Chapter 5: The President & Foreign Policy

5.1: Constitutional Power in Foreign Policy
  • The constitutional authority over war, in armed conflict as well as in foreign policy more generally is in Article II of the constitution.
    • Commander in Chief Clause
      • President shall be the chief of the army, navy, and the militia of the US
      • It is this clause that presidents especially after WWII have used to use force around the world without Congressional Declaration of war
  • Constitution also gives President Power to create treaties with that advise of the senate and to appoint ambassadors
  • Constitution also gives President Board Executive powers which have been used to include predominance over foreign policy
  • Any Powers that reside in a branch not directly given from the constitution lies with the president, due to its executive powers
  • Checks and Balances limits over power of one branch's actions on Foreign Policy 
  • Senate needs 2/3's majority for a treaty by the President
  • Congress is given 2 specific powers
    • Power to Declare War
    • Power to Raise & Support Armies
  • If congress is all together about a certain issue it also has the "power of the purse" and can be defend the military or military operation
    • President can counter defunding 
5.2: Politics in the US Foregin Policy Bureaucracy, I
  • Competition between branches many sway foreign policy
  • Executive Branch Executes Foreign Policies
    • Decisions of how to implement the policy, thus they have the ability to alter the policy itself 
  • National Security Council, have huge role in coordinating all executive branch agencies in all Foreign Policy
    • Within the White House, made under Truman to wage Cold War
    • Coordination is when bureaucracies communicate with each other, share information and do not work at cross purpose
    • Example of Bad Coordination:
      • Saddam Hussein got mixed messages in run up to 1st Persian Gulf War, Saddam was under the impression that the US might stand aside if he invaded Kuwait
5.3: Politics in US Foreign Policy Bureaucracy, II
  • Sometimes Different Policy Heads may have different foreign policy goals
    • These people compete for power against the president
    • National Security Adviser must manage this process
  • Example of how this conflict can have real consequences
    • Iraq, Collin Powell, and Dick Chaney over decision to go to war with Iraq
      • Powell wanted War, lost support though
    • "Neo-conservatism"
      • Everyone has desires for freedom and democracy
      • Defense department were firm believers of this, and made them think transfer of power would be smooth, led to under investing in basic security services, Iraqis did not like power transition
    • Air Force vs. Army
      • Air Force argued more resources to shift resource away from other branches to the Air Force, in which this increase in resources would lead to more power
5.4: War and Expansion of Presidential Authority
  • Conventional Wisdom is that war expands presidential authority! Can be used to decrease congressional power
  • President can enact policies closer to his preferences, can even get more of what they want in domestic politics
  • Why does congress cede its power to declare war and potentially limit capability in the long run to check presidential authority on key issues associated with national security
  • Howel Jackman & Ragawisky provide interesting answer in understanding responses with 9/11
    • Also explains why when Obama was about to declare war on ISIS congress allowed it to happen without resistance
    • Importance of Constituents:
      • Generate different composition of societal interests
      • President Larger Constituents
      • Congress narrower, societal interests can be concentrated 
    • Congress has national & district interests, so these compete
    • Congressional officials care more about policy when there is a national crisis, thus move towards presidential policy since he has the information that officials briefing him tell him and so officials are worried they might be wrong
5.5: Discussion: Golen- Vilella on AUMF
  • 2001 Congress approved AUMF to allow strikes against Al Queda in Afghanistan [still in affect]
  • Golen-Vilella believes that this has allowed the war on terrorism to grow indefinitely beyond what was envisioned in 2001
  • 2014 AUMF by Obama against ISIS, used the 2001 AUMF to support its use
  • Golen-Viella argues that the 2002 AUMF should be repealed, president declared war over in 2011 so the law and its jurisdiction are no longer relevant
    • Congress should revisit the 2001 AUMF since the law is too vague and gives the executive branch too much authority indefinitely in waging war against enemies 
  • Current reliance on president on the 2001 AUMF is undermining the democratic process
  • Congress is reluctant to not cede power so that they don't worry about being wrong
  • Obama tries to make Congress a greater stakeholder in decisions and not simply blame others later
5.6: Discussion of Goldier & Sauners Reading
  • There are 3 constraints on presidential authority in foreign policy since Cold War
    • Congress, Bureaucracy, Allies
  • Polarization refers to increased ideological and policy distances that new separates the average democratic political official
    • Undermining the ability of congress to eat conclusively as a check on executive power
  • Party loyalty means members of the president's party supports the president, while members of the opposing party automatically go about blocking any 
5.7: Executive Orders
  • Courts can overthrow executive order only if it is unconstitutional 
  • Presidents can destroy executive orders by enacting new orders on top of old ones