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.

Has comprehensive immigration reform been a failure?

Has Obama failed at immigration reform? (essay plan)

The last time an essay question on immigration came up was in January 2013 and it's very likely it will come up this year given the fact that immigration reform has been in the news a lot lately and is still considered a hot topic in US politics, especially after Obama's executive order on immigration reform in November 2014. This is just a rough plan of some ideas you can include in your essay.

Failure	Not a failure	Conclusion
DEPORTED-IN-CHIEF. The press dubbed Obama as the deporter-in chief as the number of deportations under Obama exceeds that of his predecessor, by 2014 he had already deported 2 million illegals. The Obama administration seemed to have focused too much on deportations and not enough on passing bills on comprehensive immigration reform as they had initially pledged in 2008.	The deporter-in-chief is not accurate, given the fact that Obama once said that he is deporting “felons, not families” so his high number of deportations are justified and the deportation of criminals is a crucial aspect of comprehensive immigration reform for which Obama has been successful in as further illustrated by his work with Congress increase in spending on border protection, exceeding $17 billion in 2010.	However, this still continues to illustrate the Obama administrations failure given that although border spending rose, a bill failed to appear in Congress proposing reforming the immigration system. These may be good achievements but it’s not what he was hoping to achieve.
STATE LAWS. To emphasise the Obama administrations failure at immigration reform states have taken matters into their own hands. Some have gradually achieved what Obama failed to do, such as the California Dream Act (2011), which granted access to private colleges, scholarships and state schools to illegal immigrants and was primarily introduced because of Obama’s failure to implement the DREAM Act. Others have exploited Obama’s failure by passing some of the strictest anti-immigration bills most notably Arizona SB 1070 and Alabama HB 56 (‘reasonable suspicion’)	States have indeed resorted to passing their own laws, however, the defeat of the DREAM Act was not a consequence of Obama’s own failure but a consequence of an obstructionist Congress dominated by the GOP who have sought to oppose Democrat attempts at immigration reform. Also, Obama and the Justice Department have worked closely to strike down sections of Arizona’s law in US v. Arizona (2012), so attempts have been made at immigration reform.	However, only minor sections (3, 5(C) and 6) of Arizona’s state law have actually been struck down, large portions of it still remain intact and the fact the law remains is living proof that Obama has ultimately failed at living up to his key pledge of creating a fairer and more sensible immigration system.
WASTED 2 YEARS. During the first two years of the Obama administration Congress was a Democratic stronghold and comprehensive immigration bills were very likely. However, Obama decided to prioritise other issues such as a stimulus package and healthcare reform instead – this Obama acknowledged saying during his campaign for 2nd term “took up a huge amount of time in the first year”. This can be seen as a wasted opportunity and since then, no major attempts at reform have been made.	Although the Obama administration realised they had wasted time they did eventually introduce some extensive reforms, most notably Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed immigrants who arrived before 2007 & their 16th birthday to be exempt from deportations.	DACA, although not a failure, is not a revolutionary reform and not as ‘comprehensive’ as Obama had initially been anticipating on – an estimated 1.7m illegal immigrants are eligible to its provisions, however, only 500k have actually benefited from it, thus illustrating it’s shortcomings.
GANG OF 8 & EXECUTIVE ORDER. The Gang of 8 Bill was introduced in 2013 and seemed like a brilliant bipartisanship bill proposing a path to citizenship. The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House. This was a bill that put immigration reform back on the legislative agenda; however, the Obama administration had failed to capitalize on its success in the House and failed to endorse it enough which eventually led to its downfall. Focused too much on gun control such as the Manchin-Toomey bill which was being debated around the same time.	However, the Gang of 8 bill was not Obama’s final attempt at immigration reform given the fact he passed an executive order following the 2014 midterm elections. The executive order will help 11 million illegal immigrants from deportation and is arguably, one of Obama’s most decisive actions towards achieving immigration reform, bringing millions ‘out of the shadows’ & ‘with our without Congress.’	Critics have pointed out that the executive order has given an impression of panic among the Obama administration knowing there’s two years remaining and not much has been achieved. The executive order arguably demonstrates Obama has failed sine he has had to resort to presidential action as all other attempts have failed and even the EO isn’t as ‘comprehensive’ as had been anticipated nor will it last, next President can override it.
OBAMA ADMITS IT. Even President Obama himself has acknowledged that his inability to implement his key pledge of a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants is his own failure, saying that he was naïve for believing that the GOP (who were initially in favour of reform) would walk away from working with him on immigration reform. (During 2012 presidential campaign)	However, there is still to 2016 in which Obama still has time to enact change within the immigration system. The GOP have previously been very obstructionist towards immigration reform (DREA Act, Gang of 8) but have begun to realise its political significance and many have become more lenient on immigration reform. After 2012 the Republicans realised they cant win without reaching out to minority voters (only 27% Hispanics voted Romney) – commentators suggest GOP Pres can’t win 2016 without sensible immigration reform – Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush favour a path to citizenship, so there’s still some hope for close cooperation between Obama and GOP Congress.	Congress is dominated by the GOP and arguably, a conclusion on Obama’s immigration reform legacy can now be drawn considering the fact that it is unlikely he will pass anything through an increasingly polarised Congress.

