When writing the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers took great precautions to ensure that no branch of government would become too powerful and establish authoritarian rule . To accomplish this, the framers of the Constitution implemented a system of checks and balances in almost every aspect of the new republic's government. One of these checks and balances was the distribution of foreign policy power between Congress and the president. This balance of power would serve as an important deterrent against the abuse of power by one branch of government, which could result in catastrophic decisions, such as dragging the nation into unnecessary or unwanted foreign entanglements. These frictions were purposely created not only to ward off tyrannical rule, but also to resolve many of the problems created by the previous Articles of Confederation. In supporting ratification of the Constitution, James Madison wrote: "If there is one principle in our Constitution, nay in any free Constitution, more sacred than any other, it is that which separates the legislative, executive, and judicial powers . » Say no. to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Due to the Constitution's complex wording, it can be difficult to understand the differences between the legislature and Congress and the intrinsic divisions between them. . This opacity of power is also reinforced by the fact that the third branch, the judicial branch of government, is generally not involved in foreign disputes. As a result, this creates a constant power struggle between the legislative and executive branches. To understand how this complex dynamic operates within the United States government, observers must first look to the foreign policy proposed to the President of the United States. Second, the authority of Congress over foreign policy, and third, how these powers work together by comparing and using historical precedents and examples. In order to understand the powers of Congress, one must first examine Article I of the Constitution which lists many of the foreign affairs of Congress. powers. This includes the many different powers, such as the ability to regulate trade with foreign countries, to declare war on foreign countries, to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy, and to create rules for government and to regulate the army. The Constitution also authorizes Congress to control two of the president's foreign affairs powers, making treaties and appointing diplomats. The act of concluding treaties and appointing diplomats, however, depends on the approval of the Senate. The general powers of Congress also allow it to collect taxes, withdraw money from the Treasury, and pass all necessary and appropriate laws allowing the legislative branch to control many foreign policy decisions. For example, the last session of Congress under the Obama administration was able to pass various laws that affect American foreign policy, ranging from electronic surveillance to sanctions against North Korea, border security and drug trafficking. wild species. One instance where the legislative branch clashed with the executive branch was when lawmakers overrode President Barack Obama's veto to enact a law allowing victims of international terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments. This shows the clear division of power and conflicts betweenCongress and the President when attempting to enact foreign policy legislation. Congress can also play an oversight role on foreign policy issues, allowing it to expand its power. The annual appropriations process allows congressional committees to examine in detail the budgets and programs of the vast military and diplomatic bureaucracies. The power of money gives the legislative branch a wide range of controls over many aspects of American foreign policy. Lawmakers must approve more than $1 trillion in federal spending each year, more than half of which is allocated to defense and international affairs. Lawmakers can also control how that money should be spent. Another example of conflict between Congress and the executive branch is when the last session of Congress repeatedly barred the Obama administration from using funds to transfer detainees out of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.Get a Custom Essay Congress also has broad authority to conduct investigations into particular foreign policy or national security issues. High-profile investigations in recent years have focused on the Sept. 11 attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation programs and the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Additionally, Congress has the power to create, eliminate, or restructure executive branch agencies, which it has often done after major conflicts or crises. In the past, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, which created the CIA and the National Security Council during World War II. More recently, such as in the wake of the September 11 attacks, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security to address foreign threats to United States citizens. These examples demonstrate the great power Congress has in determining U.S. foreign policy. To understand how the executive branch obtains its power, observers must look to the Constitution. The President's authority over foreign affairs, like the rest of his authority, is anchored in Article II of the Constitution. The Constitution grants the executive the power to enter into treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate. While the president is able to appoint ambassadors and many other positions, the Senate can check his power through an approval process. In some cases, the two branches cooperate, such as when Congress approves the nomination of the President. In other cases, such as many recent examples during the Obama administration, Congress would not approve the president's appointments. Treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the senators present, which is also another check on the executive branch. Nominations require approval by a simple majority which is just over 5 percent. Presidents also rely on other provisions to support their foreign policy actions, including those authorizing executive power and the role of commander in chief of the Army and Navy. Pursuant to the Commander-in-Chief Clause of the Constitution, the powers to use military force and collect foreign intelligence are granted to the executive branch. The ability to appoint and host ambassadors is another clear example of the power held bythe executive power. This allows