President's Role In Foreign Policymaking

We have fierce debates today concerning war tactics, drone strikes on Americans, torture, military tribunals, citizens’ rights during wartime, and how to reconcile the needs of the national defense with liberty and self-rule. Does the president have a constitutional power to torture foreign enemy combatants? Overrule Congress on war tactics? Deny formal trials to enemies?

The questions of whether or not the President has authority to use the military without congress first having declared war has proven to be a great source of conflict throughout history. The confusion comes from the different interpretations of the clauses. Since the Korean War, it has been accepted that the executive powers are that “The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress” (libertyclassroom.com). This is often misinterpreted and has been used to expand executive authority and essentially make war without a congressional declaration of war. Perhaps the first example of this misuse of power dates back to the presidency of John Adams.

Antagonism is present when the Congress opposes the policies of the President and attempts to limit the executive branch’s power. 3. In theory the War Powers Act is a policy which could both restrain and influence US foreign policy. It could restrict the President’s power to use armed forces abroad and would require agreement between Congress and the President.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Even though Congress has remained quite active in wartime politics, ranging from its use of hearings to stimulate political debate to the shaping of military budgets, Congress no longer declares war, and haven’t since 1942. I think the presidents have taken the war powers that belongs to Congress through inherent powers. There are many reasons for why presidents usurped so much power.

Moe and Howell offer compelling reasons as to why unilateral action is even a concern. They point to the combination of constitutional ambiguity in the level to which presidents are able to act. The multitude of statues, clauses, and loopholes give the executive room to take action in a number

Comparing to the economic aspect, the Congress did have some control over the diplomacy aspect which includes “the power to declare war and make peace, to make treaties and alliances … [and] appoint the senior officers of the U.S army.” (Ginsberg, et. al. 2014:35) These powers, basically, were the extended version of previous Continental Congress’s power.

The five Congressional Powers were to collect taxes and raise revenue, regulate commerce, declare war, maintain an army, and to make changes as needed to pursue these powers. They wanted to make sure no single authority would possess too much power. The powers the Executive Branch held were to make treaties but only if approved by two-thirds of the Senate, overseeing the

How much power the president has to act alone in matters involving national security has been an ongoing topic of

Determining the specificities of what the framers originally intended, however, is the subject to some debate. Saikrishna Prakash, a distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, analyses the question of original meaning of executive power in his essay “The Essential Meaning of Executive Power”. He argues that not only is the president chief legislator, chief military officer, and the nation's top diplomat, he is “first and foremost...the chief executive empowered by the executive power to execute Congress’s laws and to control the law execution of executive officers”(Prakash, 820). He also acknowledges Justice Scalia’s assessment “that a complete understanding of the executive power might take 7,000 pages and thirty years to complete”(Prakash, 820). Suggesting that we have to be cautious in trying to analyze the presidency from a pure originalist point of view, and that we have to adapt to the ambiguities that result from the evolution of presidential power.

In Jackson’s proposed solution for combating expanding executive powers, he argues that it relies on Congress’s ability to act quick and efficiently in times of crisis. Jackson states that the “court [cannot] keep power in the hands of Congress if it is not wise and timely in meeting its problems.” Jackson’s argument is not viable because of the limitations placed upon Congress’s procedures. Congress is only in session for part of the year and thus is not always assembled to deal with conflicts. Congress deals with red tape, the requirement for a majority vote in both houses of Congress and many more restrictions that the founder created to stop tyranny, and allow for a fair and efficient democracy.

Expressed powers are powers granted to the president by the constitution. There are quite a few powers that are bestowed upon the president. Budgeting is one of them; the president has the power in taking the initiative in advising and executing budget priorities. An example of this from the book is “ the president could rein in congressional spending by impounding funds”(losco 310). Another power is Law Enforcement, normally Law Enforcement goes to the state and local government but they have grown to work on bigger responsibilities.

In recent years there has been debate on whether or not the president has too much power. The president 's power has increased over the years, I believe that this increase has given the president way too much power. The amount of power that the president has, can cause total destruction and can manipulate people into doing things that they do not actually believe in. A president should not have some of the powers that he possess, but they are given to him simply because he is the leader of the country. In my opinion the president should be allowed certain powers in order to run the country properly, he is also the leader of the country which grants him the right to have certain powers according to the constitution.

The constitution attempts to evenly distribute powers between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government by providing the president or the commander-in-chief the power to control and supervise the military upon approval by congress, who have the power to declare war and to support the armed forces. The subject of debate regarding the act is whether the president has the authority to send military troops to war without congressional approval. The way the war powers act was written makes it difficult to decipher approximately how much power is the president privileged in the war-making process. According to the constitution congress have the powers to authorize war by formally granting letters that verify and confirm the

An argument that is made is the notion of Congress not having enough time to deliberate and declare war. What if the country is suddenly attacked? Is it fair for the country to sit on their hands and wait for them to make up their minds when action needs to be taken immediately. The argument of a state of emergency is the loophole that the presidents over time have used to their advantage. Schlesinger says of the Cold War-era presidency, “The imperial presidency was essentially the creation of foreign policy.

I also think having congress around and the Supreme Court help with the overview of these powers. During war or anything that acts as a threat against this nation, the President should be able to act first, then if he wrong let them go.