The President 's National Security Policy Essay

The government holds a crucial status to its citizens, executive branch specifically, is overlooked to symbolize leadership. Nowadays, the president’s office is believed to exemplify the values of the American people. There are certain powers allocated to the president by the United States Constitution, however; the responsibility and vacancy of the President tend to evolve from one president to the next. Characteristics of presidents and their effect on political decisions has beneficial aspects

Abstract: This paper will speak to the duties of the cabinet that surrounds the President. In the text I will identify each cabinet position with a brief description of their role and importance to the president. The paper will prove that the president him/herself cannot do this job alone, an example from the Bush administration will also be included following the duties portion of the paper. All in all, the cabinet will be explored with their operational functions in the United States government.

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.

While some would argue that the framers of the Constitution did enough to limit the power of the President because of actions carried out by the leaders of the past, the more valid perspective is that these actions were made based on personal goals, and that judgements on these actions are justified based on opinions—not facts. From this, it can be concluded that the authors of The Constitution of the United States have placed enough rules, regulations, and checks to successfully limit the power of the President. In this modern American world, social and governmental society is continuously developing and evolving over time; important decisions that drive this evolution are made everyday by people of great importance. One of these important

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.

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

In an era of polarization a unified or divided government is detrimental to determine the relationship between the president and Congress (Edwards 1997, 545). The type of government helps determine how difficult legislation is passed in Congress, especially legislation important for the president. In unified government, where both chambers of Congress controlled by the same party as the president’s, legislation is much easier to pass in Congress. Presidents in a unified government have much success within Congress because their party tends to vote in favor of the president. Congressmen are more likely to vote on legislation in favor of the president because they are optimistic that the president will help them when elections come around (Coleman 1999, 821). Moreover, in a polarized era, congressmen are loyal to their party. For example, David Price (D- NC) has voted nearly ninety-five percent in favor of the Democratic Party in the 113th Congress (OpenCongress)

Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would

He has to make stressful life changing decisions on a daily basis, and he uses guidance from the people around him. The President appoints reliable and trustworthy people to his cabinet to help guide the option that will benefit our country. He talks over major conflicts with the Vice-President and also the White House staff, and they support him with all of the difficult choices he needs to make. The President is a very busy person, so it is important for him to gather as much information as he can about the issues before rushing into a conclusion. He uses subject matter experts from around the country and the globe to get information in many areas so that he has a better understanding of all

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Although it is often said that the President of the United States holds the most powerful office in the world, this does not mean that he is able to decide very much for himself. The American Constitution, which was adapted in 1789, clearly states the Separation of Powers. Thus, the president makes up only one third of the government, namely the executive branch. He is also controlled by a complex system of checks and balances, which makes sure that he (or any of the other branches, for that matter) does not become too powerful. We will now have a look at the different problems which may be facing a recently elected president, and then discuss to what extent his powers are important.

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.