JCPOA Case Study

Congress has the significant power of ‘power of the purse’, which means that all of the money that the president wants to spend on his policies must be voted for by Congress. If they refuse to vote then it brings to a halt what the president was planning to do. In 2007, the Democrat

The House passed PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. The PPACA was ready for the President to sign, however, the Senate still had to pass the Reconciliation Act in the House. With Senator Kennedy gone and replaced by a republican, Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act. In order to pass the Act, Senate Democrats decided that they could use the "Reconciliation Rule". This rule was originally designed to be used for budget item approvals and could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. Reconciliation was not intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. Both of the "Acts" were passed and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation. (Sussman, 2013) The way in which these two laws were passed has caused a large partisan divide. Without bipartisan support, many believe that the ACA will not be a viable "fix" to the countries healthcare dilemmas. (McDonough, 2012) The ACA is the most substantial piece of legislation about health care since Medicare in the 1960s.

Interactions between the president and Congress seem to take two dominant forms. The first being the negative power of the presidential veto. Less overt, and inherently more complex, are the positive powers of presidential persuasion. These types of power represent distinct patterns in presidential interaction with Congress, and their occurrences likely represent different bargaining situations between branches.

The Senators attempted to undue certain parts of the law with a procedural process known as “Reconciliation”. With this method the Senate would be able to undue a good portion of the bill with only 51 “yea” votes. The Republicans maintain control of the chamber by a 52-48 majority. The attempt at reconciliation was defeated on the two attempts when the measures were brought to a vote. The Republicans just could not agree on a way to remove certain parts of the Affordable Care Act and how to replace those provisions.

The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy; and even when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President…the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office.., forbids a compliance with your request."

This victory did not last long because a Republican won the empty seat in the senate, giving the Republicans their 41 votes to overturn the Democratic victory. In order to pass the ACA, Obama made many backdoor deals with individuals and insurers. He had to do everything in his power to pass the mandate because the Democratic Party could not suffer another lost. The ACA was fully enacted in 2014 to reform and improve the healthcare system for American citizens.

Presidential power has been a intensely publicized issue throughout the history of the United States, but even more so in the last couple decades. Presidents have always been pushing the envelope when it comes to what they can and cannot do in office. However as terrorism has become more prevalent in the past twenty years, presidents are faced with more challenges than those of hundreds of years ago. In addition to the threats overseas, every year both parties are becoming more partisan. When the parties do this it creates a gridlock and this makes it hard for anything to get done in Washington. Congress has always been there to keep the president in check and make sure he is not overstepping his boundaries. However presidents often find ways to “get around” going to congress for approval. These sneaky actions by our presidents has created a lot of tension in Washington and is why Presidential Power is such a hot button issue.

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 second issue is regarding the Senate’s power to get international treaties ratified or otherwise. As a dualist state, the treaties that are signed by the President can only become part of American law if the Senate by two-thirds majority agree to support it. In Congressional history, ratification has been used as a tool to ensure that the President does not get America into agreements that

Our president is not cable of passing any law he desires. All of our national government does not abide by one man’s, or woman’s, decision. In order for our president to pass laws they must first go through congress. Our current government is set up to make

The president plays many rolls such as chief legislature, Chief bureaucrat and chief administrator. The powers of the president as chief legislature gives the president the ability to accept or deny bills that Congress presents. As chief legislator, the president can influence congress by either accepting or vetoing a bill. An example of the president’s power occurred in 2012 when President Barack Obama threatened to veto any legislation extending tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year. Congressional leaders at this time were trying to avert the fiscal cliff tax increases and automatic spending cuts due to take place in January. Both parties at this time agreed that failed deficit cuts could leave the economy back into recession.

Obama managed to get Congress to accept his healthcare plan by making a special rule for Congress and congressional

“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).

And in treaties and executive agreements….so, the President gets to exercise a little more muscle with executive agreements than treaties? Something of a lesser nature in importance? That agreement of National American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of eliminating tariffs on goods sold on the market looked like a real success to many! But I venture to say that the business owners we’re more than likely livid about that agreement?!! Such is life? The President is the conductor of foreign policies (or sometimes they appoint the Secretary of State). And even has gained the status of Leader in the democratic world!

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a