The Struggle Between Presidential And Congressional Powers

The Struggle Between electric chairial And relationional PowersThe work of run shorting statute in the get together States starts at with copulation and has to at last be approved by the chairperson unless bypassed by with a two-thirds veto. The cap big businessman of an judiciary to pass or clog legislation is one of the things that body-build the basis for an evaluation of a terms efficiency. However, what must be considered when evaluating a chairs efficiency is the ability to learn coition, the begetup of sex act itself, and the do at hand. A nonher responsibility that both telling and the Presidency both persona is the devising of alien polity. A chair dealing with having to pass legislation and dealing with war demonstrates how a chairwoman deals with a pressurized situation. These aspects of the g everyplacenment and the on-going appointments that occurred will be analyzed in this paper.Analyzing the catch that the electric chair has over copulatio n leave alones to a greater extent propoundation on how the president has to push preceding(a) the specialiseations of his office in order to push a political agenda. The position of presidency and carnal knowledge regarding to the do of external constitution illustrates whether the chairperson or Congress truly has representation to act during eras of conflict. Gaining a erupt understanding of these issues lay outs insight into which office better contemplates the long term upbeat of our country, which has more understanding of the post of the U.S. military machine, and the assurement it sends around the world when the military engages in conflict.I was person totallyy interested in this topic because of my cause interest and lack of understanding of impertinent polity procedure. This research depict set asided me with an opportunity to understand the authority and the history in inappropriate polity making. In this paper, I hope to take in the knowledge I intrust in this topic to hold back issues of war or foreign insurance indemnity will be much clearer to me in the next presidential election. books ReviewSeparation of PowersAccording to American Government Power and Purpose, the colonies mandatory to create a government in opposition to the tyrannical manage of King George afterwardswards declaring their independence. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first pen American report as well as the weakest. at a lower place the Articles of Confederation, in that respect was no executive branch or judicial branch and Congress was the entire basis for central government. Congress at this sequence was assumption the might to declare war, make peace, treaties, alliances, and appoint the senior officers of the U.S Army, but the act of those powers were diminished by the fact that the appointed the States officers had no army they were in transfer command of because the military was do up of state mi litias. With individually state macrocosm in charge of their territory, this made the function of collective action that much harder (Lowi, 2002).To strengthen the central government, and in exercise strengthen the United States, the delegates met to initially reform the Articles of Confederation, but this would latter convene in Philadelphia in May 1787 to create a more high-octane and effective government. The convention eventually led to the creation of the current U.S. constitution. Under this U.S Constitution, the government would utilize a constitutional principle known as the separation of powers to divide the government into three branches in an effort to ensure that the new government wouldnt infringe the rights of the people, The judicial branch was created to guard against misdemeanor of the rights of the people, legislative to make the laws that the people abide by, and the executive branch was created to snack counter the impasse formed by the other constitution al principles use to prevent excessive democracy (Lowi, 2002)Unlike the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was made up of two chambers the House of Representatives to be nowadays responsible for the people and the Senate to check the House and make it easier for the House not to all in all conform to popular preferences (Lowi, 2002). Article I Section 8 of the U.S Constitution list the express powers of Congress, such as declaring war and hold uping military function (Lowi, 2002). Article II of the U.S Constitution states that the executive Branchs power resides in the president. It overly states that the president is indirectly elected, and how he is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S Army and Navy (Lowi, 2002).The separation of powers was found to ensure that three branches would be equal, but the struggle is nearly likely among Congress and the Presidency (Lowi, 2002). Out of all the powers the president has, his personal line of credit as Commander -in-Chief of the U.S Armed Services is one of the most important, yet the president is not solely responsible for the military in times of conflict. This power of military authority is a similar power to that of Congress to maintain military services and to declare war. It is these military powers that cause foreign policy to fluctuate and impacts how the executive branch influences congress to give birth their way.chairwomans Influence On CongressA common misconception with the transactionhip between Congress and the Executive branch is that the president and Congress deal with each other directly on a constant basis, when in actuality, the president getting personally involved simply occurs as a last resort (Collier, 1997). The midsection of Congress and professorship transaction in the tweed House is the gaberdine House Office of Legislative Affairs whose role is to send tribunal lobbyist to Congress to gain information about legislation, persuading the reluctant, and to relay the information theyve pull in back to the executive branch (Collier, 1997). The role of the executive office in regards to Congressional influence is demonstrated by both the George H.W. scouring and Clinton Administration.As a former congressman, chair George H.W. Bush understood the need for work with Congress to pass legislation and choose a staff with trade good congressional experience and welcomed members of Congress like friends and family. Bush said that he planned to Reagans legislative strategy, but lacked in that regard because of his friendliness towards them (Collier, 1997). He was often criticized for not going over the heads of his friends and by the end of his presidential term Bush was frustrating to both parties because of his interest in foreign policy which wasnt shared by the people or lawmakers. He lacked both a strong domestic agenda and the Re populacean majority, yet he compose chooses to focus on foreign policy (Collier, 1997). This would ul timately drive base the point of his lack of connection to the public and caused both the lost of public respect and his lack of respect of authority by Congress. Rather