To what extent do Presidents control foreign policy?
Constitutional powers:
For:
• Commander in Chief (Article 2 Section 2)
• Power to make executive agreements and negotiate treaties
• Numerous Presidents have declared war through bypassing Congress:
o JFK and the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam
o Nixon with Cambodia and Laos
o Obama and Libya
• President makes the final decision:
o September 2002, Congress passed a provision that urged the President to move the
US Embassy to Jerusalem, thus accepting it as a sovereign ally – Bush and Obama
however have both ignored it, showing that Congress remains advisory and has to
persuade, not make decisions; the same case was taken to the D.C. Circuit in 2009,
but was rejected, stating “the President exclusively holds the power to determine
whether to recognise a foreign sovereign”
Against:
• Congressional checks on power:
o Power of the Purse
o Power to declare war
o Power to reject appointments
• Barrett (1990) calls it a “congressional government”, stating that “President plays a key
role in foreign policy, but is mostly deferential to the will of Congress”
• Also, the Constitution is vague and ambiguous:
o The separation of powers has created an “invitation to struggle over the making of
foreign policy” (Barrett, 2009)
o This means that “nowhere in the Constitution is there unambiguous guidance as to
which branch of government has the final authority to conduct external relations”
(Tower, 1981)
However:
• Despite this ambiguity, Tower (1981) argues that for reasons of “practical necessity” and
“bureaucratic efficiency”, foreign policy is better under the President’s authority
• Mitchell (2005) concurs, stating that Congress – due to its organisational structure – is
ill-suited to making swift, ad-hoc decisions decisively, and that this should be left with
the President
The President has becoming increasingly powerful over time with foreign
policy:
For:
• The NSA and NSC were set up in the late 1940s with the purpose of coordinating all
aspects of national security – Barrett (1990) argues that as their offices are closer to the
President’s, and their advisors are closer too, means that the size of the executive has
increased in dealings with foreign policy
o The increased size of the NSA and NSC have “drawn power away from the State
and Defence departments” (Dobson, 2006), and subsequently Congress
• Schlesinger’s ‘imperial presidency’ – the power of the President in dealings with foreign
policy has increased over time, but this is mainly due to Congress deferring powers:
Constitutional powers:
For:
• Commander in Chief (Article 2 Section 2)
• Power to make executive agreements and negotiate treaties
• Numerous Presidents have declared war through bypassing Congress:
o JFK and the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam
o Nixon with Cambodia and Laos
o Obama and Libya
• President makes the final decision:
o September 2002, Congress passed a provision that urged the President to move the
US Embassy to Jerusalem, thus accepting it as a sovereign ally – Bush and Obama
however have both ignored it, showing that Congress remains advisory and has to
persuade, not make decisions; the same case was taken to the D.C. Circuit in 2009,
but was rejected, stating “the President exclusively holds the power to determine
whether to recognise a foreign sovereign”
Against:
• Congressional checks on power:
o Power of the Purse
o Power to declare war
o Power to reject appointments
• Barrett (1990) calls it a “congressional government”, stating that “President plays a key
role in foreign policy, but is mostly deferential to the will of Congress”
• Also, the Constitution is vague and ambiguous:
o The separation of powers has created an “invitation to struggle over the making of
foreign policy” (Barrett, 2009)
o This means that “nowhere in the Constitution is there unambiguous guidance as to
which branch of government has the final authority to conduct external relations”
(Tower, 1981)
However:
• Despite this ambiguity, Tower (1981) argues that for reasons of “practical necessity” and
“bureaucratic efficiency”, foreign policy is better under the President’s authority
• Mitchell (2005) concurs, stating that Congress – due to its organisational structure – is
ill-suited to making swift, ad-hoc decisions decisively, and that this should be left with
the President
The President has becoming increasingly powerful over time with foreign
policy:
For:
• The NSA and NSC were set up in the late 1940s with the purpose of coordinating all
aspects of national security – Barrett (1990) argues that as their offices are closer to the
President’s, and their advisors are closer too, means that the size of the executive has
increased in dealings with foreign policy
o The increased size of the NSA and NSC have “drawn power away from the State
and Defence departments” (Dobson, 2006), and subsequently Congress
• Schlesinger’s ‘imperial presidency’ – the power of the President in dealings with foreign
policy has increased over time, but this is mainly due to Congress deferring powers:
