Congress And The Presidency Essay

The Power and Significance of Congress Firstly it is important to look at the power and significance of congress as a legislative body. This includes the creation of law, and the scrutiny of the executive. Because the US federal system is ruled by 'separation of powers', it is important that the legislative - congress - acts as a good check and restraint on the executive - the president.

The Role of the Senate and House of Representatives The Congress of the United States consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives which means the USA is bi-cambial. The Congress of the United States was created by Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution, adopted by the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. The Senate is composed of 100 Members, 2 from each State, who are elected to serve for a term of 6 years.

For hundreds of years state sovereignty has allowed for individual states to effectively handle their problems internally. However, with the current increase of globalism, which Keohane and Nye describe as “a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances” (75), many of the world’s major concerns have moved beyond the level of individual states. This interdependence has affected economic, military, environmental, as well as social and cultural aspects of international relations and everyday life. These overlapping processes of globalization have allowed for a great deal of global progress, but progress is impossible to achieve without occasional setbacks. The problems we face today are rooted in the contradiction of solving global issues while relying on the state-based Westphalian system of governance. Governance “provide[s] a general way to formulate, implement, monitor and enforce social rules,” (Scholte 20) but it is no longer possible to rely on a state-based system, in which states act independently to pursue self-interest, to solve international problems, many of which have been created collectively. State sovereignty and the motivation of power in political realism continue to neglect the important issues we face with growing global concerns that can only be solved with an increased cooperation through the strengthening of international institutions and non-state actors. It is necessary to shift from a state-based form of

the U.S. Congress to term limits. There are many ways in which this could occur,

The president also has the power Veto laws passed by congress. The president has the power to make political appointment and negotiate treaties with foreign countries, however this power also requires the approval of the senate. The President is responsible for making a for appointing his cabinet and federal judges. The president is capable of calling congress in session and the power to adjourn congress.

Congress has many functions to keep it working and functioning. They do many things to make laws, make sure they’re fair, and much more. There are also many committees with important jobs. There are many things that influence congressional elections such as reapportionment, redistricting, much more. There are many people who make up the House and Senate and they have many important jobs to keep things running smoothly.

Over the last several decades, American politics scholars have sought to understand the causes of increasing partisanship and polarization in the United States Congress. Since the 1970s, the ideological positions of the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, have widened (Abramowitz and Saunders, 2008; Levendusky; 2010). This ideological divide also promotes a perception among the American public that Congress has increasingly become ineffective and polarized to a point where political parties in government no longer compromise on policy for the good of the country. In recent years, a new concern has arisen regarding unlimited spending in elections by outside groups permitted after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in SpeechNOW.org v. FEC (2010) (Mann and Corroado, 2014). Both decisions allow unlimited independent expenditures for political advertisements, ad buys, and other electioneering communications during elections. Furthermore, there is an increase and heightened unease of outside undisclosed donors, or “dark” money, who may have undue influences on political, electoral, and policy outcomes (Mann and Corroado, 2014; Federal Election Commission). Thus, does independent campaign expenditures spend have detrimental or undue influences on polarization and policy outcomes by promoting more extreme ideological positions in congressional representation?

Practicing the foreign policy is when the nation makes treaties with other countries, or when the ambassadors are sent to abroad. The goals of foreign policy of the America are maintaining national security, supporting democracy, promoting world peace, providing aid and establishing open trade. Under the United States Constitution, the foreign policymaking power is divided between the President and the Congress, so that means both have an important role in the making of foreign policy. The Executive and Legislative Branches each has specific power; they assume their responsibilities that are different but actually overlap.

In addition to the moral reasons for humanitarian intervention, the increasingly globalized nature of the world means that there are many practical benefits to reinforcing a country’s responsibility to protect it’s people. In this day and age, isolationism is no longer a valid foreign policy strategy as the actions of one country are inexorably linked to those surrounding it. From a revolution in communications to increasingly efficient and affordable methods of high-speed transport technology, people are able to connect with others from all points on the planet. The proliferation of transnational corporations have forged bonds between countries, and free trade agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA-DR have further promoted the global economy. While this globalization has brought

Donnelly is deliberate in his mission to elaborate on how foreign policy is often adopted for various reasons, and he begins with the identity issues that pushed the United States to embrace policies to guard against violation of these rights. The question about the policy mainly lies in the issues that should be encompassed in the policy as well as how to pursue the policy and the extent to which it covers. The readings reveal that for an extensive period many nations failed to formulate foreign policies as they did not see any need but with time each nation came up with a policy for specific benefits. Political agendas were also a justification for some nations to embrace the making of these human rights-based policies, however, for some nations, it was a matter of self-image, for instance, South Africa (Donnelly P.200). Sanctions and diplomacy are listed as the means by which many nations embrace to enforce their foreign policies. Donnelly mentions that there exist restraints to the enforcement of the policies when they are local to a nation.

This paper will demonstrate how the different foreign policy approaches came about with contextual pressures and the means in which they employed to ensure that the U.S interest are upheld. Interests

In today’s world, there are a wide range of factors that impact all human lives. Each nation has its own strategy to deal with challenges and cope with the impacts to secure the maximum benefit for the nation and for the well-being of its citizens. Thus, it is important for states to apply the right instrument to position themselves at both internal and external levels, particularly in the international sphere. Foreign policy is a crucial tool for nations in dealing with other actors on the international stage; in order to secure their national interest, as well as to guide the appropriate direction for interacting with other actors in the world. Further, the bureaucracy is deemed as the prominent notion for constituting foreign policy. Generally, some narratives indicate that foreign policy making resulted from the output of the theory of bureaucratic politics which addresses the role of bureaucracies for facilitating the making of foreign policy. Thus, foreign policy could be derived from various actors of bureaucratic politics that compete among actors to secure their interests in specific agendas and make a significant impact on foreign policy.

My role in the delegation of the United States of America was to act as the Ambassador. As the ambassador, my top priorities were to make sure our alliances were politically correct, and to represent the peaceful, secure, and rational aspects of the United States of America. These were my top priorities because, I wanted our alliances to resemble those of the actual United States of America. I also wanted to make a positive representation of our country so that other nations could look past our faults, and be willing to work with us. Overall I somewhat met these standards. I felt like I let my emotions blind me in completely meeting my priorities.

It would seem a self-evident claim that national interest must play a significant part, if not a central one, in the formation of any state's foreign policy. This claim could be made because it would appear natural that the role of the state, in any situation, is primarily to further the interests of the society and people that it represents. This is the basis of its legitimacy and the reason of its very existence. This paper will explore the extent to which it can be said that states pursue national interests in their foreign policy formation, regardless of

This uncertainty reflects a growing awareness that a transformational international system still dominated by sovereign states is having to respond to change at several interrelated levels. Whilst complex policy agendas still demand a central, if changing, role for the state, many of the norms, rules and roles associated with diplomacy as it has developed over the last few centuries are no longer fit for purpose. Clearly, fundamental questions regarding the purposes of diplomacy, who is – or should be – involved in it and what forms and practices it should assume to deal with new policy challenges need to be urgently addressed. This applies to international organizations as well as the institutions of national diplomacy and offers a fundamentally different perspective from that based on the familiar claim that diplomacy is irrelevant to contemporary global needs. Rather, diplomacy has a central role but needs to adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing environment. Against this background, a central assumption of this report is that diplomacy as a set of processes continues to be of central importance to the global policy milieu and that these processes need to be constantly re-evaluated.