External Pressure Of Domestic Politics And Foreign Policy

Throughout the course of history, the United States has remained consistent with its national interest by taking many different actions in foreign policy. There have been both immediate and long term results of these actions. Foreign policy is the United States policy that defines how we deal with other countries economically and politically. It is made by congress, the president, and the people. Some of the motivations for United States foreign policy are national security, economics, and idealism. The United States entry into World War I in 1917 and the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the both had great impact on the United States.

George Washington believed the President had a role to play in foreign policy. Washington negotiated, and recognized other nations and also proposed policy for the US to follow. Franklin D. Roosevelt also expanded presidential power due to his use of the largely unconstitutional destroyer deal to help Britain stave off Nazis and a peacetime draft. Further, presidents like Reagan did not follow congress as evident with by funding the Contras even after the Boland Amendment. Likewise, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton actively bombed nations even without congressional approval because they believed they were allowed to under the Constitution. I believe Presidential dominance allows for a clear foreign policy that can be effective. However, I would acknowledge this also can lead to bad policy like the way we fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However, Congress can challenge

Our initial question asks why the President is the dominant force in foreign policy making within the U.S. government? A corollary is to ask whether or not the President should be the dominant force in foreign policy. This is an ongoing debate and tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches. First, we should understand that, under our current President, there is strong opinion that he should not be the dominant force for foreign policy. There are at least two opposing points of view regarding the role of the President and foreign policy. If one favors the Executive Branch, one takes the position that the Executive is better able to respond quickly and efficiently to changing conditions in world politics. If one favors the Legislative Branch, one takes the position that the Legislative is better able to consider, review, deliberate, and debate various points of view before deciding what course of action would best serve the interests of the entire nation.

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, presidential powers have been a massive controversy on whether the powers are expanding in the nation’s best interest or if the President is accumulating too much power in the government. In Christina Lyons article, Presidential Power, she develops a historical scope of past presidential powers, ranging from Reagan to Obama. Also, Lyons discusses the many issues arising of whether the President is in need of constrictions and restrictions on the executive powers or if Congress has put a big enough indentation on these powers since September 1st, 2001 terrorist attack against the United States of America. Lyons examines the reasons behind presidents expanding their powers throughout the past two centuries, which recent terrorists attacks and congressional gridlocking play a major role. She provides specific types of executive actions that recent presidents have used to exert their powers, like President Bush, President Obama, and President Clinton. Lyons stipulates arguments of those who are opposed to expanded presidential powers, for example, setting policy for the country. Lastly, the author observes the Constitutional provisions of checks and balances between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches in constraining presidential power.

The War Powers Resolution passed through the whole legislative process in six months from when it was introduced to the day it was signed into law. The veto voting took place quickly and effectively. The first five months the bill was debated and researched in Congress, but after sending it to the president it took under a month for it to become a law. This law was necessary to add an additional check to Nixon because of his highly unpopular involvement in the Vietnam War. This law helped to make sure the president was not doing whatever he wanted, but “one former US Senator noted in 2008 that no President had ever submitted the precise kinds of reports to Congress required by the Act despite the US’s involvement in numerous armed conflicts” (Nixon 7). Although it became a law and has had some success, the exact provisions are not being followed. The benefits seem to outweigh the costs because, following Nixon’s actions there was great distrust of the government and this attempts to limit the shady deals and actions of the President. Many presidents have opposed the law, but its main impact was a check on the

This third and most helpful definition focuses not only on outcome, but also, crucially, on norms and process. Values are essential to the study of foreign policy, and explain why the policies of different states can vary so dramatically. Means are equally important: what a country does can be less significant than how it does it, as recent US actions illustrate. Central to pluralism is the notion that the three branches of government should be separate and distinct, with each acting to check and balance the others and thus preventing abuse of power. In the United States, the often-tumultuous relationship between especially the legislative and executive branches has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. The Presidency has seen a slow but constant expansion of power since the days of George Washington, culminating in what Schlesinger has called the "imperial presidencies" of Johnson and Nixon, and continuing today. The official rights and duties of the President as regards foreign policy-making are actually only briefly mentioned in the Constitution, and are rather limited. The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". However, presidents have frequently bypassed the need for congressional approval by enacting

The founding fathers intended for a United States government to be run significantly through the legislative branch, and to encompass the majority of domestic and foreign matters of governance. However since 1789 the forces and imperatives of national security have been shaped foreign policy matters to be the focus and responsibility of the President and the Executive branch of government. Presidential actions of key Presidents such as George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan to manipulate the interoperations of the constitution regarding Presidential power have contributed to a gradual trend of presidential authority in the international arena steadily usurping congressional prerogatives, yet, the Presidency has not become an imperial power, because of checks and balances.