than being authoritative, Bush relied merely on the friendships he established versus his position as president. President Bushs biggest foreign policy dilemma caulescent from the Persian dis connectedness War which compelled Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait (Peterson, 1994) which would ultimately lead to a victory.President Bill Clinton was willing to associate with Congress, but after personally rallying bargaining for votes on his stimulus package, he had to learn how to not get too involved so as to nor appear desperate. The presidents communications skills in his 1996 state of the Union Address allowed him to convey his position and place the republican congressman at a disadvantage (Collier, 1997). As the Republicans tried to fulfil their own plan to fix the economy, they underestimated Clinton and ultimately made it easier for him to implement his interpreting of the plan to fix the economy. Regarding foreign policy, Clinton had to deal with the interest group suit against the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which Congress dis concord with until the President implemented clauses that would protect American Jobs.Another foreign policy issue that would not be further evaluated until the terrorist attacks on kinsfolk 11 was the threat of terrorism Osama put in take away that Clinton faced during his administration. During August 7, 1998, put in Ladens moguls struck the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania this would cause Clinton to respond with seventy night club missile strikes on Bin Ladens outposts. Clinton would in any case send a letter to Congress stating that his actions were on the noseified by his authority in U.S. foreign relations and as the Commander-in-Chief (Hendrickson, 2002).Rather than simply ignoring Congress altogeth er, he started to pull them into the conclusiveness making process more which ultimately helped him to not all gain support from the majority of Congressman, but cause Newt Gingrich to help garner support through his Republican allies. It was President Clintons decision to include Congress in the decision making that gained the trust of Congress, who in turn allowed President Clinton some leeway in making military decisions (Hendrickson, 2002).After the terrorist attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush declared war on terror and was regarded as an American response when compared to the European perception that the attacks were matters of law enforcement (Ball, 2007). This assertion in the war on terror served to prove what both Bush and hawkshaw Cheney believed the powers of the U.S. President are limitless in the war on terror. This would also be reinforced by Congress passing a common resolution drafted by the White House which allowed Bush to battle all nation, org anization, or person he determined to fork up been involved in 9/11. This would also lead Congress passing the Iraq Joint solution which falsely claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that they were in monomania of weapons of mass destruction (Ball, 2007).Foreign Policy PowersThe foreign Policy Powers of the United States stem from the U.S. Constitution.Although the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S military, the Constitution was set up to prevent the president from being the sole authority on U.S foreign policy issues (Peterson, 1994). The president however has the exclusive power to receive ambassadors, execute the laws that Congress passes, and to consecrate pardons (Lowi, 2002). The title of Commander-in-Chief doesnt actually grant any specific powers. The expressed powers of foreign policy that lie with Congress are the authority to facelift an army, coiffure for the common defense, and to declare war.Aside from the control already established, Congress has the ability to hinder the presidents power by their control over the budget which is referred to as the power of the purse. One of the things included in the budget is the military funding meaning the president needs both the plaudit of Congress to go to war and the proper budget to go to war (Lowi, 2002). Even though it would appear that most if the control in foreign policy making is given to Congress, Congress rarely exercises these powers. The norm seems to be for Congress to just conform to the demands of the President. This is especially apparent when examining the legislation that was passed under the George W. Bush Administration.The President also has its ways of circumventing Congress in terms of foreign policy by executive agreements. Of the two chambers of Congress, The Senate has the authority of forming treaties and alliances and if the President wishes to implement a treaty he must shit it approved by Senate with a two-thirds majority vote, but executive agree ments allow the president to make an agreement with another country that has the same effectiveness as a treaty, but doesnt need the Senates approval.Statement of ResearchThere are multitudes of ways in which Congress and the Executive branch can override each other and are forced to compromise. Making foreign policy is the issue that theses two branches seem to struggle with the most. The powers they have give them the potential to surpass each other in that regard. The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. and because of the broadness of this title, has no expressed powers he is bound to. Congress has the expressed power and the authority to raise an army, prepare for the common defense, and to declare war.In times of crisis such as 9/11 and the Iraq war, the power of the U.S President tends to increase as Congress conforms to the Presidents agenda in an effort to make a spatial relation for the country. This time of unity between the two branches of government appears to be at its silk hat when regarding the war on terror. The inquiry addresses the followingHow has the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era?How has the war on terror correlated to the foreign policy power balance between the Presidency and Congress?These two questions are significant because they address the issues of split government and the making of foreign policy. These two elements of our government are the most crucial aspects that can either encourage or strain relations between the White House and Capitol Hill. The two questions not only provide insight into the foreign policy, but an analysis of the events that led up to the Iraq onslaught and the war on terror.Research FindingsInquiry skepticism 1The making of foreign policy is one of the main subjects in which Capitol Hill and the White House struggle to reach middle ground. As presidential administrations have passed, the executive branchs influen ce seems to fluctuate depending on the type of president and the divers(prenominal) political parties that the president is a part of and whether or not Congress is of the same party. This fact leads back to the question of how the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era. In order to detect out how the evolution of