the executive branch to control how it interacts with foreign nations and who will represent the nation. Generally, this means that ambassadors appointed by presidents will be loyal to them and reflect the president's foreign policy ideas, not necessarily those of Congress. Recognizing a foreign government and conducting diplomacy gives the executive branch broad authority, although Congress must confirm ambassadors chosen by the executive branch. This is another example of how Congress controls executive power, because if Congress does not approve the president's ambassador choices, it cannot appoint the selected nominees. However, recently Congress passed a law giving the executive branch additional authority to act. on specific foreign policy issues, demonstrating that the two branches are working together. One such more modern example is the creation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which allows the president to impose economic sanctions on foreign entities without the need for Congress to vote on these questions. This made it easier for the executive branch to flex its foreign policy muscles while taking away some of the power of the legislative branch. Presidents have also used case law to support their claims to authority when fighting with the legislature over foreign policy jurisdiction. A notable example is two decisions by the United States Supreme Court. V. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation in 1936 and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer in 1952. In the first case, the court ruled that then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted within the scope of his authority constitutional when he filed suit against the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation for selling arms to Paraguay and Bolivia in violation of federal law. Executive branch lawyers now generally cite Justice George Sutherland's broad interpretation of the president's foreign affairs powers in this case. They generally support the idea that the president is the sole organ of the federal government in the area of ​​international relations. “It, and not Congress, has the best opportunity to know the conditions prevailing in foreign countries and this is especially true in time of war,” Sutherland wrote. In the second case, the court ruled that President Harry Truman violated the Constitution when he ordered the seizure of U.S. steel mills during the Korean War. Youngstown is often described by jurists as a bookend for Curtiss-Wright since the latter recognizes broad executive power, while the former describes its limits. Youngstown is regularly cited for Justice Robert Jackson's three-tiered framework for assessing presidential power: The political branches often cross swords over foreign policy, particularly when the president belongs to a different party than the US leadership. at least one house of Congress. One of the next issues that often causes conflict between Congress and the executive branch concerns military operations. War powers are again divided between the two branches. Although only Congress can declare war, many presidents have ordered U.S. forces to engage in war-like operations without Congressional authorization. Although presidents can use military force to repel an attack, it is unclear when they can initiate the use of force.military force on their own authority. Near the end of the Vietnam War, Congress sought to regulate the use of military force by passing the War Powers Resolution over President Richard Nixon's veto. Since then, executive branch lawyers have questioned parts of the resolution's constitutionality, and many presidents have flouted it. In 2001, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use military force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks; and, in 2002, he approved U.S. military action against Iraq. However, legal experts from both parties recently said the president should have obtained additional authorizations to use military force in Libya, Iraq and Syria. Congress can also use its "money power" to curb the president's military ambitions, by limiting funding to the military, but historical lawmakers typically do not act until after a conflict has ended. However, in modern times, military spending has only increased and shows no signs of slowing down, regardless of who is in power. Another driving factor in restricting military spending by lawmakers is the fact that they are often seen by their constituents as withholding funding for U.S. forces fighting overseas and therefore are not patriotic or do not care about our military /veterans. During the Vietnam War, lawmakers passed several amendments prohibiting the use of funds for combat operations in Vietnam and neighboring countries. Congress took similar actions in the 1980s with Nicaragua and in the 1990s with Somalia. Presidents have also blocked attempts by Congress to deny economic or security aid to governments or entities with poor human rights records. For example, during the tenure of the Obama administration, senior U.S. military commanders stated that, while well-intentioned, restrictions on U.S. aid complicated other foreign policy goals, such as countering terrorism or the fight against narcotics. Intelligence. Congress passed several laws regulating intelligence collection and created committees to oversee executive branch activities in areas such as covert operations. Many presidents opposed these developments, saying the legislature was encroaching on their jurisdiction. Since the 1970s, Congress has also begun to demand a greater role in oversight of intelligence. One particular example occurred after the Church Committee uncovered privacy violations committed by the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency. Over the years, the Senate has also approved more than 1,600 treaties, but has also rejected or refused to consider many other agreements presented to it. After the Great War, many American senators rejected the Treaty of Versailles, then negotiated by President Woodrow Wilson in France. However, more recently, a small coalition in the Senate blocked ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, despite support from both Republican and Democratic administrations. Political obstacles have historically hampered treaties, leading presidents to enter into many major multinational agreements without Senate consent. A modern example is the Paris Agreement to combat climate change or the Iran nuclear deal to end Iran's nuclear program. Most of these agreements were negotiated by the executive branch without the.