The Administration proponents have been up in arms this week by the visits of key Senators to Damascus. Nelson, Kerry, Dodd and Specter have all been there recently to talk with Assad.

Congressional diplomacy can be trickey, of course, but the Administration is confusing history in their criticism.

The Constitution, and case law, discuss the federal government as being the "sole organ" of foreign policy. It is why, for example, a Massachusetts' law that sought to punish Mass. businesses from doing work in Burma was struck down by the court; the federal law that set up a system for negotiations and businesses with Burma/Myanmar had to trump any "good conscience" legislation by the state. Congress had spoken, and the states had to fall in line. Otherwise, the United States could not speak in one voice to the world.

It is amazing to hear that same language being used not against some state legislation or even state court ruling, but against the federal government itself, this time Senators. And it suggests the deep-seated animosity this Adminsitration has not simply to Democrats, but to the legislative branch. It is a theory consistent with their unitary executive philosophy.

It is remarkable, then, that the beneficiaries fo the Senate diplomacy do not just appear to be the Senators themselves, who are trying to do what the Adminsitration refuses to do. It may also be the Executive branch. Apparently, on eperson briefed after Nelson's visist was Nicholas Burns at the State Department.