affairs and rightly gave them distinct powers as commander in chief . However, this did not mean that congress was expected to retreat into the background but instead were given the power to declare war and to regulate trade. Furthermore, over the years, the inclination of congress to make vast allotments to presidents have been even more noticeable in the area of foreign policy than in domestic policy. In foreign affairs, it has typically been viewed that presidents have benefited from the uncertainty of the governing structure by affirming power not openly granted to them and to implement their policy agendas in whatever ways they find possible. The Power of Veto The power of the veto granted to the executive branch is one of the few …show more content…
The advancement of technology has created new investigative tools for law enforcement but these advancements have corresponded with constitutionality challenges under the fourth amendment. The use of drones as as investigative tool can provide benefits to law enforcement however, the use of drones can lead to privacy concerns which need to be addressed as well. The use of devices for the benefit of law enforcement must be examined in regard to both the efficiency and efficacy of law enforcement techniques as well as the privacy rights of those citizens in which the government wishes to monitor. According to the Fourth Amendment, people are provided the right “to be secure of their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Furthermore, the amendment forbids the government from “conducting unreasonable searches and seizures” which could allow citizens to pursue lawsuits against those involved with unlawful searches. This leaves the question as to whether reliance on technology can render a search or seizure unreasonable such through the use of drone surveillance. Drones are aircraft which function without the presence of individuals within the aircraft and instead function remotely or independently varying in size from a vessel as small as “insect to the size of a commercial airplane.” Furthermore, drones are equipped with “high powered cameras, thermal scanners, license plate readers, moving target indicators, LADAR, LIDAR and facial recognition software.” The use of drones provides a great benefit when used in areas such as mapping, environmental protection, delivering packages and rescue missions, however, their benefit
Power as commander-in-chief. Congress has control of the military spending so they can approve, modify, or reject funding that the president wants.
U.S. President Influence On Congress and Law Making 2 How The U.S. President Influence Congress and Law Making 1 The U.S. President Influencing Congress and Law Making Angel Rubio, Section 30243, TTh 12:30 pm, G12 Fresno City College The presidency has a strong symbolic presence in our government, he is not only a Ceremonial Head of State but also an actually governmental leader as Commander and Chief of our military forces. Despite the Constitutional provision that "all legislative powers" shall be vested in the Congress, our President still plays a vital role in lawmaking.
Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to
Drones In America And How They Infringe On The Fourth Amendment and Due Process Of The Law
In Guy Zuv’s U.S. Foreign Policy on pages 109 to 131 and in McCormick’s The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy, Chapters 9 and 10, they talk about a similar theme. This theme is the very one-sided power the executive branch has in foreign policy over the legislative branch. At the very beginning of this Nation’s history there has always been an argument over who has what power in foreign policy decisions. Starting off this power was to be given to the executive branch, however, do to the founding fathers hesitance of giving one man that much power they gave the Congress the ability to limit the President’s powers. These methods include things such has having control of the nation’s wealth and being the only ones who can declare war.
However, some ways the president’s power gets limited includes needing the approval of the Senate for treaties and appointing government officials, not being able to officially declare war, and not being able to make any laws as their own opinion unless they make an executive order. The Constitution gave these powers to the president so the executive branch limits what the Congress can do. For example, if the president does not gain the veto law power, the Congress would force the president to sign all laws passed by the Congress. As a result, the Congress would be similar to the British monarch when they tightened control over the 13 colonies, making laws that only benefits themselves. Article 2 section 2 lists the powers of the president, and how the president gets limited on
The Constitutional framers would never have believed how much power the President of the United States has obtained to this present day. Based off their work, it seems as if the framers expected Congress to have the vast majority of power. It is true that Congress still has maintained some of their power; yet, as a collective society we tend to place our sole interest on the president and magnify on all his accomplishments and especially on all his losses (sometimes even blaming him for events that are out of his jurisdiction). Nonetheless, the president has gained quite a remarkable amount of power over the years and it is highly noticeable when analyzing differences in the institutions, the policies, and culturally.
The President also has the power to appoint about 700 positions in the executive branch. While the Senate must legally concur, it almost never vetoes a presidential appointment. In addition, unofficial, yet very significant, presidential powers include: the power to initiate legislation and the general direction of foreign policy; access to sensitive information and intelligence; and unmatched media coverage, which allows whoever is in the White House to explain his motives and communicate with the public. As a counterweight to the President, Congress has the potentially huge "power of the purse", and must approve all government expenditures. It exercises this power most frequently in matters of foreign trade, and has long been a key
George Washington believed the President had a role to play in foreign policy. Washington negotiated, and recognized other nations and also proposed policy for the US to follow. Franklin D. Roosevelt also expanded presidential power due to his use of the largely unconstitutional destroyer deal to help Britain stave off Nazis and a peacetime draft. Further, presidents like Reagan did not follow congress as evident with by funding the Contras even after the Boland Amendment. Likewise, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton actively bombed nations even without congressional approval because they believed they were allowed to under the Constitution. I believe Presidential dominance allows for a clear foreign policy that can be effective. However, I would acknowledge this also can lead to bad policy like the way we fight the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However, Congress can challenge
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 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).
CQ Researcher’s article entitled “Domestic Drones” centers on the problems that ensue from the flaws in unmanned aircraft safety. Domestic drone use has expanded from the past few years to an array of firefighting and police surveillance to scientific research and aerial photograph. This expanded use, however, provides several security concerns, including a possible invasion of privacy and relaxed consequences of misuse. The debatable question here is whether drone surveillance by police should always require a warrant (McGlynn). By analyzing two opposing viewpoints on this topic through an in-depth observation of its use of logos, pathos, and ethos, this question can be addressed with professionally formulated perspectives.
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.
Municipalities all across the United States are starting to use unmanned Arial drones to supplement their policing strategy such as in Arlington, Texas. The Supreme Court has ruled on the use of drones in the court case California V. Ciraolo, which determined that “an individual’s private property is not protected by the Fourth Amendment as long as an aircraft is in navigable airspace; in this case, the altitude was 1,000 feet. “The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye,” the Court said.” (Bomboy, Constitution Daily 2017). This means that drone footage can be used by police without the need for a warrant. There is a time for everything in life, the questions before the New Orleans community is simple. If not now, when? If not us, who? The very definition of insanity is to do the same and expect a different result; as this paper has illustrated we have and are doing the same thing for a long time. Perhaps now, we can try something
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.