Does the executive control American foreign policy?

Who controls American foreign policy?

Controls it	Doesn’t control it
COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Traditionally Congress controlled foreign policy through its ability to declare war, however today the President has effectively exploited his role as Commander In Chief and has therefore become the main individual who has initiated a lot of US military intervention abroad such as Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush and sometimes even without Congressional approval as seen from the Libya attacks in 2011, cutting Congress out of the process.	However Congress still continues to play a vital role in, although indeed its true that they haven’t declared war since world war 2, Congress continues to control foreign policy indirectly. This is done by granting the executive congressional approval to take action overseas and this is a requirement the President must fulfill under the War Powers Act. Earlier this year the Obama administration had to submit a report to the Senate requesting congressional authorisation to use further force in the fight against the Islamic State. And this may not always go according to the Presidents wishes, during this process the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had to scrutinise key figures from the Obama administration: Ashton Carter and John Kerry before deciding whether to grant authorisation and this led to major deadlock between Democrats and Republicans with some thinking it went too far and some believing it doesn’t go far enough.
STATE OF THE UNION. Through his state of the union address it is ultimately the President who sets the tone of foreign policy and Congress who follow it. This was perhaps most prominently seen in 2015 SOTU: President Obama told Congress Republicans and Democrats to unite together in the fight against ISIS in the Middle East and pass a resolution to authorize use of force against ISIS – all of which was greeted with applause à there has already been steps taken to pass a resolution. Obama also ordered Congress to work to strengthen ties with Cuba and put aside the differences that have lasted since the 1960s by lifting the Cuba embargo, subsequently a bill was introduced in Congress to lift the half-century old embargo.	During the state of the union address the President appears to be more of a persuader in chief, merely recommending legislation to Congress and what to do in foreign affairs and recently we’ve witnessed how Congress has become increasingly obstructionist to the foreign agenda laid down by the President in his SOTU. In his state of the union address Obama talked of how ties with Iran should be strengthened, believing Iran not to pose a major threat to US security. However, in recent events Congress has disagreed with him on this and have sought to do oppose Obama’s aims towards Iranian relations, which was most clearly seen from the Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, visiting Congress which annoyed Obama – ultimately Congress’s stance towards Iran is the opposite to that of Obama’s and Netanyahu’s high profile visit to Congress epitomised how at times it may appear that the President is not in control of foreign policy.
KEY DEPARTMENTS. The executive remains in charge of foreign policy as the executive also consists of the cabinet whereby some members are heads of major departments who play a huge role in foreign policy, such as the Defence Department and State Department. The State Department under John Kerry has particularly been at the centre of all diplomatic relations during the Obama administration given the more ‘dovish’ approach to foreign policy. Kerry’s recently been on visits to Russia to discuss the Ukrainian crisis and prior to when ISIS showed up Kerry took part in meetings with Bashar al-Assad. So, it’s the executive who always remains at the forefront of American foreign policy, not Congress. (+National Security council under EXOP)	However, arguably Congress still controls foreign policy through its power of investigation which allows them to investigate any department, such as ones involved in foreign affairs, through its congressional committees. Again, in this sense Congress indirectly control foreign policy. Heads of departments are accountable to congressional committees who scrutinise their every action: most recently seen through the publication of the CIA torture report by the Senate Intelligence Committee which revealed the inhumane enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA when treating suspected terrorists. And also the House Select Committee on Benghazi which investigated Hilary Clinton’s (when she was Secretary of State) poor handling of the Benghazi attacks which led to the deaths of 4 US citizens.
DIPLOMACY. It is ultimately members of the executive branch, namely the President as also diplomat-in-chief who participates in negotiations with foreign nations abroad whereas Congress remains sitting in Washington. We’ve already seen Kerry get involved in various negotiations with other world leaders and also the President in signing treaties. For instance, it was the President who negotiated the START Treaty in 2010 which sought to reduce the number of nuclear weapons both America and Russia have. So, the executive plays a part in diplomacy (he participates in G8 conferences). Also, the President can resort to executive agreements which completely eliminate Congress from the process and these don’t need to be ratified by Congress.	Congress still plays its part, they ultimately have a final say as treaties need to be ratified by Congress.
WAR ON TERROR. It is departments among the executive and agencies in the federal bureaucracy which control foreign policy as illustrated by the revelations of the mass spying programmes run by the NSA (leaked by whistleblower Edward Snownde) which has stretched spying on phone and internet records not just on US citizens but also foreign leaders and British citizens too. Similarly, the CIAs ‘enhanced interrogation’ torture programme in various parts of the world in ‘black sites’ remaining secret from Congress for over a decade shows how the executive is fully in control of everything in foreign affairs. Also, Obama’s ‘disposition Matrix’ which is effectively a kill list for drone strikes (death total 2,400+) outside of Congress’s control also epitomises how the executive controls foreign policy.	But it was Congress who authorized all of this immediately after 9/11 through the PATRIOT Act and recent attempts in Congress to end things like the NSA data collection have been limited through the USA Freedom Act. So, since it’s congressional legislation that gave the NSA and CIA permission to conduct such operations, Congress can revoke the permission. So, again, Congress has a final say.

