Presidential Power in Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Name of the Student] [Name of the Professor] [Name of the Course] [Date] Presidential Power in Foreign Policy Introduction The President of the United States has been exercising unilateral war powers. The US constitution had never intended to accord wide ranging powers to the president, with respect to conducting wars. However, the presidents have been undertaking unilateral decisions, in this context. The following discussion substantiates this contention. Presidents have two options for promoting their policies. One of these involves the submission of proposals to Congress. After this the members of Congress have to make these bills laws. The other option is to exercise their unilateral powers. Under the latter option, the president can formulate the policies he desires, by issuing executive order, executive arrangements, memoranda, national security directives, or proclamations. He can do this without the formal authorization of Congress[How05]. However, the president should be in a position to justify his unilateral action. This justification could be based on an amalgam of constitutional, treaty, or statutory powers. In the absence of such justification the president has to take recourse to legislation. Article II of the Constitution is ambiguous, there is a veritable plethora of law that the president can resort to, and the legislative process is fraught with inordinate delays and unexpected reversals. These realities make it very attractive to resort to the unilateral powers[How05]. The objective of the US Constitution is to protect individual rights and freedoms. This aim is achieved by means of the express and implied powers. A destabilization of the Constitution takes place due to the claims of the open ended authorities, which can neither be limited, located, nor described. It has been contended that if the functioning of the president is founded on the inherent power provided by Article II, then Congress cannot make legislation that curbs his powers. The powers derived under Statute are essentially inferior to the powers provided by the Constitution. This argument is defective for several reasons[Fis09]. A statement by the president that his actions are justified by the inherent powers drawn from Article II, is merely an assertion or claim. Such assertions and claims do not have any effect on the power of Congress to take legislative initiatives. This is also true with regard to the judiciary. Even if the president were to claim the existence of powers under Article II, Congress could make legislation, as per the provisions of Article I. As such, constitutional authority is not justified by the ipse dixits or unsupported assertions of the president. This extends to the ipse dixits of the judiciary and Congress. When one of the branches claims a power, the other two branches should not accept it[Fis09]. Otherwise, the system of checks and balances in place will be destroyed. The framers of the Constitution had no intention to provide the president with extensive powers in the area of foreign affairs, especially with regard to waging wars. All the same, several of the presidents have taken unilateral decisions, whereby the nation has been committed to war. The first major engagement, in which the president involved the nation in a war, without seeking the authorization of Congress, is the Korean War. The US became involved in this war, in response to the UN Security Council’s instruction to the member states to oppose the aggression of North Korea. President Truman declared war in a unilateral manner, and this proved to be a crucial blow to the power of Congress to declare war. With regard to the intervention in Vietnam, Congress was involved perfunctorily, and there was no declaration of war[Car10]. Body The scholastic literature tends to depict executive power as being distinguished with persuasiveness. This is in direct contrast with the popular image of presidents conducting war on terrorism, reconstructing federal bureaucracy, or revising the civil rights policies, on their own initiative. Bush had conducted a secret and effective war against the Islamic terrorists, who had attacked the US and its interests. In this endeavor, he ruthlessly withdrew from international treaties, if they were inimical to his policy objectives[How05]. To his credit, Bush did not wait to see whether the various committees had introduced appropriate legislation to authorize his unilateral decisions. It was his practice to take whatever action that he deemed fit, and he was least concerned about the action that his adversaries could possible take. Bush was seized with neutralizing criticism from Congress, and was least interested in obtaining its consent or support. He desired an incompetent and indolent opponent and not a cooperative ally, when it came to the unilateral action that he frequently undertook[How05]. Bush and his recent precursors had taken unilateral action, which is far removed from executive power that lays stress on dependence and weakness, and considers persuasion to be the only option available to the president. When a president undertakes unilateral action, policy is implemented and this requires Congress and the judiciary to revise drastic political change. In case, Congress or the judiciary does not pass a law or a ruling against such unilateral action, then the order issued by the president remains in force. In the absence of definite action by the Congress or judiciary, there will be no limiting of the unilateral powers of the president[How05]. Furthermore, when there is unilateral action by the president, this is at his own initiative, and he stands alone. The president relies upon several advisers, while arriving at the policy, in