Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive. Show all posts

Friday, 12 June 2015

Does the executive control American foreign policy?

Who controls American foreign policy?


Controls itDoesn’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.

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Checks and Balances

Checks and balances

‘Checks and balances’ refers to a process whereby each branch exercises control over the actions of the other branches of government.



Checks by the executive on the legislature
Through the State of the Union address in January of each year the President has the power to recommend legislation to Congress. The event is broadcasted on live TV, addressed to both Houses, cabinet members and the nine justices of the Supreme Court. The State of the Union address gives the President the opportunity to tell Congress what legislation to pass in order to lay out his legislative agenda. 2015 State of the Union address proposed increasing taxes for the superrich (decreasing for the middle class), strengthen ties with Cuba, plans on getting rid of loopholes and seeks to introduce legislation that will give Obama authorisation to use more force against ISIS. In addition, the president has the power to veto bills passed by Congress. So far Obama’s only used the power of veto twice. Obama made a statement during the State of the Union address that any attempts made by the Republicans in attacking healthcare or immigration reform will face a presidential veto.

Checks by the executive on the judiciary
The president nominates all federal judges (trial court, appeal court and Supreme Court). During his first term Obama made two appointments to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and Elena Kagan (2010). It’s important to remember that the appointments are made on the basis that the judges share a similar political outlook as the president; this enables the president to further their agenda for years to come. The second check is the power of pardon, which basically gives the president the power to excuse a person of their offences. Obama has only pardoned 53 people so far, the most recent one was Donna Wright in 2013, and her offense was embezzlement and misapplication of bank funds.

Checks by the legislature on the executive
The reason the legislature has so many checks on the executive is because the Founding Fathers seriously feared creating an all-powerful executive position that can lead to tyranny.

  •      Congress can amend, block or reject items of legislation recommended by the president. In 2010, after being watered down to please opponents, Obama’s healthcare reform bill passed but was significantly less ambitious than had been anticipated. In 2011, Congress rejected Obama’s proposed job creation legislation
  •      Congress can override a president’s veto. It requires a 2/3 majority in both Houses. None of Obama’s two existing vetoes have been overridden by Congress
  •       ‘Power of the purse’ is a power granted to Congress which means that all the money the president wants to spend on his policies must be voted for by Congress
  •      Congress has got the power to declare war – last time this power was used in 1941 on Japan. In 2002 Bush was granted authorisation from Congress to use military force in Iraq. House approved by 296-182 and the Senate 77-23
  •       The Senate is also given the power to ratify treaties, requiring a two-thirds majority. In 2010 the new START Treaty with Russia was ratified by 71 votes to 26
  •      The Senate has the power to confirm all appointments made by the President to the executive and federal judiciary. Executive appoints subject to the Senate’s confirmation include: cabinet members, ambassadors, heads of important agencies like the CIA and FBI. Only a simple majority is required for confirmation. And they have to also confirm judicial appointments
  •      Power of investigation allows Congress – through its committees – to investigate the actions or policies of any member of the executive branch, even the president himself. In 2012 the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee launched an investigation of possible security failures by the Obama administration after the murder of four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya
  •      Under serious circumstances, the investigation can lead to impeachment, which enables the legislature to impeach (formally accuse) any member of the executive branch, including the president. Andrew Johnson (1868) and Bill Clinton (1998) are the only presidents to have been impeached so far. Once the House has impeached, the Senate will conduct the trial and if found guilty by a two-thirds majority, the accused person is removed from office. This is the ultimate check – the president holds no similar power – he cannot remove Congress

Checks by the legislature on the judiciary

  •      Power of impeachment by the House of Representatives and then trial by the Senate, 2/3 majority results in removal from office. In March 2010, the House of Representatives impeached judge Thomas Porteous for corruption, the Senate found him guilty and he was removed from office that year
  •      Congress can introduced constitutional amendments to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court. Congress has recently tried to reverse Supreme Court decisions in flag burning and public prayer

Checks by the judiciary on the legislature

  •      Judicial review. The judiciary has the power to use judicial review to interpret legislation as being constitutional or not. E.g. Citizen's United case or just about any case whereby the Supreme Court ruled something being (un)constitutional

Checks by the judiciary on the executive

  •      Same power of judicial review over the executive branch. Any action of a member of the executive can be deemed unconstitutional using judicial review