Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Power Of The Executive Branch In Foreign Policy

Another very notable role of the President also outlined in Article II. Section 2. of the Constitution and reads, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html). It essentially gives the President power to make treaties with foreign nations however, two-thirds of Congress must be in agreement with the decision. Although the President, or the Executive Branch can be interpreted as the most authoritative arm of government, its powers are still limited and restricted by the process of checks and balances. Each branch of government has some governance over the other two divisions. For instance, just as it is outlined above, the President can nominate Ambassadors and Judges of the Supreme Court but the decision must be upheld by Congress. In other words, under the "Advice and Consent clause the appointed member must be sworn in by the Senate. Again, this is an example of how the system of checks and balances limits the powers of the President.

The main breaking point between the President and Congress was in the Vietnam war. This war sparked a debate on who has the right to declare war, and who has the right to only send advisory troops. Only Congress has the right to declare war, the President can only send advisory troops to other countries. This is a very controversial topic because many people think that the President can declare war, but they have to ask the Congress first. Another convincing reason on why Congress is more powerful that the President is the fact that Congress can make laws and the President has no say. Laws are the outline of America, and they are the only thing keeping crime from all streets in all states across America. Those are only two reasons why Congress is more important to America than the President. All of these powers are stated in Article 1 of the Constitution and the powers of the President are listed in Article 2 of the Constitution. Some people still disagree, though, they think that the President has more rights than

Decisions that presidents had made previously with little congressional participation. Under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Congress is granted responsibility for caring out their powers as well as all other powers in the Constitution. This gives them the constitutional right to establish certain procedural implements for war proceedings. Thus, the central purpose of the War Powers Resolutions to restrain the president from unilaterally deploying U.S. Armed Forces. Constant with this intent, legislation imposed the president to report and consult with congress. More notably, it provides congressional supervision by permitting congress to force troop

Although some believe that president Theodore Roosevelt abused his executive power, he did not. He was a very successful president who used his powers as president expertly during his presidency. Roosevelt used his diplomatic power wisely in the Dominican Republic and when he mediated the Russo-Japanese war. He used his legislative power effectively to influence reform policies. Roosevelt used his military power strongly to suppress Columbia and free Panama while asserting America’s military power as a leading world force. Additionally, he used his executive power in a way that benefited the U.S. greatly by protecting the environment in America while being careful not to abuse his power as chief executive.

The Constitution is supposed to divide war powers between the president and Congress, but in today’s society that has not always been the case. We live in a country with competing views, but our Constitution was created through disagreement. While the Constitution is a source of cherished and unifying political ideas, it can provoke some of the most intense quarrels because of its principles and protections. It is also debated and applied to present circumstances daily. To get back to the presidential power argument, President Barack Obama sent United States military into combat without the consent from Congress. “As a presidential candidate in 2007, Senator Obama stated, “The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” (Yoo). President Barack Obama announced four years later, that he was acting on his constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations as the commander in chief/chief executive by the intervention with Libya. Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congress have carried out the beliefs that the constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S can allow for the military to act. “We have forced abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: The War of 1812, the

When the Constitution was first written by America’s founding fathers, they intended for the executive branch to serve the nation’s citizenry by keeping their best interests at heart, but stated that in no way should this branch be more powerful than any other—it be constantly checked and balanced by the legislative and judicial branches.. In James Madison’s Federalist Number 48, he states that in a representative republic, “the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power”1. The founding fathers never intended for the role of President of the United States

Since the creation of the United States of America, the power of the President has increased dramatically. Specifically, regarding foreign affairs, the power of the President has greatly increased. According to foreign policy specialist Michael Cairo, the Constitution originally gave Congress the majority of war powers. While the formal powers of Congress include the power to declare war, raise and support an army, and regulate commerce, the President was only meant to mainly be Commander in Chief and negotiate treaties in regard to foreign affairs. The President’s role of leading the armed forces may seem like it would give him the authority on all issues regarding foreign affairs, but this power was granted to the President so that he could react quickly if a national emergency occurs. Although Congress was originally given the majority of war powers, Presidents have begun to utilize unilateral authority in the realm of foreign policy. In the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President deployed troops without a declaration of war from Congress.

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.

James Madison 's view on the president, that he or she is the head of the branch most prone to engage in the dealings of war, has been substantially manifested in the degree to which the executive has taken war power from Congress. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is stated to have the power to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” and to “provide and maintain a Navy.” By explicitly listing these powers to be reserved for Congress, the Framers exemplified their preference of a slow, deliberative body to have control over matters of war, rather than invest the power in a single executive, who might be more prone to act belligerently. However, over the past century in particular, presidents have claimed many war powers which were intended to be meant exclusively for Congress as their own. One way in which the president has taken war power from Congress is through energetic, emergency, and reactive military appropriations. In contrast to the time of the Framers, modern war seems to require swift action. The branch of government that requires the least amount of time to act is the Executive, which places the president, also Commander in Chief in control of the armed forces, in a situation in which they can take unquestioned steps in sending troops into conflict and beginning involvement in a war, a power that was originally vested in Congress through the Constitution. For example, in the wake of the Civil War, President Lincoln contributed to the

All through the American history, the President's capacities have extended enormously from a constrained part doled out by the Founding Fathers to the official force and a more extensive impact over numerous territories. Being suspicious of giving the President an official force which may prompt an American dictator, the Founding Fathers permitted not very many particular president powers, in contrast with the real part of Congress, which was relied upon to be the predominant branch of the national government.

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

In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war

Congress and the president use their powers to check and balance each other. One power of Congress is the ability to declare war. However, Congress generally gives the president control during war time. Because of this, the president is able to acquire more power over the war while Congress can do little if they have already given their approval. After the Vietnam War, in which Presidents Johnson and Nixon continued to wage despite a divided Congress[i]; they decided that the Constitution did not warrant the president to have the power to declare war, so they passed the War

There are many different aspects that make up our government, but two of the central aspects happen to be our Congress and our President. Over the years, it seems as though U.S. Presidents have been abusing their power and trying to overrule Congress. Nevertheless, it should be noted that both Congress and the President are granted specific powers by our Constitution.

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.