The Executive Branch: Role In Foreign Affairs

The executive branch of the Unites States government consists of the President, Vice President, Executive Office of the President (EOP), and the Cabinet (Citation). The President is the highest official of the Executive branch. The powers of the President are wide-ranging and highly substantial but were also drafted in the constitution to be limited by the other two branches of government. The remaining branches of government are the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. There functions of all the branches are interrelated and the restraints on the amount of power each reserves are also coordinated. This correlation involves the system of checks and balances which was implemented by the framers of the Constitution. The President, as

The government of the United States of America has been around for over 2 centuries, in this time the original setup has been little altered. The government is composed of three individual branches: judicial, executive, and legislative branches. All three branches are held together using a system of checks and balances. While each branch has some kind of trump or has control over another branch, some branches are arguably more powerful than others. The main focus of this paper will be on where the executive branch stands power-wise. When our founding fathers first started building our nation from the dust, they had in mind a system of branches where no one branch was more powerful than the others. The decision of whether or not they hit

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, he warned the United States to strive for continuous balance so that the power of the military and industrial complex would not harm the democratic process. The goal was to maintain agreement and compromise on issues existing in the current moment, as well as the solutions that would help to shape the nation in the coming future. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment (Eisenhower, II).

The United Nations was to be a place where there was peace between the countries, a place where they can dispute their differences, a place to support each other and benefit from the allies a country made by being in the United Nations. It was “designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members” (Document B). Not long after it was founded, it started falling apart. People had different idea of how it should have been ran but the people who got their way was the bigger and stronger countries. They came to an agreement that the bigger countries—the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China—would have veto power and the other countries that were a part of it would take smaller roles in the decisions

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

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.

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.

In foreign policy, there are two types of executive agreements, treaties and international agreements or executive agreements. The president is able to create a treaty with another country but needs two-thirds of the U.S. Senates’ advice and consent for the treaty to pass. “Joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford a greater prospect of security than the separate possession of it by either of them” (Milkis and Nelson, 2016). The Constitution believed that it would be safer for the United States if both the executive and legislative branches worked together to create treaties. An example of a treaty is the Jay Treaty. The Jay Treat was between the United States and Great Britain, but there were some issues with this treaty. Other politicians and citizens did not like what the treaty stated. They believed “the Jay Treat unconstitutionally undermined the separate of powers” (Demmer, 2015). But they could not take any action because senate already gave the two-thirds approval. For treaties, Congress has the power to accept or decline what the president writes. “The Constitution of the United States, has empowered Congress, and not the president” (Demmer, 2015). This means Congress has more power in leading foreign policy. Then there is the executive agreement which “brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of Senate” (“Treaty vs. Executive Agreement”).

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.

Allowing Congress to play a major role in foreign policy acts as a check on the President, who is the original and ultimate authority in various foreign policy issues. Congressional involvement in foreign policy can lead to an investigation into a President’s suspicious acts and includes the power to respond to overreaching Executives. However, although Congress has the ability to play a beneficial role in a democratic system of foreign policymaking, it often lacks the will to get involved. As the former Senator William Fulbright said in 1974, “Whatever useful reforms are made in the organization and procedures of Congress, all the streamlining in the world will be no substitute for the character and backbone of its members” (Fulbright 59).

Due to the concept that I choose, I gained a better understanding on how much influence the executive branch has over the people. The reason why secondary position exerts a strong influence over the people, is due to how close they are to their constituents. Using the state of California as an example, the executive branch is entrusted with implementing the laws that are passed from the national to federal level, and if it was not for the governor of California being in sync with the people. Any proposed law that was passed from the national level would’ve not exercised its effectiveness, however, if the governor of California does not facilitate its power appropriately, its people have the ability to call in an early recall: the voter and

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

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.