Congress And The Presidency Essay

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

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.

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.

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

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?

Although it is often said that the President of the United States holds the most powerful office in the world, this does not mean that he is able to decide very much for himself. The American Constitution, which was adapted in 1789, clearly states the Separation of Powers. Thus, the president makes up only one third of the government, namely the executive branch. He is also controlled by a complex system of checks and balances, which makes sure that he (or any of the other branches, for that matter) does not become too powerful. We will now have a look at the different problems which may be facing a recently elected president, and then discuss to what extent his powers are important.

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

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

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.

Congress has helped develop the Presidency as we know it today. This is because Congress argues over proposals and legislation proposed by the President. They are a major determent in whether bills turn into laws. But it’s not easy. One reason for this is because there are many powerful groups out there who argue about what should be discussed such as air pollution with the EPA or jobs.

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

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.

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.