I'd put this in the conclusion: In the very recent Zivotofsky v. Kerry case the Supreme Court made clear that it is ultimately the President’s constitutional role to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs.

Is Congress the least powerful branch of government?

‘Congress has become the least powerful branch of government.’ Discuss

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they arguably intended Congress to be the most powerful branch of government, however, in recent times Congress has become increasingly weakened. Congress’s weaknesses are most evident from the fact that they do not have the ability to set the political agenda, the President and judiciary have increasingly become ‘imperial’ and Congress has arguably lost a core constitutional role of declaring war, all of which have produced this image of a weak legislature.

Congress is the least powerful branch because the President is inherently constitutionally more powerful through his ability to set the political agenda through the state of the union address. Standing at the bull pulpit, the President effectively orders Congress what to do – in his 2015 state of the union address the President told Congress to push forward legislation eliminating loopholes within the campaign finance system and focus on increasing national security and the fight against terror in the Middle East. As a result, much of Congress’s work over the year is dedicated to completing the legislation proposed by the President. This lack of independence as a legislature makes Congress appear like a weak body. However, due to the separation of powers Congress remains strong, the executive has no control over Congress and he merely ‘recommends’ legislation to Congress rather than actually forces them to act on his behalf. In the last few years Congress has become increasingly obstructionist and thus, the President’s agenda illustrated in the state of the union has not been followed. This was seen in the 2013 state of the union address whereby Obama recommended introducing restrictions on gun laws (following the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012), in which although a bill did appear in Congress (the Manchin-Toomey bill), it was blocked by Congress therefore showing how Congress does not always act towards the Presidents wishes. Regardless, if Congress are not following the President’s agenda on a specific issue, such as comprehensive immigration reform, the President is free to circumvent Congress through executive orders as Obama did so in November 2014, therefore weakening Congress.

In recent years Congress has become very polarised as a result of, debatably, the Tea Party Movement, which has acted as a polarising force in Congress, and so the last few years has been a story of continuous gridlock. So, Congress is the least powerful branch, not because of constitutional limits or other branches, but because it has weakened itself through all its infighting as seen from the 2013 government shutdown, making 2013 the least productive legislative year since 1948 (clearly Congress isn’t even carrying out its legislative role properly due to its continuous gridlock). It’s got to a point whereby the President has had to take matters into his own hands through executive orders, bypassing Congress and ruling alone. In 2014, for instance, President Obama initiated an executive order seeking to help five million illegal immigrants from deportation. The President cannot rule alone even if Congress is in deadlock, he remains heavily reliant on Congress for the budget and funds for his executive order. This year Congress in fact nearly defunded Obama’s executive order after a bill almost failed to pass in Congress renewing funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, even if Congress is polarised, it still continues to be powerful through its power of investigation whereby Congressional committees effectively scrutinize government agencies and departments. This was perhaps most clearly seen with the CIA torture report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee recently. However, the struggle Congress has to go through to pass legislation further emphasises the fact that it has become less powerful, they weaken themselves by all their infighting.