Is race still an issue in the US today? (essay plan)

‘Race equality in the USA remains a distant dream.’ Discuss

How is this still relevant? On the 50^th anniversary of the civil rights movements march in Selma, Obama delivered a speech declaring that racial inequality still remains a strong issue in the US and that it continues to “cast its long shadow upon” America. NYTimes article on whether race still matters today.

This is merely a rough plan and some points need some more work, I'm a bit skeptical about the Birther Movement paragraph since they have pretty much declined (though they are targeting Ted Cruz now) and are no longer as active as they used to be during the first few years of Obama's Presidency. 

Race equality is still an issue	No longer an issue	Conclusion
CONGRESS IS UNREPRESENTATIVE. The very unrepresentative nature of Congress emphasises the extent to which racial divisions continue to exist. Ethnic minorities make up 36% of the US population yet Congress (114th) fails to reflect this with only 46 African Americans, 32 Hispanics, 11 Asians and 2 (17% total). Unrepresentative Congress leads to unrepresentative policies.	However, the role of members of Congress is to represent constituents not a specific race and thus, Congress is not required to ‘look like America.’ Also, in the 1970s there were only 10 African-American Congressmen but today the situation is improving and the fact there are a lot of ethnic minorities in Congress emphasises the more favourable circumstances today. A black president, something that was thought to be impossible, evidently illustrates that the US is not racist. 114th Congress is the most diverse ever.	Regardless, representation is not only poor in Congress but also state legislatures and as a result, unrepresentative and discriminatory legislation has been created.
RACIALLY MOTIVATED LAWS. As a result of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) states have imposed voter ID laws, which have in a sense excluded many racial minorities from the electorate. Minorities are less likely to be able to afford such IDs in the form of drivers licenses, etc and are thus, unable to vote. Also, Alabama HB 56 and Arizona SB 1070 are used to specifically target immigrants and gives authorities power to target minorities with ‘reasonable suspicion.’	However, former Attorney-General Eric Holder and the Justice Department sought to end such discriminatory voting practices via voter ID laws and have to a certain extent been successful through a Supreme Court case (US v. Arizona 2012) in abolishing certain sections (3, 5(C) and 6) of SB 1070.	Such discriminatory laws cannot be eradicated with a simple stroke of pen, the executive branch can do very little to reverse state laws as seen from the fact that Arizona SB 1070 is still standing.
POLICE BRUTALITY. Recently the media has been dominated by incidents whereby the police force have used excessive force against minorities such as the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York and Freddie Gray in Maryland. Such incidents arguably happened as a result of the police force being institutionally racist (e.g. Ferguson PD has around 2 black cops).	Arguably these incidents have been manipulated by the media to portray the police as being institutionally racist. In reality this is not the case and many police forces are ethnically diverse (NYPD is 53.3%). Also, the Obama administration have tackled the issue of police brutality through the introduction of body cameras which some police forces (like Ferguson) have already begun to use.	However, even the NYPD – though it’s ethnically diverse – minorities do bad and fail to reach the high ranks as seen by the fact that only 76 are Captains compared to there being 356 white captains. Fact the killings sparked riots and demonstrations on the issue of race further illustrates that racial minorities have a perception of discrimination.
BIRTHER MOVEMENT. Birther’s question the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, making claims he was not born on US soil and his presidency is thus, unconstitutional. Although they say they believe Obama was born elsewhere, the underlying issue is his race. Such a movement would not happen if the President were white. The GOP have also greatly expressed doubt about Obama’s place of birth. Birther’s now targeting Ted Cruz (half Cuban), racial element.	Birther’s remain a small and not a very influential organisation, most Congressmen and the US population are accepting of the fact that Obama was born in the USA.	However, though not very influential and weak the fact they continue to campaign and have swayed many GOP members of Congress demonstrates race remains a very political issue and so, continues to exist today.
