When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, …show more content…
The Constitution lays out power sharing amongst the President and Congress. However the Constitution is not always clearly defined which leaves questions to how the laws should be interpreted and decisions implemented. There are three major models of presidential power within foreign policy; the first being the presidential model in which decisions abroad are made by the president and his or her top aides and advisors. This model is accepted amongst many because during times of urgency and crisis the president must make quick decisions. The president unlike congress is provided various sources of intelligence information, which is a benefit in analyzing situations globally and making sound decisions. Although some believe this gives the president too much power in making major decisions that impact Americans and the country as a whole. The second model is the legislative model in which congress make the decisions on how foreign policy abroad will be implemented. This model often times is criticized because the long and tedious process by which congresses makes and …show more content…
The department is head by the Secretary of State which is the official chief foreign policy advisor to the president; although this role at times as been taking on by the national security advisor. There secretary is assisted by a deputy secretary and four under secretaries; with access to ambassadors whom have the ability to negotiate around the world. While the department has many other functions such as Educational and Cultural Affairs and Economic and Business Affairs the main focus of the department is to maintain relationships with other countries around the world. The agenda of the Department can at times conflict with the agenda of the Department of Defense in regards to foreign threat, with the Department of State advocating the power of diplomacy and the Department of Defense encouraging the use of military action. A good example arose during the Cuban Missile Crisis in which the Department of Defense promoted air strikes against Cuba while the Department of State relied on diplomatic channels through the United Nations. Such views by both departments have made decisions making more complicated for the
The President of the United States is instrumental in the running of the country. He serves as the chief executive, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislator, chief of state, judicial powers, and head of party. Article II of the Constitution states that the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. He also is tasked with the authority to appoint fifteen leaders of the executive departments which will be a part of the President’s cabinet. He or she is also responsible for speaking with the leaders the CIA and other agencies that are not part of his cabinet because these agencies play a key role in the protection of the US. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
In the making of the United States, there were many events that are important. This paper intends to highlight a few of those events including; Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. Many events in America’s history helped to establish the United States as a free and independent country. The Declaration of Independence in particular explains the rights and freedoms that Americans. Each document is like a stepping stones that leads to the next and building upon the pervious document.
The Evolution of the Power of the Presidency The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed. George Washington was the first President of the United States of America and realizing this he acted carefully and deliberately, aware of the need to build an executive structure that could accommodate future presidents.
The backbone of American politics is derived from the concept of democracy, where the people govern themselves, understanding this concept is vital to the policy making process. The president and congress should have equal jurisdiction in policymaking, Constitutional checks and balances were created by the founders to keep one branch from gaining unequal power over the other. Under very specific circumstances, such as , powers of each branch may be altered. The constitution can be interpreted in many ways and each interpretation has sparked debate over whether the president or congress has more influence over policy making.
During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will analyze: the expanding role and use of power of the President; weak Congressional legislative policies that empower the executive; and the Supreme Court’s role legitimizing the autonomy of Presidential war making.
The coat of arms. The coat of arms of the US represents an eagle with
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.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...
The United States government was formed based on one thing—the science of man. Many different psychological and political theories are founded on the basis that there is an actual science of human beings. The ideas and theories of Hobbes, Locke, Roseau, and Montesque all contributed to the formation and compellation of our governmental structure, among others. In fact, they all agreed on one principle; man in a pure state of nature can be analyzed and theorized. The conclusions of all were vastly different, some even directly contradicting. But regardless of the opposition in belief, the result of their collective writings was the government we now live under today.
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.
The fact that ther are numerous Defense policies and situations competing for a president’s attention means that it is worthwhile to organize political activity in order to affect his agenda. A president may be compelled to reconsider a problem even though he could not overtly be force to alter the prevailing policy. If presidents are convinced that the current policy is best, the likelihood of gaining sufficient force to compel a change is quiete small. The man who can build foreign policies will find presidents beating a path to his door.
The United States government braces its power among three powerful branches, legislative, executive and judicial. These branches interact with one another to establish authority that is strong, yet equal to have power over the country. Each branch pursues certain responsibilities and duties to operate in an efficient and effective manner in which society upholds. The executive, legislative and judicial branches all interact amid each other to validate accuracy of the nation’s most powerful law of the land, the Constitution. It is important to know how these branches interact with each other to learn how a bill becomes a law. Reflecting on how the three branches promote a balance of power that is constructive to include the agendas and electoral roles that also plays a vast part in the government’s operation.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
An inspection of Aristotle’s table below will reveal some of the fears that were major concerns for the developing American attitudes toward governments. The Author asserts that the forms of government that were in place around the world brought with them a history of that American used to build a better instrument of governance. Another idea that was hidden within Aristotle’s Chart on Government and leads the framers toward a more considered conclusion, is that democracy was the only type of government the world had not tried. This became the impetus for the great experiment.