Moreover, the President can effectively veto any laws passed by Congress. In his 2015 state of the union address Obama threatened to use presidential vetoes if Congress attempts to repeal Obamacare or prevent things like immigration reform bills has truly made Congress appear weak. Obama has since then vetoed two items passed by Congress, the Keystone Pipeline Approval Act in February and the National Labor Relations Board Union Election Rule in March. Congress’s most important function is to pass legislation, but clearly this function cannot be carried out if the President is vetoing legislation, therefore limiting Congress’s power. However, Congress possess constitutional checks on the President such as its ability to override Presidential vetoes by a two third majority in both houses, for instance, four of Bill Clinton’s vetoes (out of 12) were vetoed. So, Congress’s ability to override a Presidential veto still means they’re a powerful body. But, in a time of gridlock and increasing polarisation Congress rarely ever sustains enough votes to actually override a presidential veto as seen by the fact that none of Obama’s four existing vetoes have been overridden yet.

Congress is the least powerful branch because it has lost one of its core constitutional powers: the power to declare war. Although this power does still technically exist, it has not been utilised by Congress since 1941 when war was declared on Japan and the President has arguably exploited his role as Commander In-Chief to overpower Congress in this area of foreign policy. Since 1941 several wars have taken place such as the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq war, however, not once has Congress used its constitutional power. Instead, the President has been at the forefront of foreign policy initiating wars. Congress’ inability to play a sufficient role in foreign policy truly makes it look like the least powerful branch. However, it’s unlikely a President will ever go to war without the approval of Congress. So, although Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war – it has still played a role in declaring war on Iraq in 2002. Also, earlier this year Obama had to submit a report to the Senate requesting approval for further action against the growing threat of ISIS in the Middle East, also using its power of the purse Congress is in charge of assigning funding to all the departments involved in the area of foreign policy. So, Congress still contuse to play a vital role in foreign policy despite not using its power. Despite granting approval, Congress still seems to be weak because it appears to have lost a key constitutional power today the roles have reversed from Congress initiating and the President supervising to Congress supervising from the back seat while the President initiates wars.

The Supreme Court has become increasingly powerful as a result of their self-granted power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to be able to exercise a lot of control over the legislature by being able to strike down their legislation and ruling it unconstitutional. A recent example was during the U.S v. Windsor case when the Supreme Court struck down the Defence of the Marriage Act (DOMA). This ability of the Supreme Court to dismiss Congress’ legislation looks as though the Supreme Court is acting as a quasi-legislative body, in which they are ‘legislating from the bench’ which is a function of Congress, not the Supreme Court. On the other hand, Congress also posses considerable checks on the Supreme Court such as its ability to launch impeachments and introduce new legislation or constitutional amendments overruling the Supreme Court’s decision. Also, the Supreme Court cannot freely flaunt about its power of judicial review due to a lack of initiation power and therefore, Congress in fact remains a powerful body. However, judicial review remains effectively an uncheckable power, giving the impression of an ‘imperial judiciary’ and making Congress look like a weak branch.

Finally, Congressmen are more focused on local concerns in their state or district among their constituents rather than the bigger picture. As Tip O’Neill famously said, ‘all politics is local’ and therefore Congress weakens itself by being preoccupied more with local issues rather than wider national issues like reducing the government debt. This is also relates to the issue of career politicians in Washington who only seek reelection rather than doing their job properly, which is arguably most prominently seen through Congress’s tendency to attach earmarks to bills. For instance, Jim Moran’s earmarks total up to $36.5 million and other earmarks have gone to irrelevant projects such as the ‘Alaska bridge to nowhere’. This inability for Congress to focus on the national bigger picture and only be concerned with local issues has produced an image of a weak and dysfunctional Congress. However, Congress can still unite around a single shared issue and work in the national interests as demonstrated by the 1994 Contract with America, Six for 06 agenda in 2006, 2010 Pledge to America and arguably the 2014 midterm elections which were the most nationalised ever. Although this rarely influences their effectiveness, it’s a fact that this rarely happens and the agenda is more set by the President and the issue of career politicians continues to have its corrosive effects on Congress.

