RESEARCH PAPER. Presidential Leadership in Foreign Policy-Making

Presidential Leadership in Foreign Policy Making
Name:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date:
Introduction
The US President’s powers include those clearly stated by Article II of the Constitution and Acts of Congress. Also, he has implied and soft powers that are linked to the position of presidency. Constitutionally, the president can receive ambassadors, give pardons and reprieves, start or end Congress, request for Cabinet’s written opinion, command the armed forces and sign or veto legislation.
The president has the responsibility of making sure the laws are faithfully implemented and can appoint as well as remove executive members. The president can further make treaties that need only be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. Additionally, he or she is given foreign functions that are not given to House of Representatives. With this power, the president can direct the creation and communication of foreign policy as well as control the country’s diplomatic corps. Lastly, the president can appoint some officers and judges depending on the Senate’s advice and consent. Therefore, this paper shall present the role of the president in foreign policy matters.
Presidential Leadership in Foreign Policy Making
In fear of the centralization of powers, the makers of the Constitution divided the government’s powers among the three branches; judicial, executive and legislative. Each branch receives its powers from the Constitution whereby article III forms the judiciary, Article II forms the executive and Article I form the legislature. In Article II, express provisions give the president powers that are concerned with foreign associations. The president can create treaties dependent of the Senate, appoint and receive ministers and ambassadors, and command the armed forces. 
A president’s unilateral action is restricted by the constitution but is exceptional in the receivership of public ministers and ambassadors. When appointing ambassadors and making treaties, the president is required to seek advice and consent of the senate. This restriction may imply that the president and the senate consult through the treaty making procedure. However, starting Washington’s administration, presidents have declined to seek advice and consent of the senate during treaties.
The senate’s consultation is a real and powerful restriction of the President’s powers. The senate can use this requirement to put reservations on the president to reject or approve a treaty immediately. However, the presidential power with regards to treaties stays wide though restricted by the senate. This means treaties are made by the senate and the president together but only the president can continue of suspend their activities.
The treaty process which has a requirement of senate’s consent, is always replaced with the executive agreement. The origination of the executive agreements may be questioned, but after being accepted following years, the agreements have become common. However, the president’s powers with regards to these executive agreements is restricted since most of them rely on congress’ support.
Diplomatically, international agreements depend on the president’s negotiation powers. The constitution empowers the president to appoint public ministers and ambassadors. This power grows the presidential control of foreign policy. With regards to treaties, the main restriction on presidential power of appointment is the constitution’s requirement for senate’s advice and consent. Practically, the senate rarely rejects the president’s diplomatic decisions.
The president can appoint US ambassadors and can also receive other countries’ ambassadors. Having this power, the president can acknowledge emerging governments without seeking consultation from Congress. However, Congress can pass resolutions or hold appropriations to implement its decisions.
The exercising of powers is expressly wider compared to the Constitution’s express provisions especially in the military control area. The president is the assigned Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but he lacks the war making powers based on the Constitution. In place, the constitution gives congress these powers.
The September 11 terrorist attack led to a subsequent War that saw the US and its allies invade Iraq owing to its alleged promotion of terrorism as well as possession of mass destruction weapons. The invasion was the first phase of the Iraq war after congress and the president agreed on it. It started in March and remained for more than one month, including 20 days of combat operations whereby forces from the US, UK, Australia as well as Poland attacked Iraq. The war resulted from the president’s initiation of military matters. It was until May 2003 that the war ended when president Bush terminated the combat operations.
Though war making powers are directed to Congress by the constitution, the president has always initiated military matters without seeking advice and consent from Congress. He can draw these powers from the Commander-in-Chief clause to integrate these measures. The nature of the Commander-in-Chief clause is not expressly defined by the courts. The creators made the clause to see the president as the head in general. Based on their perspective, the president would execute policies established by Congress based on its constitutional powers. Owing to the exigencies war, the courts allow the president to utilize the Commander in-Chief clause to draw power and have not limited the president to the creator’s perspective. Presidents can utilize their visible positions in foreign affairs in a manner that makes wars unavoidable thereby leaving Congress without actual discretion in deciding whether a war should be declared.
The separation of powers as envisioned by the creators has not been kept by the constitution’s express provisions. The president’s real power with regards to foreign affairs is very wide compared to a limited interpretation of Article II provisions. However, the constitution’s provisions offer restrictions on the president’s power and limit the president from becoming authoritarian as feared by the creators. However, the senate and the president always dispute on foreign policy, especially when the president has a different party compared to the leadership of the Congress. For instance, military operations have always sparked differences between the senate and the president. This is because war powers are spread among the two. War can only be declared by congress, but the presidents have often ordered the US forces into war without seeking advice and consent from congress. Whereas there exists an overall ag...