President and Congress

Most of the specifications for the executive branch in the Constitution, other than how he is to be elected, have to deal with the interactions between Congress and the President. The president can (fill in the blank) but only if (this part) of Congress approves. The powers of the president have been interpreted widely so that he has more power than I believe the Framers intended. They wanted him to be able to check Congress with veto power and be the head of the military. However, I think that presidents nowadays have too much power. They are active in trying force their policy agenda through Congress, manage foreign relations, and act as the administrative head of the entire nation. The textbook lays it out well in, "The vast size of the executive branch and the number and complexity of decisions that must be made each day pose a challenge for the White House.” (316) In order to deal with the stresses put on the executive branch, there are thousands of employees that work to give the president the information that he needs to make decisions. He has advisors, cabinet members, legislative liaisons; the list goes on and on, but he is the person who actually gets to make all of the choices. The President is limited in some ways and given more power in other ways by the structure laid out for him in the Constitution, and evolved to be what it is now.

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 U.S. President has a veto right over any bill approved by Congress. This practically means that "if the president doesn't like a bill, he or she vetoes it" (Kowalski 2012: 22). Even with this, his authority can be challenged if two-thirds of the senators and House of Representatives vote accordingly. The Congress also has the ability to limit the president's actions as a result of the fact that it has power over the finances. Similarly, each body in Congress can check the other, considering that all proposals have to be issued

Another important power the Chief in Legislature has is the ability to assemble a meeting with the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both. The framers specified this role of the president in in Article II, Section 3. Not only is the president given the authority to call a meeting with congress, he or she is expected to do so (Kesavan & Sidak, 9). In these meetings the president can discuss the state of America, the status

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

The relationship between the president and Congress has changed drastically in the past two hundred years. The framers of the constitution did not want an executive power in charge of the whole country in fear of it turning into a monarchy. They knew they needed a leader for America though. The framers did not want political parties. “Political parties established after Washington left the presidency” (Mandate). The relationship between Congress and the president changed in a very visible way. In the past, the president would meet to discuss issues with Congress, but that is not how it is today. Also the president would have to go through congress to pass a bill or an amendment, but presidents found a way around going through congress. The president can sign a bill without congress’s approval. For example, president Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wanted to pass an amendment that would end slavery but Congress said no. Lincoln then did what the people wanted and signed the emancipation proclamation anyways to end slavery. Also known as the thirteenth amendment. Some presidents even put the people in power.

If the President is suspected of unlawful acts, he can be impeached, or tried by the Senate for misusing his power. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. If he is found guilty, he can be punished but his sentence can be no more than being thrown out of office and being forbidden to hold any government office. Furthermore, if the President wants to spend money, his request must pass through Congress, since it has control over spending. Lastly, Congress can re-pass a bill that was vetoed by the President. Congress also has checks and balances against itself. The President can veto a bill from Congress, and although Congress can override a veto, obtaining a two-thirds vote to do so is very difficult. Public speeches by the President may also concern the public with an issue, putting pressure on Congress to act upon it. The Judicial branch exerts control over the other two by deciding whether or not actions made by the President or Congress, i.e., laws are constitutional.

The powers executive has are being able to veto, or reject, a proposal for a law, and appoint federal posts. The executive branch has power, but it, as well as the others, has to be limited. The president has the power to make appointments, including to the Supreme Court, but his choices must be approved by the Senate, which leaves him not as powerful as it may seem.

Congressional authorization is the ability to empower and allocate funds, which supports Congress with an effective tool for omission and authority of intelligence activities. Congress is expected to have more power than the President and the Supreme Court. Its powers are also known to be Constitutional as well as evolutionary (ushistory). After the Senate as well as the House of Representatives approves a bill or proposed law, it then becomes an actual law. These two houses also share other powers, that involve coin money, the power to declare war, establishing rules of naturalization as well as immigration, raise an army and a navy, regulate commerce, and set up the federal courts along with their jurisdictions (ushistory). Although Presidents can have authority to act without Congressional authorization when necessary for the nations security, it would be better if they did seek Congressional authorization before acting or making any important decision regarding the nations security, in order to preserve Constitutional checks and balances, as well as make the right decisions and protect the President politically.

The President may not declare war, but he may deploy soldiers. He may require in writing the opinions of any of the heads of state departments as it relates to their respective offices. The President also has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment. The President also has the power to make treaties with foreign powers provided the Senate has consented by a two-thirds majority. He may also appoint ambassadors, ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President also has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate temporarily. On extraordinary occasions, the President may convene or temporarily adjourn either or both legislative houses in the interest of resolving disputes. The President is also charged with meeting with ambassadors and other public representatives. The President can also be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. With the presidential powers now outlined, let us explore the opposing opinions of each presidential power(Colonies of Nations, 549-553).

The president also has the power Veto laws passed by congress. The president has the power to make political appointment and negotiate treaties with foreign countries, however this power also requires the approval of the senate. The President is responsible for making a for appointing his cabinet and federal judges. The president is capable of calling congress in session and the power to adjourn congress.

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 era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

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.

The impacts of transnational relations and non-state actors have been highlighted at the end of the cold war and the recent increase in globalization movement. It is undeniable that the position of transnational society has influenced a lot of outcomes in international relations today. This essay highlights different types of transnational actors and their local and global influence capacity. The interdependence between state and non-state actors are explored. The discussion is also based on the understanding that different political schools of thought have conflicting opinions on the effectiveness and relevance of transnational movements. As such, the discussion highlights the theories and proves or disproves them based on contemporary situations in global politics.