As demonstrated above, Congress is indeed the least powerful branch of government. Through all its infighting and the existence of career politicians Congress has generated this image of itself as being dysfunctional. As illustrated above, it may be the case that Congress is inherently weak with such a powerful presidential role who has many powers such as his ability to overridden vetoes and act as commander in chief, or the supreme court’s ability to strike down congressional legislation. Overall, Congress is indeed the least powerful branch and comes as a consequence of the rise of an ‘imperial’ presidency and judiciary.

To what extent is the system of constitutional checks and balances an obstacle to effective government?

To what extent is the system of constitutional checks and balances an obstacle to effective government?

Checks and balances refer to specific powers each branch of the federal government possess to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful – such as the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over the legislature and executive, the president’s ability to veto Congress’ legislation and Congress’ power to overridden Presidential vetoes. In order to have ‘effective’ government, the government must carry out some core functions such as legislate, provide effective defence, protect civil liberties and ensure state power and. However, as seen in recent years with the growing gridlock and infringement of civil liberties and states rights (according to the right), the system of checks and balances has hindered effective government.

One of the roles of the federal government is to effectively legislation, however, with increasing polarisation and the 113^th Congress going down in history as being the most polarised, the system of checks and balances has allowed for consistent gridlock to a point where 2013 was the least productive legislative year since 1948. It’s the role of legislature to ‘check’ the power of the executive and ensure it does not become too powerful, however, combined with polarisation this has led to consistent gridlock over legislation, particularly with regards to immigration reform. The Obama administration set out their aims in 2009 to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, however, legislating this has been hindered in recent years due to a range of congressional powers such as its ability to launch a filibuster and its ‘power of the purse’. This has led to legislation being slow and failing, as seen from the DREAM Act being filibustered to death in 2010 and the Gang of 8 bill being killed off by the House Speaker. However, the existence of checks and balances does not necessarily lead to ineffective government or gridlock because if Congress is gridlocked or obstructionist the President is free to initiate executive orders to circumvent Congress as seen by Obama’s one in November 2014 which sought to help five million illegal immigrants. However, even in this case constitutional checks remain and they hinder effective government, for instance, Congress has the ‘power of the purse’ whereby it is in charge of granting funding for the President’s executive order and this had hindered effective government when earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security came close to shutting down and the Texas legislature put Obama’s executive order on hold.

Another role of the government is to provide effective defence, however, this too has been hindered through checks and balances, thus preventing effective government. Congress passed the Case Act and War Powers Act during the 1970s to limit the executive’s role as Commander in Chief and prevent the President from becoming too imperial. Since Congress has the power to declare war, the president must seek approval before taking military action abroad. This prevents the president from effectively dealing with international crises, as he must wait for the approval of Congress and this check has led to a lot of criticism in recent events. With the threat of the Islamic State growing in the Middle East, Obama has had to submit reports to the Senate requesting more authorisation for military action in the Middle East, however, as a result the government’s response has arguably been slow. A CBS News poll found that only 54% of American’s are satisfied with President Obama’s response to ISIS. Similarly, the issue over the PATRIOT Act and Congress’ power of the purse has hindered effective government – with the Patriot Act set to expire on the 1^st June the House voted to continue funding it but in the Senate this vote was blocked by a filibuster. However, even such existing legislation like the War Powers is not an obstacle to effective government since the President does not always have to abide by it during a time of a huge crisis as illustrated by the 2011 Libya bombings whereby no congressional authorisation was granted to the President. However, Libya was an anomaly in the process and launching military action abroad without Congress’ approval rarely happens, today with ISIS Obama’s response has without a doubt been slow as a consequence of checks and balances put in place.