EMPLOYMENT. Ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, continue to lag behind the white population in employment. Employers are well known to be discriminatory towards minorities despite them possessing the necessary qualifications. As a result of this unemployment in the poorest districts populated by ethnic minorities can reach as high as 50% in New York and Chicago (2 of the wealthiest cities). 2010 census found that unemployment rates for Asians were 7.5%, 12.5% for Hispanics and 16% for Blacks.	However, the number of minorities in employment is actually increasing greatly which has been aided by the creation of greater racial equality, such as through Affirmative Action. The number of African-Americans in white collar jobs is now over 70% compared to 15% in the 1970s.	Despite the situation improving, certain racial minority groups are the largest unemployed groups in the country and this has consequently resulted in huge wealth gaps between African American and white families, from $85k in 1984 to $236k in 2009, illustrating how it is getting worse as time goes on (The Roots of the Widening Racial Wealth Gap report by Brandeis University) another reason there is high unemployment is due to poor attainment in schools, which brings us to Affirmative Action.

Divisions within the Democratic and Republican Party

Republican Party
The 2012 primaries revealed huge divisions within the GOP. Mitt Romney ran for Presidency, he came off as a very moderate conservative in which the Tea Party slammed Romney as a ‘weak moderate candidate’ who was hand picked by the ‘mushy-middle’ GOP. Further candidates from different factions: Rick Santorum (social) and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul (Libertarians) ran for the primaries but made no significant gains, the fact that so many candidates from different factions were running emphasising the very fact that the GOP are not dominated by one faction but there are many conflicting ones seeking to gain control. 

With certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act set to expire soon, divisions have emerged among the Republicans on whether or not to renew the PATRIOT Act. Civil libertarians are at odds with traditional defence hawks who back tough spying measures to fight terror. The divisions have most prominently become evident on the PATRIOT Act in response to Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks which revealed the extent of mass surveillance operations conducted by the NSA involving collecting internet data from and tapping phones from millions of citizens. On one side we have Senator Marco Rubio who wants to reauthorize the law believes it to be necessary given the growing threat of global terror, particularly the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and al-Qaeda. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, however, have spoken against it saying that the PATRIOT Act infringes upon citizens right to privacy. Rand Paul said that the federal government and NSA want to trace every detail and aspect of peoples lives and use it to control people. Paul has also threatened to filibuster the expansion and renewal of the PATRIOT Act. John McCain, also in support of the PATRIOT Act believes it should be renewed, pointing to the ‘draw Mohammed’ competition whereby two Islamic extremists were gunned down, in order to prevent terrorism and especially homegrown extremism. .  Moreover, divisions are also clear on strategy on how to deal with ISIS. For instance, Rick Santorum wants to deploy 10,000 American troops in Iraq as part of a coalition with Arab nations to fight ISIS. Jeb Bush believes those troops would have been useful few years ago but today ground troops won’t help. Marco Rubio has adopted a tough stance, taking a line from Taken and saying “we will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you” and provide the most devastating air support available. Scott Walker and Rick Perry are in favour of a combat missions while Rand Paul only wants Arab boots on the ground.  

