|
 Originally Posted by 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
[/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.
|