Another key function for effective government is to protect civil rights and liberties, however, this too has been hindered due to the system of checks and balances, which have allowed for civil liberties to be eroded through Congress’ ability to legislate. For instance, the clearest example is the Patriot Act, which according to many liberals (and some Republicans such as Rand Paul) is a clear infringement upon American’s citizens right to privacy – which is an established right under Griswold v. Connecticut – by enabling the NSA to conduct mass data collection programs of phone and internet data. The legislature’s attempts at renewing the law this year is a clear indication of how checks and balances can lead to civil liberties being eroded. However, checks and balances in this case can also provide for the protection of civil liberties. For instance, the Supreme Court’s check of judicial review on the legislature enables them to continue protecting civil rights as illustrated by US v. Windsor which struck down the Defence of the Marriage Act, thus allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the US Army and Hollingsworth v. Perry whereby California’s Proposition 8 (which sought to ban gay marriage) was struck down, both of these are instances of checks and balances protecting civil liberties which is key to effective government. The Citizens United and SpeechNow.org cases v. FEC are also other examples of rights and liberties being entrenched through judicial review. However, the Supreme Court is arguably stepping in too much due to judicial activists who are flaunting about judicial review excessively to a point where they’re acting as a quasi-legislative body, thereby hindering effective government and generating an image of an ‘imperial judiciary’.

Moreover, the protection of state rights and powers as detailed in the 10^th Amendment is fundamental to an effective government but Congress’ ability to legislate and the executive’s ‘check’ to tell Congress what to do through the state of the union has also hindered this according to conservatives. The passage of Obamacare, for instance, has been described by the right as being a clear infringement of state rights and is therefore unconstitutional as it can be viewed as the scope of federal government expanding too far to a point where control over health (a local issue) is being taken away from the control of states as it is forcing states to set up health care exchanged for the uninsured and expand Medicaid eligibility, all of which enforces the rhetoric of ‘government creep’. However, as with the argument illustrated above in this case too the system of checks and balances provides for effective government as through judicial review it can also lead to states rights being protected. For instance, in Shelby County v. Holder states rights were expanded by striking down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, thereby expanding states control over their voting practices and preventing the federal government from getting too involved. Federalism is indeed an important aspect to having effective government, but even judicial review can infringe upon states rights as illustrated by the 2012 Sebelius case which ruled that Obamacare was in fact constitutional (the right still argue its an infringement of states rights), and a further example includes US v. Arizona which struck down section key sections of SB 1070.

Finally, Congressional check on the President is Congress’ power to confirm all appointments made by the President. The president is in charge of nominating Supreme Court justices, some roles to the Executive Office of the President and departments within the federal bureaucracy such as the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. But, this is check is well known to lead to gridlock and so, prevent effective government. For instance, when John O. Brennan was nominated to be the director of the CIA Senator Rand Paul filibustered his appointment for 13 hours. On the other hand, although this is indeed a check, which without a doubt hinders government there, are other effective checks that allow the government to effectively function. For instance, the power of investigation is a check held by Congress over the executive (and federal bureaucracy) which allows Congress to investigate the actions of the executive and it’s various departments. This has proved to be very effective in recent events when the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the CIA and it’s treatment of suspected terrorists which subsequently led to the release of the CIA torture report, revealing how the CIA have conducted secret operations in order to torture suspected terrorists. It’s important for the government’s actions to be scrutinised and open for transparency and through the power of investigation, this allows for an effective government to function.

As demonstrated above, the while in some cases the constitutional system of checks and balances can lead to an effective government such as through congressional oversight, other times it leads to gridlock between the branches. It can also lead to civil rights being eroded as well as states rights.

Is Congress the 'broken branch'?

Is Congress the broken branch?

