Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Jefferson vs Hamilton confrontations
Jefferson vs Hamilton confrontations
Jefferson vs Hamilton confrontations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Jefferson vs Hamilton confrontations
Presidency In exploring the basis on which the U.S President is considered to hold dominant authority in regard to foreign policy making, and whether the Congress ought to hold a significant role in the foreign decision making process, it is imperative to take into account the executive powers vested on the U.S presidency. This paper posits that the Presidency should be considered to be dominant, while at other times the Congress should be considered to be the dominant authority. In this perspective, it is essential that the Congress plays an important role in the foreign policy making process, since the most important feature of the U.S system is the division of powers. Discussion Welch, Gruhl, Rigdon and Thomas (2011) assert that, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the executive power is granted solely to the President of the U.S. This clause of the constitution has continued to draw significant constitutional debate since the ratification of the Constitution. For example, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in 1793 questioned whether the clause affords residual power to the President outside the enumerated powers stipulated in the Constitution. This debate is still significant in the contemporary times because it has a direct impact on the power of the President, and also, as an essential insinuation, it impacts on the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizenry at home and in foreign countries. In this context, Pika and Maltese (2004) argue that, it is essential to mention a number of prominent Supreme Court cases that involve the outline of executive powers that have transpired, informed by in the perspective of foreign affairs, as well war. Therefore, it is not unforeseen that today, in the War on Terror, the... ... middle of paper ... ...alance of power between the President and the Congress has been shown to sway like a pendulum, conditional on key occurrences at the time, where as Justice Jackson argues at times the Presidency should be considered to be dominant, while at other times the Congress should be considered to be the dominant authority. In this perspective, it is essential that the Congress plays an important role in the foreign policy making process, since the most important feature of the U.S system is the division of powers. References Curtis, A. B., & Flaherty, M.S. (2004). Executive Power Essentialism and Foreign Affairs. Michigan Law Review, 102, 45-63. Pika, J.A., & Maltese, J. (2004). The Politics of the Presidency. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Welch, S., Gruhl, J., Rigdon, S., & Thomas, S. (2011). Understanding American Government. Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning.
... This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval. The most important expansion of the power of the presidency happened during the Jackson administration. When Jackson used the veto power of the president to influence legislation as a matter of policy and not constitutionality, he arguably altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
Congress has helped develop the Presidency as we know it today. This is because Congress argues over proposals and legislation proposed by the President. They are a major determent in whether bills turn into laws. But it’s not easy. One reason for this is because there are many powerful groups out there who argue about what should be discussed such as air pollution with the EPA or jobs.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
In this module we have study modifications to the way Congress and the President do business. The Constitution lists specific duties for Congress to attend to; it is a little vaguer when assigning duties to the President. It is up to both of these institutions to best determine how to accomplish these duties. The major theme of this module is change, the addition of offices under the President and the modifications to the power distribution within the Congress to help better and sometimes hinder these institutions in accomplishing their duties.
War is a situation between two nations or regions where they both arrange in conflict. War is accompanied with warfare and casualties with both human lives and conducts financial crisis. Over the centuries, war has not changed in the slightest bit. Even the president, being the Commander in Chief, has complete control over the United States military. Debates rise to question that should the president have this power to command military personnel without the consent of United States Congress. Many consequences can emerge from these decisions from either within the nation or from other foreign lands. Congress should be able to
Some say the eighteenth century ideas underlying the Constitution are simply outmoded and have little relevance to today’s issues. Books with titles like The New Imperial Presidency, The Terror Presidency, or Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency all proceed from a common assumption that the Presidency has little significant constitutional authority of his own but should follow and defer to Congress.
As President of the United States, he who takes on one of many leadership decrees faces a possibility of issues during their term. Whether it’s problems that derive within the house, nation, or elsewhere. The way the president approaches the matter is the single most important task. In this analysis, I will begin by presenting the relationship between president and chief legislator. Next, the ideal role of the president and the challenges he must face as chief legislator. Then, point out the major bodies of conflict between congress and the president while the president is performing the role of chief legislator; along with the impact or influence it has over the branches. Closing out with the excessive use of executive order concerning the
Harry Truman was once asked ‘who made US foreign policy’ he simply replied ‘I do’ . The United State president has always put the issue of foreign affairs to the fore front in order to retain the superpower America is. Although the President is viewed as the key decision maker in foreign policy the executive branch is not the only branch involved in determining the course of American foreign policy. The process of developing policies is of great importance to the branches involved because the United states government has the power to influence the lives of many people through the polices. While it’s believed that the president determines foreign policy, it has been said my many scholars who work in the field of constitutional law that Congress is giving a ‘Preeminent role in the formulation of foreign policy’ by the Constitution and the ‘Presidents role is in the execution of foreign policy’. While it has been established that there is a difference in the role of Congress and executive branch in regard to foreign policy, there has been a significant rise in the role of the State Department which is overseen by the some of the key personalities in the US Government such as the Secretary of state. This developed during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. James G Blain, secretary of state, successfully put trade between the US and Latin to the limelight while also calling for a renegotiation of the Bulwer Treaty which would allow the US to construct the panama canal without the intervention of Britain, it is now seen that the secretary of state possess a bigger role in foreign policy than was thought. The way in which I would present a president’s influence in regards to foreign policy would be to analyse past event such as the Pa...
The people of the United States want to be safe, and it is the job of the elected president to make them feel safe. For example, in the article, President Bush didn’t think twice to take action on his own, when he decided to shut down all air travel in the U.S. for more than a week, without getting permission from the congress because that at time he was thinking about the safest of the citizen within the country. If he had to wait for Congress for their permission about the action he was about to take, maybe some people in Congress would not have agreed with him. Which could have cost more terror in the States. If Congress appoints a president, I believe he/she would be dependent on the Congress to make decisions or would make decisions that would support Congress. This would make Congress much more power than the other two branches in our judicial system. Hamilton in the article also described the difference between the U.S. President and the English ruler. Whereas, the English ruler isn’t charged with from criticism, responsibility and punishment, the U.S. President is held responsible for
Another way the Presidents’ power is limited is that Congress has the ability to overturn a President’s veto of a particular bill by a two-thirds majority vote of both House and Senate members (Trethan). The ability to veto is one of the most powerful leg...
Gans-Boriskin, R. And R. Tisinger. (2005). The Bushlet Administration: Terrorism and War on The West Wing. The Journal of American Culture, 28(1): 100 – 113
In the United States, the Constitution divides the powers of foreign policy between the President and the Congress so that they share equal power. Each branch plays its own important role, but even though the powers are separated the executive and legislative branches power’s can often overlap.(Costly) Both branches have equal opportunity to change or initiate foreign policy and they are meant to check and balance eachother out.
Although the separation of foreign policy powers between the Congress and President are outlined in the Constitution, it seems like the President is the one who holds the higher authority. While the power to declare war resides with the Congress, the underlying power the President has to send troops anywhere in the country without the approval of Congress has proven to be more overbearing than the powers that Congress have. Not to say that Congress is completely uninvolved in foreign policies, Congress plays its role when the President acts out and proposes something that would not sit well with the people or the other countries. This is attempted to be accomplished through the War Powers Act but eventually did not end up limiting the President but instead had him find loopholes so that he may still send troops without Congressional approval. In the end, the President still has the most authority since he is the one in control of the troops and can direct them as he pleases. This is why I believe the President holds more power in foreign policy when compared to the