One of the great things about our country is the sturdy balance of power between our three branches of government. Each branch has its constitutionally prescribed purpose and place.
Nancy Pelosi, our new Speaker of the House, has recognized her duty and informed President Bush that Congress will no longer be a complying annex to the executive branch.
Congress is equal to the President. Congress is under new management. Congress will think for itself, thank you.
Hoorah! I can appreciate the constitutionally founded ideas behind this independence, regardless of actual results.
It's surprising, however, how quickly Pelosi undermined her credibility as a supporter of constitutional roles. She demonstrated an exceptional exuberance for her new power in her decision to host a press conference with Syria.
Maybe Pelosi got confused about the "Representatives" in the House of Representatives.
The term is used to describe a person representing the citizens of his or her state district to the federal government, not representing the people of the United States to other countries.
Hold on a sec while I dust off my copy of our nation's foundation - the good old Constitution.
Let's see, there are ... one, two, three, four - four specifications in the Constitution that place the President in charge of foreign policy.
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces - a role used to handle international hostility. Only the president is allowed to form treaties and agreements for the United States in the international sphere.
The president appoints all ambassadors and international ministers for the United States. And the Constitution specifies that the president is the one who deals with visiting diplomats.
It is the president's recognition of an emissary that shows acceptance of the country's legitimacy, and all diplomatic communication from foreign bodies to the United States must go through the president.
Years of Supreme Court precedent support these claims and build on them.
But enough with the Constitution lesson. Pelosi's actions have obvious implications.
Some supporters try to paint Pelosi's publicity stunt as an example of her greater insight into the complexity of the region's problems, compared with executive branch agencies that have been at it for decades.
The actual results were not impressive. Pelosi got to spite the Bush administration, Bush got another international headache, and Syria got a pat on the back with no deeper meaning. Not a bad deal for Syria, since they did nothing to deserve it in the first place.
Oh yeah, and Israel had to send a none-too-pleased message that Pelosi was not speaking for them.
Many ambitious U.S. politicians have flocked to the Middle East and shot their mouths off without leaving a mark. Pelosi, in her new role as the head of the House of Representatives, can no longer get away with it.
Her actions not only undermined constitutionally appointed roles, they undermined U.S. foreign policy - whether it is good policy is not the issue. While Congress does have a supporting role in foreign policy, the lead was given to the executive branch.
Squabbling within the country is one thing. Using the constitutional power of one branch of government to change the policy of another is acceptable. Without respect for the roles assigned to each branch, however, the very integrity and stability of the nation is threatened.
Anything but a single, official front presented to the international community puts the nation in greater danger. More than one point of entry for substantial diplomatic communication is unacceptable.
The founders of our nation understood that and put it in writing. Maybe they should have included literacy as one of the prerequisites for being elected.
Francesca van der Feltz is a journalism senior, and can be reached at: francesca.vanderfeltz@asu.edu.