More divisions within the Republican Party have recently been evident from the recent stripping of a bill which allowed for young illegal immigrants to serve in the United States military. The divisions have come from GOP members of Congress who are anti-immigration and GOP members who represent districts with large Hispanic populations. The bill was defeated by a 221-202 vote. In total 20 Republicans sided with the Democrats in opposing the amendment to the bill which came from Mo Brooks (Senator from Alabama). This isn’t the first time divisions have emerged within the GOP over immigration, earlier ones date back to the Gang of 8 Bill which was a bipartisan bill which was introduced by Republicans and Democrats, proposing a path to citizenship. Republicans have called the party to soften its tone on immigration to make it a more competitive force in elections with 56% of Republicans saying their party is not doing a good job on immigration. When Democrat Hilary Clinton discussed her stance on immigration (seeking comprehensive reform, path to citizenship, etc) several Republicans such as Scott Walker and Ted Cruz spoke out against it while Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio made no comments.  

As a polarising force in Washington, the Tea Party Movement has caused major divisions within the Republican Party. The Tea Party have been targeting and scrutinizing Republicans who they don’t seem fit, such as John Boehner whom they have criticised as being a ‘leader without followers’ and being too moderate. The Tea Party have been winning seats from key Republican figures such as Eric Cantor (former House Majority leader in 2014) who was defeated by Tea Party challenger Dave Brat. 

There's also obvious divisions with attitudes towards social issues such as the death penalty, gay marriage and abortion. The Christian Right or, social conservatives have lost the battle against gay marriage as illustrated by US v. Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, more Republicans are becoming increasingly more tolerant of gay marriage. For instance, Jeb Bush has spoken out in support of gay marriage and Ted Cruz although he opposes it, said he will still love his daughter if she were gay. Marco Rubio, in response to the Obergefell v. Hodges case has argued that it is ridiculous to assume that gay marriage is a right provided by the constitution and has remained in stark opposition to gay marriage. Also, divisions have emerged at state level in Nebraska with fiscal and social conservatives along with Libertarians from the Republicans seeking to ban capital punishment. 17 Republicans in the Nebraska House legislature advocated for passage of an abolition bill, the bill passed its first hurdle with a 30 to 12 vote in favour of abolishing the death penalty, however more conservative Republicans are threatening to filibuster and the governor (Pete Ricketts) is threatening to a veto. 

Democratic Party

Most recent development in divisions within the Democrats comes from Senate Democrats blocking a bill granting Obama 'fast track authority' he needs to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement which would include 12 countries representing about 40% of the world economy. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has become de facto Democrat leader in the Senate, opposed the bill because she believes Obama cannot be trusted to make a deal in the interests of American workers as previous trade pacts have not effectively enforced existing labor standards. The 52-45 vote was a sign of bitter divisions within the party over the economy. Democrats have been long suspicious of trade deals blaming them for job losses and lax enforcement. Harry Reid also sided with Warren. Right now, all Obama can do is pretty much hope that Republicans deliver the vote given the fact they agree with the president on trade and almost every 2016 presidential candidate, except Mike Huckabee, supports TPP. Republican leaders in Congress and corporate lobby groups, particularly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support giving the President fast track authority while most congressional Democrats, along with Labour unions, environmental groups and advocates of Internet freedom oppose it.


 TO BE UPDATED...
Last edited 26/05/2015