Congress is often described as being the 'broken branch' of government. This suggests that Congress no longer fully accomplishes its role as the legislature, a check and balance on the powers of the executive and judiciary, they're dysfunctional to the point where there is no bipartisanship and nothing gets done. In recent years Congress has certainly generated an image of itself being 'broken' as illustrated by the 2013 government shutdown and the increasing polarisation which has led to bipartisanship going extinct. 

Congress is the broken branch because in recent years it has become increasingly polarised and the 113^th Congress has gone down in history as being the most polarised. In the two-party US system the Democrats and Republicans have moved further away from the centre ground, and this has been helped by the emergence of the Tea Party movement, which has acted as a polarising force within the Republican Party, forcing members to toe a specific policy line and refuse any compromise with Congress. Nowhere has polarisation been more evident than on Obamacare, which consequently led to a government shutdown in late 2013. On the other hand, although it is true that polarisation has been on the rise in recent years, critics argue that Obamacare did not epitomise polarisation. Instead, critics argue that stark opposition to Obamacare from the GOP came as a consequence of failure in strategy and not an inherent problem in Congress. President Obama could have compromised more or waited longer to find out people’s opinions of Obamacare, hence why Republicans have said that the reason they opposed Obamacare was because they had a mandate from their constituents to oppose any increases in taxation and secure a reduction in the government deficit. Regardless of whether or not polarisation was evident from Obamacare, it’s certainly evident within other policy areas such as immigration reform and a lack of bipartisanship in that area highlights how truly broken Congress is.

Moreover, Congress is the broken branch because of the fact that bipartisanship is no longer existent. The separation of powers relies heavily upon co-operation between the legislature and the executive but Obama’s 2015 state of the union addresses illustrated that bipartisanship is dead. In his state of the union address Obama made clear that any attempts made at attacking Obamacare, immigration reform or his own political agenda he will respond with Presidential vetoes and this process has already begun with the President issuing a veto for the Keystone Pipeline after Congress passed it. The very fact that the President is resorting to using presidential vetoes because Congress can’t agree with him emphasises the extent to which Congress is broken. Due to this, also, Congress fails to carry out its legislative role, which comes as a direct consequence of their own lack of bipartisanship. However, issues such as immigration reform and environmental policy are policy areas whereby it is inevitable that there will be disagreements given the stark ideological differences between the Republican and Democrats. In other areas, particularly foreign policy, there has been a lot of bipartisanship effort between the executive and legislature as seen by Congress granting the President further authorisation to use military force in the fight against ISIS. And between both parties, despite the ideological differences, they both agree that the US needs to take military against the Islamic State in the Middle East. Also, from a right-wing perspective in this era of partisanship Congress is not broken. One reason the separation of powers was introduced by the Founding Fathers was to make it difficult to find agreement on policy, thereby limiting the scope of national government. The right argue that the national government have been too intrusive lately and when Congress refuses to show bipartisanship they are effectively living up to the intent of the Founding Fathers by serving the purpose of limited government and preventing the national government from becoming too interfering in American citizens lives, which was one of the key principal objectives of the Founding Fathers and therefore, Congress is not broken. However, from a left wing perspective ‘limited government’ is a clear sign of Congress failing to function as states themselves have a poor record of helping its citizens or protecting minorities as seen from Arizona SB 1070.

