DBR40

The Role of Congress and the President in Foreign Policy

Congress and the president both have extensive authorities in foreign policy. The Constitution gives Congress numerous explicit powers. Among them, the power to declare war, revived for common defense, raise and support armies. The power over foreign commerce. In addition, the Senate has explicit authority to approve the nominations of all Cabinet officers while ambassadorial appointments and all senior military officials. Beyond that, Congress has the power to appropriate funds. It has a general power to oversee the operation of the government. The president also has extensive powers in foreign affairs. The agreed the constitution. There are fewer in number.

The present responsible for nominating all Cabinet officers, all ambassadors. The president also has the authority to negotiate treaties subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. There are three ways Congress can affect foreign policy. One is bypassing Subsidy legislation that is dictating the content of foreign policy. This is when Congress might, let's say, for example, use its power of the purse to decide to fund a program or not to fun to program. The second way, procedural legislation is an indirect impact on foreign policy. Congress decides to change how foreign policy decisions are made in the executive branch. For example, when Congress has been concerning that the State Department hasn't paid enough attention, let's say human rights or to counter-terrorism. He can pass laws creating new offices and state department that are responsible for those issues. Finally, Congress can shape foreign policy by shaping public opinion. When we think about Congress holding hearings where Congress having floor debates, where members of Congress appearing on TV. Often what they're trying to do is to change public opinion.

When we look at Congress and the President, Foreign Policy, what we're talking about are overlapping authorities going all the way back to our first President, George Washington won his first big political disputes came over whether or not he had the authority declared the United States neutral and a war between England and France. The ebb and flow of power between the White House and Capitol Hill has changed over the course of American history. Usually in response to events, if we were to go back to the second half of the 19th century, would discover what we would call the period of Congressional Government. Conversely, we come to the end of World War II, the United States emerges as a global power, precedes itself to be under threat from the Soviet Union and the global expansion of communism, power begins to drift to the president. We have, we call the imperial presidency after Vietnam. As people look back and decide perhaps it wasn't the best use of the Americas resources. We get criticism of the imperial presidency. And congress passes a whole slate of laws regarding foreign policy.

In the modern setting. Since World War II, clearly the President has more influence over foreign policy. Much of the public has been very supportive of strong presidential leadership. Congress has power in foreign policy is going to be at its greatest when the President can't act unless Congress does something. Think of Congress. It's two houses, 535 Members. It'll be very difficult to get them all on the same page altogether to pass a bill. So where congressional consent is needed for the president to act, the inertia of Congress works against the president. A good example of Congress heavy leveraging foreign policy came in 2015 over the Obama administration's negotiations with Iraq. Congress over series HE years had passed sanctions encoded in US law on Iran. The president cannot lift those sanctions on his own. On the flip side, Congress's leveraging foreign policies at its lowest in situations in which the president can act without congresses consent. President since World War to have a number of occasions use military force without congressional authorization. Congress at times as fly back against this. Most notably with the passage in 1973 of the War Powers Resolution. It hasn't worked terribly well. The great historian, Arthur Schlesinger junior, once referred to as a toy handcuff. Is it good if the President and Congress squabble over foreign policy? The answered that is unsatisfying. It's really, it depends. We have lots of examples in which Presidents and Congress had worked hand in glove, and the resulting policy hasn't been terribly good. Likewise, the fact that President and Congress may not agree, does it mean that something terrible is happening? It may reflect the fact that the country is not ready for something yet.

2