The real problem with Pelosi's trip to Syria

Nancy Pelosi is at it again.

Pelosi has traveled to the middle east, met with Israeli leaders, and supposedly carried a message to Syria. She's convinced that she's played an integral part in the middle east peast process. Good for her. Except, there is a problem.

Now, the rest of the conservatives today are, of course, talking about how she's screwed up. That there was no message. That she's a complete novice when it comes to diplomacy. That she's so far out there, even Jimmy Carter supports her trip. But I have to be honest, that's not my concern.

No, my concern is this: Nancy Pelosi, by inserting herself into a diplomatic role, is attempting to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers, much as she has done with this nasty business about setting a withdrawal date for Iraq. Advise and Consent, that phrase so used by Republican and Democratic congresses alike, does not mean circumvent. It also doesn't mean that congress should fund the millitary only if a withdrawal date is set. They are to either fund it or not. If they want, they can vote to end the entire war on terror by simply cutting the purse strings. However, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly gives the President full authority in matters of foreign relations (with the exception of trade law, which does rest with congress) as well as in millitary questions, such as a withdrawal date.

This cavalier approach to our Country's most sacred of documents makes my physically ill.