Past paper questions

Although the constitutional power to declare war belongs to Congress, in reality the President controls foreign policy when concerning war

partially explained by need for secrecy and speed

official commander in chief of army and navy

Nixon invaded Cambodia in 1970 and waited two days before telling Congress

Obama’s drone strikes in Libya, Clinton’s actions in Iraq, Bush in Panama and Somalia have all been done without an official declaration of war

BUT

Congress have financial influence e.g. removing funding from Nixon in 1974 and 1976 (powers of the purse)

there have (especially after Nixon) been some attempts to limit the war powers of the President — War powers resolution 1973 introduced, reassertion of the need for congressional approval

But no President since Wilson has ever had their request denied, in practice war still remains entirely in the President’s hands

Treaties are an area of policy that Congress initially appear to have some influence over

requires the consent of 2/3 of the senate to make a treaty, not only needs support but often bi-partisan support

congressional-executive agreements have also been made e.g. NAFTA

BUT

whilst this should theoretically limit the power of the presdient, or at least encourage cooperation between the branches regarding foreign powers, it has little practical effect

the power of executive agreements, treaties in all but name, have been increasingly used

before 1940, the senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had signed around 1,200 executive agreements but after WWII and in the cold war, 800 treaties were signed whilst 13,000 executive agreements were made

there is significantly more use of executive agreements, and they require no senate interference e.g. Iran Nuclear Deal, Paris Climate Agreement

Another way the President has power over foreign policy, and over Congress, is through their symbolic status as the figurehead of the US. Unlike Congress, which is made up of 535 people, the President is a singular and internationally recognised figure

Symbolic power e.g. Bush recognising Kosovo as a nation in 2008

Seen as chief commander of the US and its foreign policy

Also have head of state powers such as setting foreign policy directive (e.g. Obama’s rose garden speech addressing Syria 2013

BUT

powers can still be limited, especially financially e.g. senate refusing to pass Biden’s Israel and Ukraine financial aid

also notable figures in Congress can rival the President’s status as the figurehead e.g. Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan in 2022 after Biden said not to

imperial presidency is most visible in the President’s expansive and dominating foreign powers

Power to go to war technically belongs to Congress but is exercised in effect by the President

e.g. Nixon invading Cambodia in 1970, no president ever stopped from going to war since Wilson, significant war powers

also have foreign diplomatic powers e.g. recognising nations (like Bush in Kosovo 2008)

BUT

Congress do have some powers to limit this

e.g. powers of the purse used against

while Presidents tend to be imperial in foreign policy, there are far more limitations to their imperial power concerning domestic policy. For example, while Obama was able to enact the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal with ease and without congressional support, domestically he was prevented from carrying out any of his proposed immigration reform

stopped from closing guantanamo bay in 2009

Bush couldn’t pass his healthcare bill

furthermore, congress control funding for executive projects via appropriation bills

BUT

the unique powers of the president such as the veto undermine congressional limits on their power and increase their imperial nature

President can veto legislation they don’t like e.g. Obama and Bush used veto 12 times, since 1789 only 7.1% of vetoes have been overridden

power of the veto is amplified because a supermajority is needed to overturn it, and with increasingly divided governments thats hard to achieve (whereas the president is a singular individual)

furthered by powers such as executive orders etc

arguably the greatest limit on the imperial power of the president stems from the supreme court

if it is deemed unconstitutional, SC can strike down legislation e.g. DREAM act 2010, US vs Nixon 1974, fundamentally undermine presidential sovereignty and nothing the president can really do in response

BUT

the role of the president in appointing justices minimises the threat they pose to the imperial presidency

e.g. Trump able to appoint 3 republican justices, created a 6-3 split, now 30% decisions are 6-3 split and tend to favour republican beliefs

the judiciary has also expanded the imperial presidency in its rulings e.g. Trump vs Hawaii — ruling that the travel ban was constitutional hugely expanded presidential power, contributing to the imperial presidenct

as both EXOP and members of the cabinet tend to be policy specialists, their advice can be extremely influential and thus have significant influence

e.g. Tim Geithner, appointed under Obama, was an economic specialist appointed to the treasury

BUT

people appointed are not always policy specialists, and some have been widely criticised and undermined, undermining the role of EXOP or the cabinet

for example, trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon (his campaign strategist) to the national security council was heavil criticised

similarly, Michael Flynn who promoted conspiracy theories only retained his position for 22 days

if the President wants to rely on EXOP/the cabinet, they can be hugely influential

committees can play a vital role checking the power of the President and applying scrutiny to their work

the president’s actual legislative power is limited and relies on congress, effective check of his power

e.g. Obama struggled to pass immigration reform legislation

vetoes can be overridden e.g. 4 of Bush’s 12 vetoes were overridden

BUT

in practice these limits are actually weak

Reagan used the veto 78 times, only 7.1% of vetoes ever overridden

hevay use of executive orders e.g. Trump 220

As the President lacks the power to initiate legislation, he relies entirely onn persuading congress to carry out his legislative agenda

Importance of the state of the union address

Bush and No child left behind

Lyndon B Johnson famous examples

BUT

can also circumvent the need for congress through executive powers

e.g. executive orders in foreign policy

Obama, Bush and Clinton all failed to get congressional approval for their foreign policy military actions, didn’t need to use this persuasion because of their powers

persuasion can be especially important because Congress have a separate mandate

the president cannot just rely on his party in Congress to vote accordingly

e.g. Joe Manchin causing several key bills to fail as a blue dog democrat

39 democrats voting against ACA

the President has to use persuasion and encourage cooperation in order to successfully pass their agenda

BUT

increasingly partisan era, more likely to vote the intended way

arguably party orientation is now more significant

less persuasion even needed — LBJ spent time ensuring people voted for his SC appointment, whereas since 2006 all SC votes have been party line votes anyway

polarisation can actually let the president rely on his party more

with increasingly divided government, the President faces the challenge of persuading the opposition

cannot rely on the alliance and support of his own party

since 1969, 72% of governments have been divided

BUT

hugely unlikely to even vote for him

bipartisan action has decreased

second term presidents/ones who have just lost found themselevs unable to act despite powers of persuasion e.g. lame duck

Republicans hugely opposed Obama’s actions e.g. appointing Garland, DAPA and DACA, lead to a reliance on executive action