presidential influence correlated to the making of foreign policy during the Bush-Clinton Era, the answer must come from an analysis of the three presidencies in question George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.President George H.W. Bush, who could have directly launched an attack on Iraq to deal with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, went to Congress for authorization to use military force against Iraq (Tushnet, 2005). This political behavior was contrary to the quiet, behind the scenes approach to leading Congress which was ultimately was done not by the President himself, who as a former Congres sman was very friendly in Congress, but by the staff (Collier, 1997). The Iraq war that President George W. Bush declared in 2002 stemmed from the basis of the congressional authorization of the disconnection War in 1991 (Peterson, 1994). The Gulf War finds similarities to the military actions of President Clinton in his use of the War Powers annunciation in Somalia Bosnia.The first foreign policy challenge under the Clinton administration came at the hands of the incident that was arising in Somalia with the chaos caused by wide-scale dissatisfaction with the leaders of Siad Barre and the clan violence that was increasing under men like Mohammed Aideed (Hendrickson, 2002). President Clinton and Congress supported Operation Restore Hope to use American forces abroad to restore order to the Somalia which Clinton did with both congressional approval and the U.N.s approval as well. The situation in Haiti came from the oppressive rule of Lt. General Raoul Cedras who came into power b y staging a coup against Catholic priest jean Bertrand Aristide (Hendrickson, 2002). President responded by arguing that the instability that was occurring in Haiti was a direct threat to the national security interest of the U.S. This led to the U.N. authorizing the U.S. to end the absolutism occurring in Haiti, but was initiated by President Clinton who made an effort to inform congress of the developing situation (Hendrickson, 2002).President George W. Bush faced no greater foreign policy in his administration than he did after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the face of the attacks by groundwork, President Bush proclaimed a war on terrorism that sought not only to bring those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks to justice, but demonstrated a very broad government action that would allow Bush to pass and enforce questionable legislation such as the Iraq Joint contract and The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which gave President Bush the authority to fight anyone he thought was involved in the terrorists attacks of 9/11 (Ball, 2007).After review this information, the only answer that can be reason is that the presidents influence on Congress has greatly affected the making of foreign policy as well as the tendency of Congress to give power to the president during the Bush-Clinton Era, even when the presidents claims of threats of national security do not pan out, such as the example with the Iraq Joint Resolution which would later on be very unnecessary and even a blatant boldness of mistaken identity regarding those who were involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Whenever there is an issue regarding foreign policy involving military action, the president is given the power to do what he wishes within reason. However, this does not apply when the country has to make a stance on a subject such as terrorism.Inquiry Question 2Whenever the U.S. has to deal with acts of terrorism that threaten our safety as citiz ens, the presidents and Congress have been known to work together and pass legislation that at times of peace would take a much longer time to process and contemplate. Legislation like the Iraq Joint Resolution and AUMF would not have been passed in a time of peace. This one incident questions not only what America is willing to do bring terrorist organizations to justice, but how the war on terror correlated to the foreign policy power balance between the Presidency and Congress. This can only be analyzed by an in-depth anticipate in the events that lead to the war on terror, but what was done after the war on terror was declared.The problem with terrorism finds their beginnings in the George W. Bush administration, but the what lead to that were the terrorist attacks of 9/11 which were spearheaded by the leader of Al-Qaeda Osama Bin Laden. President Clinton dealt with the terrorist attacks of Osama Bin Laden when they struck the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Clinton would then strike Bin Ladens outpost with missiles and would work to gain more intelligence on Bin Ladens actions as well as authorizing the CIA to get and interrogate Bin Laden or to kill him if capture was out of the question (Hendrickson, 2002).Congress supported his ideas in all instances in his efforts to stop Bin Laden and was especially supportive of him when he justified his initial actions as the commander-and-chief of the United States, yet still chose to include Congress in their decisions regarding him. Of flight at the time, Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general, was not regarded as one of the central threats to the U.S. (Hendrickson, 2002).President George W. Bush responded to the 9/11 terrorists attacks with the firmness of purpose of the War on terror. The broad term would be followed by the AUMF which gave the president free reign to make any attack on anyone he perceived to be connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (Ball, 2007). This idea of terrorist p hysical contact at anytime also allowed him to do things that could only be done with tribunal approval like intercepting international calls and emails between people who were allegedly connected to Al-Qaeda, which is unconstitutional without a court order (Ball, 2007).Congress initially agreed to majority of the bills that Bush wanted to sign into law to combat the terrorist threat. However, when this began to conflict with some of the rights of the people, both Congress tried to step in only to be usurped by Vice-President Cheney, who was the 1st president to use his ability to puff theory of presidential authority by saying that Congress cannot limit the power the president has over the military nor can they pass laws that give government officials of the executive branch the power to act independently of the president (Ball, 2007).Upon reviewing the information presented, it can only be concluded that the war on terror has shifted the power of foreign policy to the president. President George W. Bush used the war on terror to not only attack all those who were allegedly involved with 9/11 but to expand it into a war that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The same power was also experience by President Clinton when he used his title as commander-and-chief to his advantage and tried his best to eliminate the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed towards the U.S.