How top level U.S. officials travel.

[Coconut Kid]

Dateline BEIRUT

When Joe Biden came to town yesterday [May 22, 2002] he was accused by Hizbollah of interfering in Lebanese domestic affairs. And I thought, they may be right.


All night the police patrolled the street outside my home, telling drivers to get off the road. Then this morning, they dropped by to tell the Independent's driver [the newspaper] to get off the road. Then they told everyone to clear the road. Then the sky filled with the apocalyptic roar of Vietnam-era Apache and Kiowa helicopters, keeping a watch on their man. Then they told us that Mr Biden had gone. So we were all safe again. How pathetic. Those of us who live in Lebanon – not the least the Lebanese – don't need to live like this.

...

In the early afternoon, the Lebanese people were ordered to leave their beautiful coastline as His Honour Mr Biden [and his party of wardrobe, make-up, writers, food-tasters, correctionists, and guard personnel] was taken to the airport and we all went indoors in case someone wanted to blow them up.

Of course, no one blew them up. They weren't worth it. It was just another American attempt to show up how powerful they are and how weak we are and how Mr Obama will show up for democracy. Some hope.

Robert Fisk
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-bidens-real-mission-is-to-stop-hizbollah-1689778.html

I think the implication is two fold.

First, democracy is defined by the freedom of choice of the whole body of citizens as limited only by the protections needed for the minorities. Which side wins elections driven by political or religious ideology does not define the election as democratic or not democratic.

Second, the hyper-imperial zone of safety (Anyone remember the "Cone of Silence" from the TV series "Get Smart"?) thrown around U.S. officials as they travel has gone past relevant and reasonable to Hollywood "Special Effects" costing millions and dislocating the lives of ordinary people.

Who cares what they have to say when their trip made daily life far more trouble than it usually is?

[dierighty]

Here are two sentences at different points in the remarks made by Mr. Biden after meeting with the Lebanese President:

I come to demonstrate a strong United States backing for certain fundamental principles: the principle that the Lebanese people alone, the Lebanese people alone should choose their leaders ... I know, for the United States at least, we will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs based on the composition of the new government and the policies it advocates.

[Coconut Kid]

... we will evaluate the shape of our assistance programs based on ...

Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full!

What a joke! Run a "clean" election and vote in anyone because we love democracy. BUT there are some people whom we (the U.S. unilaterally) deem unfit to govern ; there are some government policies the U.S. unilaterally condemns (especially economic ones).

So, if your people wish "assistance" from the U.S., they better elect the candidates with the U.S. "seal of approval". BTW - U.S. "Assistance" comes in three flavors:

• Grants and Loans for civilian projects;
• Grants and Loans to buy military goods from U.S. makers;
• C.I.A. Spooks to organize a coup or uprising to change an elected government comprised of "unsuitables".

[Mr.Eastwood]

None of those three are outlined and allowed for under our Constitution. Since all that 'help' comes in the form of taxpayer money, we should not be sending any of it to any country at all, for any reason. Congress does not have that authority, and yet, they are allowed to spend our money on things our founding fathers could never have dreamed of.

I also agree we shouldn't  be sticking our noses in other people's business either. Let those countries run themselves however they choose. I find it ludicrous that we go over and force democracy on people while touting our founding ideals of freedom and free-choice. The people of those countries should be allowed to choose whatever form of government they wish. If they want a government like ours, then they are responsible for getting it.

As for the main point of this thread, I have experienced first hand how the president and his minions can upset daily life. Living & working in Richmond at the airport, he came in (He being Bush) often on Air Force One and the whole place would shut down. You couldn't leave or come in. I was kicked out of the airport once and harassed by our S.S. for refusing to answer their questions. Even threatened with jail/detention. All I wanted to do was finish dumping the crapper of some plane but they didn't like me expressing myself and my liberties, so they told me to leave, which I did. I stayed clocked in too, so I got paid for going home; can't beat that!

[Coconut Kid]

None of those three are outlined and allowed for under our Constitution. ...

The first step is in Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power ... to make Treaties ... , and with that goes the authority to run foreign affairs generally.

If Article I, Section 8 doesn't cover foreign aid, it doesn't cover anything. The founding fathers certainly knew of foreign aid since that given to them by France allowed them to win the war with Great Britian.

[Mr.Eastwood]

I wasn't making any reference towards the President's power to make treaties and run foreign affairs. I'm well aware of the President's power to do so. However, our Constitution is a limit on the powers of government, at all levels, but mostly the Federal level. Knowing that, it's easy to see that Article I, Section VIII clearly outlines everything Congress has the right to spend tax-payer money on, or more importantly, not spend our money on. As you stated, foreign aid, in any monetary form, was not listed; thus Congress has no right to spend tax-payer money on such things. Period. Some people try to make it more complicated than that, but it really isn't. Search the writings of such founding fathers as Jefferson, or more importantly, Madison ... the acknowledged father of our Constitution. You were right that they were well aware of foreign aid, they were also well aware of other governments getting involved in "foreign entanglements" but that didn't stop us from staying out of everyone's business right up until the 1890's when we kicked Spain out of Cuba.

[Coconut Kid]

... Knowing that, it's easy to see that Article I, Section VIII clearly outlines everything Congress has the right to spend tax-payer money on, or more importantly, not spend our money on. As you stated, foreign aid, in any monetary form, was not listed; thus Congress has no right to spend tax-payer money on such things. Period. ...

You are simply completely wrong. That list is not exclusive but only illustrative of some specifics. It is not only about objectives of expenditures, but also about other authorities. How do you explain to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;? You can't because your ideology ingnores history when it is in the way.

All the folks who love to quote Jefferson to support their fossilizing of the Constitution fail to recognize that he supported a concept of generational change in the law and social alignment.

The "original intent" constitutional applicators need to consider the history of the "English Common Law" which became so ossified that the monarch had to establish a new, parallel system of courts to maintain civil order. There arose the concept of law and equity from the courts of EQUITY  which the monarch established with the injunction: "Let Justice Be Done".

Could it be that plain law will not render equity and/or justice?