order to prevent judicial or congressional initiatives to defeat it, and to ensure its proper implementation. However, it is essential to understand that the president is under no compulsion to convince others, arrive at a compromise with his adversaries, or delay his actions till the courts rule in a case brought by interest groups against his proposed action. He can take independent action and this is an incontrovertible fact. This perhaps, underlies the enormous power of the US President, and goes a long way towards ensuring that the US remains the sole superpower of the world[How05]. Moreover, President Johnson ensured the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, by making false claims. Thereafter, he took the unilateral decision to commit hundreds of thousands of American troops. President Reagan was another such unilateral decision maker. He deployed American troops to Grenada, with the express objective of deposing the established government in that place. This blatant act of aggression did not have the sanction of Congress, which was neither sought nor deemed necessary by Reagan[Car10]. Furthermore, not to be outdone, Reagan’s successor, George HW Bush, acted unilaterally and deposed the government in Panama. In the year 1991, he deployed US troops to Saudi Arabia, in order to repulse Saddam Hussein’s forces in Kuwait. Again there was no reference to Congress. This was the great first Bush, who even went to the extent of declaring that there was necessity to seek congressional authorization, prior to committing the nation to war[Car10]. Afterwards, this legacy was continued by President Bill Clinton, who firmly believed that the Constitution did not require him to seek the approval of Congress for waging war. Accordingly, he unilaterally decided to send 20,000 troops to invade a nation that posed no threat to the security of the nation. Thereafter, in the year 1994, Clinton ordered aerial bombardment of Bosnia. Subsequently, in the year 1995, he commanded the US troops posted there to enforce a peacekeeping agreement. None of these initiatives had been authorized by Congress[Car10]. The second Bush unleashed a war against Iraq, in the absence of congressional approval. This was a war that had been entirely based on false information. Bush and his senior administration officials lied to the nation and commenced this war. With 9/11, the second Bush was provided with a tremendous opportunity to assume several critical powers. He did so with alacrity and in a unilateral manner. In this process, Bush made preparations for secret funding of military projects in the nations of Persian Gulf nations of Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. These were aimed at conquering Iraq, and had no other objective. This so called preventive war, was launched by Bush, regardless of the objections of Congress and the United Nations[Car10]. Subsequent to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US has ignored the checks and balances provided in its Constitution. This compromising of the Constitution is chiefly attributable to the executive branch. However, such a situation cannot persist, in the absence of a compliant Congress and judiciary[Fis09]. On several occasions, the federal courts have upheld the delegation of legislative power to the president. This has been conspicuous in the area of international affairs. Such support has also been extended to the inherent and independent presidential power in foreign policy. Such power has been regarded by quite a few members of the judiciary to be an exclusive feature. All the same, the Supreme Court has not precluded Congress from foraying into the field and modifying or setting aside presidential decisions in foreign affairs and national security[Fis09]. In Talbot v Seeman, during the naval conflict between France and America, a Hamburg merchant ship had been captured by the French. This was recaptured by Talbot, the captain of an American warship. Talbot claimed salvage payment, which the ship owners resisted. The US Supreme Court held that as Talbot had rescued the ship from the French, the Hamburg owners had to make the salvage payment. The US Constitution has bested the entire body of powers that pertain to war with Congress. Hence, the acts of Congress provide the sole guidance in such disputes[Sil01]. Little v Barreme was a case, in which the US Supreme Court determined that the US President did not enjoy inherent powers or inherent authority, which permitted him to ignore laws enacted by the US Congress[Geo04]. However, there is a tremendous imbalance of information between the executive and the legislature, which is invariably towards the executive. This is another advantage that the president derives, in addition to possessing unilateral powers. For instance, any development in the international arena, comes to the knowledge of the president first. He is provided with access to the latest and most accurate information regarding any event. By virtue of his office, the president’s evaluation of the merits or otherwise of any action tends to be the best[How11]. The president obtains firsthand information from a gigantic network of national security advisors, a huge intelligence community, diplomats and ambassadors, who are to be found all over the world. Such support has not been provided to Congress. In the main the members of Congress have to rely on the information provided by the president and his administration, with regard to foreign policy issues. In case the president is averse to providing Congress with the entire information available on some issue, its members will be placed in difficult straits[How11]. Moreover, the US President Barack Obama initiated action against the government of Libya, which was deemed to have infringed the provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the US Constitution. Moreover, he had exceed his authority by promising US combat support to NATO and the UN Security Council for military interventions in Libya. Congress was an accomplice to these violations, as it had failed to demand of the president that he should comply with the constitutional provisions and with the public law. With this, Congress has failed to discharge its constitutional duty, with regard to war powers[Fin11]. The 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted in the aftermath of the debacle in Vietnam. While enacting this resolution, Congress made it very clear that this war had not been authorized by it, and that the action of President Nixon was in gross violation of the constitutional war powers. At the time of that enactment, Congress had the express objective of preventing unauthorized wars by presidents. Nixon made all possible efforts to defeat this resolution, but had to finally concede defeat. Subsequently, the presidents Ford and Carter did not violate the War Powers Resolution[Fin11]. All this has changed in the recent years, and there is scant regard for this resolution. The War Powers Resolution makes it obligatory for reports to be submitted by the president’s office, to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such reports have to be submitted, whenever, US forces in significant numbers are deployed into hostile areas. This has to be done within 24 hours of the deployment. Furthermore, such reports have to provide information regarding the reasons behind taking the decision, committing of the military forces, and the time for which the war measures could be expected to last[Fin11]. In addition, the War Powers Resolution contains a constitutional method for rescinding any such decision taken by the president. A concurrent resolution of disapproval can be introduced by any member of Congress to challenge a war measure taken by the president. On being accorded the approval of the House and the Senate, the War Powers Resolution stipulates that the president has to retract his war decision. Moreover, this resolution permits expedited parliamentary procedures, whenever such a disapproval resolution is introduced in Congress[Fin11]. The military intervention in Libya, clearly indicated that Obama had a casual attitude towards the War Powers Resolution. In fact, he informed Congress, five days after the assault, and not within 24 hours, as required under this resolution. However, it should be noted that this was a very quick response; because it has become the practice to make such response once in six months[Fin11]. Foreign negotiations are such that they have to be accompanied by secrecy and caution. However, on being concluded, there should be a complete disclosure regarding the measures adopted, demands made, and the concessions proposed or conceded. In the absence of such disclosure, there could be an undesirable impact on future negotiations. In order to ensure such secrecy and caution, the office of the President had been vested with the power to make treaties[Uni36]. However, such treaties have to be made under the advice and consent of the Senate. This was the gist of the ruling of the US Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss – Wright Export Corporation et al. This ruling has been cited by the executive branch, whenever its actions in foreign affairs, in the absence of congressional authorization, have been questioned[Uni36]. During times of crisis, when an emergency transpires, and the executive officers do not have the opportunity to seek the authority of the legislature, then the executive can adopt measures for ensuring the public good. This course of action is termed the Lockean prerogative, after John Locke. Subsequently, a better system came to the fore, and this was more secular and constitutional. As a result, unilateral presidential measures adopted during extraordinary crises, have to be quickly followed by action that is taken by the entire Congress[Fis09]. Executive prerogative has been made subject to the following conditions, in order to maintain the constitutional order. The president has to concede that the emergency actions are neither legal nor constitutional. He has to address the legislative branch, describe the motives behind such action, and ask it to ratify these actions, by passing a suitable bill[Fis09]. Conclusion In accordance with the above discussion, it can be surmised that the US presidents have been exercising unilateral war powers, by violating the War Powers Resolution. They have accorded the least importance to the constitutional procedures to be followed, while taking unilateral decisions. In most of the cases, Congress does not have sufficient information to object to the unilateral action being taken by the president. This places them in the unenviable position of having to make queries regarding the costs of the unilateral action to be taken by the president, and the number of human lives that could be lost in the campaign. All that the Congress can do under these circumstances is to indulge in criticism against the president for having failed to inform the public about his unilateral action. As such Congress has failed to fulfill its duty towards the war powers. The US president has been exercising unilateral war powers in an unconstitutional manner. Works Cited How05: , (Howell 417), Fis09: , (Fisher 350), Car10: , (Carey 10), How05: , (Howell 421), Car10: , (Carey 11), Car10: , (Carey 12), Fis09: , (Fisher 348), Fis09: , (Fisher 352), Sil01: , (Silas Talbot v Hans Frederick Seeman), Geo04: , (George Little, et al v Barreme, et al), How11: , (Howell and Pevenhouse 9), Fin11: , (Findley 13), Uni36: , (United States v Curtiss – Wright Export Corp), Read More