47 Ronin

[Jack Sawyer]

A somewhat similar analogy imo:

If you are negotiating with a car dealer over the selling price of your car, your kid can't come in and tell said dealer that you will take anything for the car because your family is starving and it's the reason you are selling the car, even though you do not appear to.

Said kid is in clear violation of the dad & kid negotiating law, in which dad negotiates and kid shuts the fuck up, because you will undoubtedly affect the outcome of said negotiation. If you wanted your preferred outcome to happen kid, you should have been the dad.


Bonus round: filibuster

In the mid 19th century (via Spanish filibustero ), the term denoted American adventurers who incited revolution in several Latin American states, whence sense 2 of the noun.

[wufwugy]

A somewhat similar analogy imo:

If you are negotiating with a car dealer over the selling price of your car, your kid can't come in and tell said dealer that you will take anything for the car because your family is starving and it's the reason you are selling the car, even though you do not appear to.

Said kid is in clear violation of the dad & kid negotiating law, in which dad negotiates and kid shuts the fuck up, because you will undoubtedly affect the outcome of said negotiation. If you wanted your preferred outcome to happen kid, you should have been the dad.


Bonus round: filibuster

[/FONT]

In this case, congress is the dad and the executive is the son. Granted, the president has more power than the son so the analogy isn't perfect. The point is that the executive does not wield lawmaking power. He executes the law he is given by congress; hence the name. If he were to strike a deal with Iran, congress could pass a law saying it's illegal just fine. This letter is simply members of congress stating that fact.

[Jack Sawyer]

In this case, congress is the dad and the executive is the son. Granted, the president has more power than the son so the analogy isn't perfect. The point is that the executive does not wield lawmaking power. He executes the law he is given by congress; hence the name. If he were to strike a deal with Iran, congress could pass a law saying it's illegal just fine. This letter is simply members of congress stating that fact.

Are you saying that it's congress who is negotiating and not president Obama?

[wufwugy]

Are you saying that it's congress who is negotiating and not president Obama?

In your analogy, the dad is the one with the most power. In this situation, congress is the one with the most power. Foreign policy is ultimately what congress wants it to be. A "rogue" executive who goes against the wishes of congress in deal-cutting doesn't get that far.

The executive is the figurehead of negotiation. He does it at the behest of the legislature (more like the state legislatures). Over the years this fact has gotten away from us. It should be noted that the executive was never intended to have been elected by the people and was never intended to have much power. The power lies with congress and the states. The checks to congress are judicial review to assess constitutionality as well as the internal structure of congress in how it's made up of one group of elected officials and one group that was originally appointed by state legislatures (the senate).

Some things have changed over time, but it's important to know the history. The executive is in a weird position where he has little power but is also elected by the people today. This gives the people the impression that he has lots of power and that he's the arbiter. His legislative power exists as a veto against legislation he doesn't like. He can't create law except in that he signs or vetoes papers on his desk. So when his department is the chief negotiator with foreign governments, if congress critters say something about it, they're doing so in the capacity of the majority party in law creation.

The whole thing is messy, partly by design. The answer to your question is that congress is also in negotiation. It isn't that the executive and his appointees are the only people authorized to negotiate. This is a case of multiple negotiators in disagreement. Even some in the GOP disagree with this tactic, but it isn't treason.