These Congressional powers are further defined latter in section 8 to define Congress’s roles as having the power to declare war and to raise and support the Armies and Navies of the United States. Through (Article II, section 2) it is understood that the President is the Commander and Chief of those Armed forces, tasked with repelling attacks against the United States (U.S. Constitution). This division of powers was affective, because each conflict The United States entered into was accompanied by a declaration of war. Controversy began to arise when the President sent forces into conflicts abroad without a declaration of war, or without the approval of congress.

However, War Powers Resolution has been enacted by the congress in endeavors to put a check on the power of the president to engage in military action. Congress is checked by the President when a bill is vetoed by him. Whereas, he can be checked by the Congress if two third majority votes to overrule his veto. Similarly when the President chooses the amount of money that is needed to be spent on war, a budget is prepared by him and is presented to the Congress. But Congress can pose a constraint by voting “no” or “yes” on that amount of the money (Feldman, 2006). If there are any concerns in the minds of the people on that expenditure, they may write both their congressmen and the President on that issue. When it comes to dealing with other countries in terms of war, the President can be checked in this respect too. Even if he intends to make other countries as his allies in war, he cannot begin these dialogues until it has been granted approval by the two third majority of the Senate (Yoo, 2012). The President is checked in foreign policy (dealing with other countries) too. When a President makes a treaty (bargain) with another country, it doesn't really start until 2/3 of the Senate (67 members) approve it. Without credible and strong proof that Congress will see through, the rulings that are passed to put constraint on the president by the Congress can enter legal limbo, their effect uncertain and their status

The president's role as chief diplomat of the United States requires the direct communication with leaders of other countries, and to promotion the interests of the United States abroad. To ensure the United States does not appear divided to the rest of the world the president is allowed to use his own discretion with regard to foreign policy. The Constitution does not clearly describe the role of the president in foreign policy. It states that the president can make treaties and receive and appoint foreign ambassadors, with the requirement that they have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the

Congress needs to confirm and support the president’s nominees for the Supreme Court and his Executive office. The president needs to have a respectful relationship with Congress when it passes bills and supports his appointments even if Congress is controlled by the opposing party in American politics. "A recurring debate in foreign affairs law focuses on the appropriate level of congressional and judicial deference to the President. In answering that question, most scholars focus on the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and historical practice for guidance, or evaluate the expertise and strategic incentives of Congress, the President, and the

“Congress is not a good position to contend efficiently with the President in the formation of US foreign policy. Congress is more oriented towards domestic than foreign affairs. All the 535 Members of the Congress have much more narrowly construed electoral basis and correspondingly restricted constituency interest. Whereas the President has a nationwide constituency, the outlook responsibility within Congress are fragmented. Unlike the executive division, where policy debates take place, the President, use the right of final option, constitution debates are publicly eliminating, with the final choices made to continue and nays, and with the decisions making diffuse” (Ali & Sabir, p. 155).

The final level of analysis Morgenthau considers to be important is whether or not the power is legitimate and moral or if it is illegitimate and immoral. Legitimate and moral power carries considerable weight in the international community. However, if the power of a state is derived from illegitimate sources such as a dictatorship the international community will be less responsive to that state, weakening its power. Weak or small states may enter into alliances with stronger states to increase their power and influence within the international community (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34). Morgenthau also believed that the charisma and personality of a leader was very important when reviewing the balance of power and understanding a state’s self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32).

Foreign policy involves the goals, strategies, measures, understanding, agreements, directives and rules in which national governments conduct international relations with each other as well as international organisations and non-governmental actors. South Africa 's post-apartheid foreign policy vision has become prosperous, peaceful, democratic, non-racial, non-sexist and united which contributes to the world that is equitable. This essay will discuss the transition to democracy and how the different heads have contributed to foreign policy since 1994 using the state and individual levels of analysis. This will be done with the following headings; heads of government contribution during the transition of democracy including individual level and state level of analysis.