The story of the last few years has been one of continuous gridlock and divided government to a point where 2013 has gone down in history as being one of the least productive legislative years since 1948. Due to this consistent gridlock Congress has failed to carry out its role as the legislator and the President has had to resort to taking action himself in the form of executive orders. For instance, in recent years Congress has constantly been met with gridlock in many policy areas such as immigration reform, while Democrats believe comprehensive immigration reform is the ‘common sense’ thing to do since deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is unrealistic, the GOP firmly oppose comprehensive immigration reform, seeing it as a way of rewarding (through amnesty) criminals who broke the law by coming to the US illegally. As a result, any attempts at immigration reform have been met by gridlock, such as when the DREAM Act was filibustered to death in 2010. Consequently due to Congress’s inability to function the President has resorted to signing off an executive order in November 2014 to help 5 million illegal immigrants. However, although gridlock has indeed been evident, Congress continues to initiate a considerable volume of legislation each year, any measure with a broad sustained of support will always pass as seen by the fact that Obamacare eventually passed despite heavy resistance from the GOP. Moreover, Congress despite its gridlock continues to carry out its many functions such as congressional oversight. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the power of the executive branch and the various government departments are used responsibly, which is done through a variety of means such as scrutinizing presidential appointments and monitoring the work of executive departments and agencies through congressional committees. For instance, Congress recently appointed Loretta Lynch as Attorney General as well as previous appointments such as Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, which faced a lot of scrutiny from the Senate on her ‘wise Latina comment’. Also, through the Senate Intelligence Committee Congress has been seen to functioning quite well in terms of its role of scrutinizing departments, which led to the publication of the CIA torture report about the unlawful misconduct of CIA operatives on suspected terrorists. However, the most striking sign of Congress being broken is that it’s no longer the primary policy making institution. That role is now fulfilled by the President who clearly sets out the political agenda each year at the State of the Union Address and subsequently, much of Congress’ legislation is the Presidents own agenda.

Congress is the broken branch of government because it has lost one of its constitutional powers, which the Founding Fathers laid out for the legislature to use. Congress has not used its constitutional power to declare war since 1941 when declaring war on Japan. Today the President has effectively exploited his role as Commander In-Chief to overpower Congress’s role in foreign policy and has gone to plenty of wars with Congress not formerly declaring war such as the Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Today in the area of foreign policy Congress plays a very minor supervisory role in the backseat while the President initiates and sets the foreign policy agenda as seen from the State of the Union address in which President Obama clearly outlined that American foreign policy will be aimed at eliminating the threat of ISIS in the Middle East. On the other hand, although Congress has not utilised its power in foreign affairs, it still maintains a dominant role in foreign policy. Through the War Powers Act and Case Act the president is required by law to request authorisation from Congress before taking military action abroad, and this was seen in February this year when Obama submitted a report to the Senate requesting permission to take further action in the Middle East. Congress even invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu earlier this year in response to the on going talks about Iran’s nuclear facilities and program. Congress has also in recent years put on restrictions on the use of America’s drones programme. So, Congress still maintains a significant role in foreign policy despite not declaring war since 1941. However, even laws put in place restricting the presidents power as Commander In-Chief, the President does not always abide by such laws as illustrated by the 2011 Libya bombings whereby no congressional approval was authorized. Congress is truly broken as traditionally Congress used to be the initiator of American foreign policy and war, however, such roles have reversed and today the President initiates while Congress supervises.

Finally, Congress is broken due to the number of career politicians in Washington who merely focus on local concerns in their state or district in order to be re-elected but neglect the wider national picture. These career politicians have contributed to an image of a dysfunctional Congress. Career politicians prioritise re-election at the expense of wider issues such as bring down the government debt or working together to solve the ‘broken’ immigration system (according to the left) and this is illustrated by the use of earmarks. Jim Moran, for instance, during the 113^th Congress has used an excessive amount of earmarks totaling to $36.5 million which goes towards funding projects in his constituency, but it also adds to the burden of reducing the governments debt. While some earmarks are useful such as going towards building schools others are used on unnecessary projects such as the famous Alaska ‘bridge to nowhere’. The use of earmarks makes legislating difficult and inevitably contributes to the ineffectiveness of Congress. On the other hand, Congress is not broken given the fact that even if career politicians do exist, members of Congress can unite around a particular issue of national interests which is seen from the increasingly nationalised nature of congressional elections, for instance, the 1994 Contract With America, Six for 06 agenda and the Pledge to America. Also, House Speaker John Boehner and Obama have worked together to ban the use of earmarks, which Boehner has said will continue through to the 114^th Congress. However, though this influences their effectiveness, Congress is rarely ever setting the political agenda through nationalised elections and it’s usually the president through the state of the union who does so and the issue of career politicians is an inherent problem within Congress.