Presidency and Foreign Policy Making Essay

“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).

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.

This biography offers insight into the personal and public lives of two men who so initially agreed then feverishly denied each other’s foreign policy proposals. Concluding with Nitze, as the hawk and Kennan, starring as the dove.

As the decided cases make clear, focusing mainly on mere historical acquiescence by Congress when examining the President 's exercise of a particular power does not by itself prove that Congress lacks the authority to limit the exercise of that power when it gathers the courage and wisdom to do so. Justice Jackson 's Steel Seizure concurrence carried the warning that "only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers” and that warning presupposes what is argued here: that Congress, if it so chooses, can regain power lost to the executive branch through its own course of action. If the Congress does not act when conditions demand action, then the President will exercise power because power must be exercised. But the fact that the President exercises a power when Congress does not, does not render that power as "inherent" in the executive or even make it remotely valid. At best, the power is "inherent" in the overall government of the United States of America. Therefore, the argument that Presidents have "always" controlled troops without congressional interference proves no more than perhaps its own premise: that Presidents have always done this. In particular, that historical conclusion makes no statement at all about congressional authority to alter that long-standing state of affairs. Failure to see this crucial distinction accounts for occasional citation to the line of cases beginning with United States v. Midwest Oil Co., as authority for the

had to have daily check ups from health officials for a total of 21 days straight. These policies

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.

The conflicting power struggle and rival relationship between the legislative branch and the executive branch is one that has always seemed anticipated. The relationship between a President and the Legislative branch is not only essential but it is significant making it equally an extremely delicate affair. One of the main questions that experts on the workings of congress have is whether or not the legislative and executive branch are capable of effectively cooperating with one another to ultimately promote and sustain the American agenda. George H.W. Bush’s relationship with congress can be seen as a dynamic one.

This increasing use and value of the political weapon that is the veto, has allowed the president to become more involved in legislative matters, and has changed the presidential-congressional dynamic so that Congress is no longer the dominant force in government–as it was until the end of the nineteenth century. Tied to the ushering in of a new century was the presidential figure of Theodore Roosevelt, who began expanding the role of the presidency. The executive veto is one of the few powers of the presidency that is embedded in the constitution. One of america’s constitutional design is that it guarantees the president a place at the legislative bargaining table even when a majority of those around it are hostile to his aims. Using 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 president and Congress work together to accomplish tasks in the legislative arena. However, such task of working together has become more difficult and has diminished throughout the years. Several factors are the cause of this, and an argument can be made that the relationship between the president and Congress has become defective. Congress has the tools to make president’s job more difficult. Consequentially, presidents have their own tools to attempt to undermine such difficulties.

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

In this paper we will compare the formal and informal powers if the President and we will explore how and why the Presidential powers have increased over time. The history of the Presidency is an account of aggrandizement; one envisions, today, a President with far reaching power, however, when looking at the Constitution alone we find a President with significant limits. Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or merely a helpless giant?

Presidents of the United States of America have been around since the country became it’s own. Each president is given certain responsibilities and rights. Presidential power is listed in the Constitution but since then, there’s been room for more responsibilities to come into play. The powers exercised in the modern world surpass those included in the Constitution. Today, the president has a number of offices and departments serving under him. These institutions help keep the government together and everything running smoothly. The presidents rely on a number of other things. Some include elections, political parties, interest groups, the media, and public opinion. There are different kinds of powers granted to the president. While some

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.

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.