However, the Senate ratifies treaties. The Congress (both chambers) declares wars. The Congress votes on sanctions against various nations. The Senate confirms ambassadors to various nations. And, each chamber has its foreign relations committee and various subcommittees. Each of these actions have a direct bearing on foreign policy. The remarks of Lord John reflect this constitutional reality.

@@thomash.schwed3662 The Senate ratifies treaties that the President brings to them. The President doesn't bring, they have nothing to vote on. The two foreign relations subcommittees are powerless and are there just so Congress can play like they are informed. Foreign policy is the sole purview of the President with the sole exception being the ratification of treaties and of course a declaration of war, although the lines are pretty blurred on the last point. HOWEVER, Presidents can still try to enforce a treaty that the Senate has not ratified such as the Paris Climate Accords, which is why each President decides if the US will follow it. Also, the Budapest Memorandum was never ratified, but each President has signed off on it and that is why Ukraine is funded. Marbury places the entire blame on Congress and that is entirely untrue. He might have been being diplomatic by not calling Bartlett out for doing nothing, but that's all I would give him.

That's not what it means; it means what is the cause for most problems in any respective country, domestic or global. And while slavery itself isn't a current issue in the US, everything related to it is the reason for the states' division. That's the same for Britain and Ireland. You not understanding that should make you ask just how much else you've misunderstood in the show

Yes. The British Prime Minister at the time was Tony, not Ricky.

@@nkt1 And the U.S. president was really Jeb? Or was this set in the real world, but not entirely accurate in terms of having fictional former presidents, speakers of the house and senate majority leaders? Who was prime minister when Santos became president?

It was a perspective. Not undisputable objective facts from a dispassionate party. It was because he was a high status aristocrat that he felt comfortable telling the leader of the United States his thoughts on the matter.