistent with a president she very publicly (and apparently very actively) opposes?

Regarding the vertical separation of powers at the heart of our federalism, Justice Kennedy has similarly observed: "The theory that two [branches] accord more liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernable lines of political accountability. [C]itizens must have some means of knowing which of the two [branches] to hold accountable for the failure to perform a given function. [Separation of powers] serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it." —Lopez, 514 U.S. 576-77

It is not unusual for members of Congress to take these fact-finding trips to others parts of the world, and it is actually in our best interests that they do so. It is all part and parcel of the Madisonian system of checks and balances which has served this nation well. Even though the secretary of state, as an extension of the executive administration, has primary duties to build and maintain relationships with other nations, the Congress funds these trips and allocates any aid packages. So it is careless to suggest that a congressional delegation should restrict its travel to certain areas and only with prior approval by a presidential administration.

However, this is a delicate time for the United States especially in the Middle East. Even if only a few members of Congress should believe that the US must be in constant communication with a particular nation, in this case Syria, it can well be said that making such a trip was a “thumb your nose” gesture at this administration and its foreign policy. In this case, there was also some level of miscommunication between Israel and Syria via Ms. Pelosi’s party which is, to say the least, outrageous given that this is indicative of where Ms. Pelosi’s obvious ignorance (or arrogance) about constitutional separation of powers is most acute when she suggested that she was delivering a message to Syria from Israel, a message Israel denies sending (she has since suggested that Israel is mistaken. Did she call the Israeli prime minister a liar?). Additionally, she should have known that she was well outside of her duties by even attempting to negotiate or broker a line of communication between two adversaries.

Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution states, in part, that “he {the president} shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the SENATE, to make treaties…”, the implication being that it is within the duties and responsibilities of the executive branch to initiate, create, and propagate foreign policy consistent with the best interests of the United States. Even by this it cannot be clearly inferred that playing mediator between sovereign nations is part of this area of responsibility without the consent of the nations involved even if the United States has an active interest. At the very least, there is no indication on any level that a member of the US House, even the speaker, should put herself in a position to be used in such a way which seems potentially so in this case. Whether the Israeli “message” to Syria was sought after by Ms. Pelosi or handed off by the Israeli prime minister (who denies such at any rate), she had an obligation to remove herself from a process that clearly is outside of her realm. Considering the constitutional separation of powers, Ms. Pelosi should have immediately contacted the state department with such information as being asked to hand-deliver a message to Syria.

The danger of such a move as playing “go-between” lies in the very public airing of our dirty political laundry, especially with so many members of the Senate running for president and actively seeking to discredit the current president and his policies. Rogue nations such as Syria can easily see an opportunity to further widen the gap between Americans by manipulating public opinion and using our own members of Congress to play us against each other. Even some Syrian news reports questioned whether there was a genuine interest in Syrian affairs or if these members of Congress were doing nothing more than bringing our domestic affairs disputes out and into the world arena.

Each new presidential campaign season comes with new territory upon which we seek to tread not so lightly in trying to push the envelope and employ new tactics in efforts to discredit opponents. Under the adversarial circumstances which currently exist on the American political landscape, Ms. Pelosi’s trip could hardly be construed as seeking to affirm the “president’s message” especially since the president did not ask her to speak in his behalf nor is she a nationally elected official even as House Speaker. We currently have a perfectly capable secretary of state whose duties, responsibilities, and authority were usurped by this delegation. Whether it was their intent to do so is irrelevant.

It becomes clearer with each election season that we continue to elect into constitutional office those who swear by the Constitution to uphold the Constitution and apparently have no idea what the Constitution says. One would also wonder whether they even care especially with such potential for enormous political gain.