What power does the President have over Congress in Foreign Policy--Why has it always been that way?

Question

No, this is a question I asked my AP Gov't teacher but he failed to even answer it sufficiently

Answer 1

In our system, the Presidency is intended to operate as "the sole organ" of the government as far as the outside world is concerned. The "sole organ theory" was actually articulated on the floors of Congress, in the House of Representatives during the 1790s by an up-and-coming Congressman named John Marshall (later Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). It is yet another foundation-stone of American legal doctrine that we got from John Marshall, and the idea has become a part of Constitutional law. With respect to foreign affairs, the President is given very broad independence from Congress, particularly in circumstances that require great secrecy or immediate action, or where the activity is entirely outside of US territory. This was one of the "fixes" in the Constitution that repaired a real problem in the Articles of Confederation. Congress has authority to pass laws that implement foreign policy, but those laws must be passed with the President's approval or over his veto. The Senate may reject the President's appointments to positions like ambassador or consul, and that body is also the only power that can ratify a treaty (as Woodrow Wilson learned the hard way). The House may exercise, as always, its power over the budget process to try to get its way in foreign policy, but its authority is otherwise pretty limited. The Supreme Court has typically taken the position that: (1) the Constitution designed the Presidency to have a primary foreign affairs function, (2) the President was elected by the people, and (3) therefore, the answer to objectionable conduct by the President in foreign policy is in the voting booth, not in the courtroom. On that basis, it has upheld some pretty broad authority, including the detention of Japanese-Americans and their American children during World War Two on the basis of a Presidential order -- a case that has never been specifically overruled. (Korematsu, in case you're researching.)

The leading authority on the President's ability to implement foreign policy by domestic actions is the Youngstown Steel case, in which Truman tried to seize some steel mills (if I recall rightly) at the onset of the Korean War, trying to ensure the Army had the supplies it needed. The Court laid it out like this: where Congress has set specific rules (as in the FISA matter), the President's authority is "at its lowest ebb"; where Congress has not decided to set guidelines, the President has very broad discretion to do as he (or someday she?) sees fit. (In that case, Congress had made rules, so the President lost the argument.)

If you really want to go nuts, you could look up cases like Korematsu (Japanese-American internment camps), Youngstown Steel (Truman and the steel mills), the Prize Cases (Abe Lincoln ad libbing the Civil War), and the recent Hamadan decision (on Bush's handling of terrorist detainees).

Answer 2

It was not always that way. This changed in the 60's, when a move was made to make the President the one who called foreign policy, taking the power out of the hands of Congress perminantly. This gives the President entirely too much power, in my humble opinion, but our votes dont count anymore, since the government has pretty much made sure that it doesnt matter what we want. THey control the machines that count the votes that we cast. These machines can be "Turned Over", meaning the votes for and against can be switched, thereby making sure the government can do what it damn well pleases, claiming it is the will of the people. The electoral college can also change the votes of the people if the electorates can be convinced that it is in the peoples best interest, or can even be paid off for changing the votes, which is not illegal. There was one person who was paid off, and was filmed on camera taking the payoff. When confronted by the media on this, she pretty much said it wasnt illegal, and that she would do it again, given half the chance
I believe in one man, one vote. Why have an electoral college when it can be bought off, when there are computers which can basically keep track of each and every citizens vote? So that the politicians can control who gets in office, despite the will of the people. The word were "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" but somewhere along the line, people have been convinced that We work for the Government, when the Constitution says the Government works for us. Those who say you cant fight city hall are the ones who work for city hall. Wake up, people! It's time we took Our country back from Corporate america, and return it to whom it belongs, THE PEOPLE!

Answer 3

2

Answer 4

Actually, very little. The president may have a little more inside information regarding foreign personal endeavors, but not much more. The congress agrees with the President on the mission in Iraq to help stem Iran's ambitions, but can't talk publicly about it. But, that don't stop democrats from saying it's a failure in a desperate attempt to gain some power this november.

Answer 5

the president has no power "over congress" in foreign policy

the president is the head of the executive branch of government meaning he is responsible for carrying out and "executing" and enforcing the law

the executive branch has the responsibility to act in matters of foriegn policy but not in matters of treaty, and the president is the commander and chief of the army (you can't have an army commanded by committee or by a huge committee called congress, that would never work)

foriegn policy is the purvue of congress, that is policy, foreign action is the purvue of the president and the executive branch of government

it has always been this way because of the constitution of the united states of america which set up the division of power between the three branches of government

Answer 6

Well, Jefferson illegally purchased the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. There was no Congressional oversight. And Jackson invaded Florida without declaring war on Spain. I could be wrong, but I believe Jimmy Polk invaded California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico City without declaring war on Mexico. James Monroe declared the entire Western Hemisphere off limits for any European power.

Answer 7

You're talking about shared consitutional powers.

And from the phrasing, sounds like a homework assignment.
Read Article I Section 8 and Article II Sections 2-3.