President and Congress Essays

President and Congress Essays President and Congress Essay President and Congress Essay Alfred D. Campfield American National Government-1M December 6,2010 The president is the foreign policy leader for the United States with an important political, military and economic role in the international arena. If there is collision between the president and congress, can congress restrain the president in foreign policy making? 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 policies. The first views foreign policy as those external goals for which the nation is prepared to commit its resources By focusing on what a country does rather than what it says, this pragmatic definition usefully separates a countrys rhetoric from its true intent and its material capabilities. However, lack of action can also constitute a policy-the policy of an isolationist state is defined by its very unwillingness to commit resources. A second conceptualization of foreign policy is as the range of actions taken by varying sections of the government of a state in its relations with other bodies similarly acting on the international stage in order to advance the national interest. Notable here is the recognition that governments do not act as monolithic, static entities, and that non-state actors may at times be as influential as states. However, the assumption that governments always know what is in the national interest and always rationally work towards its realization is debatable. For the purposes of this analysis, foreign policy is taken to mean, The goals that a nations officials seek to attain abroad, the values that give rise to those objectives, and the means or instruments used to pursue them. Government Information Quarterly Volume 26, Issue 2009, Pages 437-440 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 U. S. 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 executive agreements: oral or written understandings between heads of government that require authorization only when funding is required. Executive agreements that the United States is party to now vastly outnumber the amount of treaties to which it is party. (2009,) Pages 437-440 This proliferation of executive agreements is worrying because treaties signify a broader consensus and a larger degree of national commitment. With this in mind, Congress adopted the Case Amendment in 1972, which requires the President to report the text of any agreements he enacts, but this has been honored more in the breach than in the observance. The President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, a directive that presidents have often seen as a green light to employ forces wherever and whenever they choose. 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 player in regulating tariffs. Congress has also made major efforts to influence the foreign aid policy of the United States, for example, towards Cuba and Angola. When Congress does provide foreign aid, it usually does so with detailed instructions and stringent reporting requirements. Congress has been less influential in regulating military interventions, however. It alone can declare war, but several factors inhibit this power. Formal declarations of war are rare in modern times. Indeed, Congress has declared war only five times in US history-even though the United States has been involved in more than 150 significant military actions. And Presidents can create a war situation that in effect forces Congress to toe the line: it will be argued that, irrespective of the merits of the case, it is dishonorable to deprive men risking their lives for their country of financial support. Under such pressure, individual members of both houses have often hesitated to run the political risk of being labeled unpatriotic. As one senator put it, so many of my colleagues tell me in the cloakroom and elsewhere, that they disagree with that policy, yet they come on the floor and vote to carry on that policy. In any case, several military interventions, such as Nixons bombing of Cambodia, have been completed by the time they have come to the attention of Congress. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Lib-Pub. 3 (2 ed. ). CRC Press. 2003. The Vietnam War was the consummate example of the impunity with which an imperial President may override opposing congressional sentiment. It shattered the previous underlying consensus that Congress should look the other way, and led to the enactment of legislation to increase transparency. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 made all foreign military intervention subject to Congressional approval. However, the new legislation was little more than window-dressing: it was not matched by greater Congressional assertiveness, and the legislature has continued, at times, to go to great lengths to avoid exercising its powers. No President has ever truly considered himself bound by the law, and many have found ways to skirt around it, as President Fords decision to undertake military action in response to Cambodias seizure of a US freighter illustrates. Congressional Research Service (CRS) at UCB Libraries GovPubs ISBN 9780824720797. http://books. google. com/books This applies doubly in times of crisis and war, when it is assumed that the executive alone possesses the necessary information and resources to act quickly and decisively. Modern warfare, the argument goes, requires rapid decisions, for which Congress, with its complex procedures, partisanship, overlapping jurisdictions and tendency towards fragmentation, is ill suited. The shifting coalitions of Congress which serve us so well in the formulation and implementation of domestic policy, are not well suited to the day-to-day conduct of external relations. Each successive crisis in US history, then, has gradually and permanently strengthened the executive, or, in the words of James Madison, the constant apprehension of War has [had] the tendency to render the head too large for the body†. Congress, thus, does not prevent the President from determining the general cours e of foreign policy? Provided that the President does not make excessive demands on Congress and the public. When a policy becomes too controversial Congress can, and does, step in. In general, however, in terms of defense and foreign policy, the American people tend to identify the President with government far more than they do Congress, making for a policy that is too often personality-driven and idiosyncraticThe Congressional Research Service and the American Legislative Process. Congressional Research References The Congressional Research Service and the American Legislative Process. Congressional Research Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Lib-Pub. 3 (2 ed. ). CRC Press. 2003. ISBN 9780824720797. http://books. google. com/books Government Information Quarterly Volume 26, Issue 2009, Pages 437-440 Congressional Research Service (CRS) at UCB Libraries GovPubs