Adam White has this thoughtful post at The Weekly Standard: The Constitution Doesn't Let President Close Congress's Doors to Israel (disagreeing with my view). [He calls me "a significant voice[ ] in the conservative legal movement," which I doubt is true, but thanks!]
Among other points, the post asks: "Would Professor Ramsey prohibit Republican presidential candidates, including members of Congress, from traveling abroad to meet with foreign audiences and leaders, as President Obama did in 2008…?" My answer is: that's another matter. First, it's not a problem if the President doesn't object (and in most instances I doubt there was any objection). Second, it is much less textually problematic: it doesn't violate the reception clause, because the foreign representative isn't being formally received; and it doesn't raise the issue of Congress' power because it isn't an act of Congress. Third, a very different message is sent when an individual member meets privately with a foreign representative, as compared when a foreign leader is invited to make a formal speech to all of Congress; the individual communication is much less likely to undercut the President's role as diplomatic mouthpiece of the nation. So I don't think my view on addressing Congress commits me to a view on communications by individual members. That said, I do think it a little troublesome when individual members meet with foreign leaders against the President's wishes for the specific purpose of communicating a message contrary to the President's views.
Meanwhile, Josh Blackman has this take on the matter at his blog: Gridlock and Congressional Power (in a nutshell, saying that gridlock doesn't authorize congressional overstepping any more than it authorizes presidential overstepping, which sounds right to me).
Posted at 6:03 AM