When drafting the United States Constitution, the Founding Fathers took great precautions to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful and established an authoritarian regime. To do this the framers of the Constitution implemented a system of checks and balances in almost every aspect of the government of the new republic. One of these checks and balances was the distribution of foreign policy power between Congress and the President. This balance of power would be an important deterrent against a branch of government abusing its power, which could lead to catastrophic decisions such as dragging the nation into unnecessary or unwanted foreign entanglements. This friction was created not only to ward off tyrannical government, but also to solve many of the problems created by the previous Articles of Confederation. Advocating ratification of the Constitution, James Madison wrote, “If there be any principle in our Constitution, indeed in every free Constitution, more sacred than any other, it is that which separates the legislative, executive, and judicial powers.” to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Because of the complex wording of the Constitution, it can be difficult to understand the differences between the legislature and Congress and the inherent divisions between them. This opacity of power is also reinforced by the fact that the third branch, the judicial arm of government, generally does not get 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 works within the U.S. government, observers must first look at the foreign policy provided to the President of the United States. Second, the foreign policy authority of Congress, and third, how these powers work together by comparing and using historical precedents and examples. To understand the powers of Congress, one must first look at Article I of the Constitution which enumerates many of the foreign affairs of Congress. powers. This includes many different powers such as the ability to regulate trade with foreign nations, declare war on foreign nations, raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy, and create rules for government and regulate the military. The Constitution also allows Congress to control two of the President's foreign affairs powers, to make treaties, and to appoint diplomats. The act of both making treaties and appointing diplomats, however, depends on the approval of the Senate. The general powers of Congress also allow the collection of taxes to withdraw money from the Treasury and to enact all necessary and appropriate laws that allow the legislature to control many foreign policy decisions. For example, the last session of Congress during the Obama administration managed to pass a series of laws that influence American foreign policy, from electronic surveillance to sanctions against North Korea, from border security to wildlife trafficking. One instance in which the legislature clashed with the executive was when lawmakers overrode President Barack Obama's veto of enacting a law allowing victims of international terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments. This demonstrates the clear division of power and conflict that Congress and the President have when trying to enact foreign policy legislation. Congress can also play an oversight role on foreign policy issues that allows them to expandyour own power. The annual appropriations process allows congressional committees to review, in detail, the budgets and programs of vast military and diplomatic bureaucracies. The power of the purse gives the legislature a wide variety of control over many aspects of American foreign policy. Lawmakers must approve more than $1 trillion in federal spending each year, with more than half going to defense and international affairs. Lawmakers can also control how that money is spent. Another example of conflict between Congress and the executive branch was when the last session of Congress repeatedly blocked the Obama administration from using funds to move detainees out of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Please note: this is just an example. 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 9/11 attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation programs and the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Congress also 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 established the CIA and the National Security Council during World War II. In more recent times, such as in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security to address threats from abroad that threaten U.S. 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 in foreign affairs, just like the rest of his authority, is rooted in Article II of the Constitution. The Constitution gives the executive the power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate. While the President can appoint Ambassadors and many other positions, the Senate can control his power through an approval process. In some cases the two branches cooperate, for example when Congress approves the nomination of the President. In other cases, like many recent examples in the Obama administration, Congress would not approve the president's nominations. The treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the senators present, which also serves as a further check on executive power. Appointments require the approval of a simple majority which is just over 5%. Presidents also rely on other clauses to support their foreign policy actions, particularly those that allow for executive power and the role of commander in chief of the Army and Navy. By the Commander in Chief clause in the constitution, the power to use military force and gather foreign intelligence is given to the executive branch. The ability to appoint and host ambassadors is another clear example of the power the executive branch holds. This allows the executive branch to control how they interact with foreign nations and who will represent the nation. Typically this means that ambassadors appointed by presidents will be loyal to them and will reflect the president's ideas on foreign policy, not necessarily the ideas of Congress. Recognizing a foreign government and conducting diplomatic activities, however, gives the executive branch broad powers, even if Congress mustconfirm ambassadors chosen by the executive branch. This is another example of how Congress controls the power of the executive branch due to the fact that if congress does not approve the president's choices for ambassadors it cannot appoint the selected candidates. However, while Congress recently passed legislation giving the executive branch additional authority to act on specific foreign policy issues it shows that the two branches work together. One of these more modern examples 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 the issue. This made it easier for the executive branch to flex its muscles in foreign policy while removing some of the power of the legislative branch. Presidents have also used case law to support their claims to authority when they battled with the legislative branch over foreign policy jurisdiction. A notable example were two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. See Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation in 1936 and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer in 1952. In the first case, the court found that then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted within his constitutional authority when he brought charges against Curtiss -Wright Export Corporation for selling weapons to Paraguay and Bolivia in violation of federal law. Executive branch lawyers now typically cite Justice George Sutherland's expansive interpretation of the president's foreign affairs powers in that case. They usually support the idea that the president is the sole body of the federal government in the field of international relations. “He, not Congress, has the best opportunity to know the conditions that prevail in foreign countries and especially whether this is true in time of war,” Sutherland wrote. In the second case, the court found 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 legal scholars as a bookend for Curtiss-Wright because the latter recognizes broad executive authority, while the former describes its limitations. Youngstown is cited regularly for Justice Robert Jackson's three-tiered framework for evaluating presidential power: Political branches often cross swords over foreign policy, particularly when the president belongs to a different party than the leadership of at least one house of Congress . One of the following issues that often spur conflict between Congress and the executive branch is military operations. The war powers are once again divided between the two branches. Although only Congress can declare war, many presidents have ordered U.S. forces to undertake war-like operations without congressional authorization. While presidents can use military force to repel an attack, it is unclear when they can begin using military force on their own authority. Toward the end of the Vietnam War, Congress attempted to regulate the use of military force by enacting the War Powers Resolution over President Richard Nixon's veto. Executive branch lawyers have since questioned parts of the resolution's constitutionality, and many presidents have held it in contempt. In 2001, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use military force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks; and, in 2002, approved US military action against Iraq. However, legal experts from both parties recently said the president should have obtained additional authorities tothe use of military force in Libya, Iraq and Syria. Congress can also use its “power of the purse” to rein in the president's military ambitions by limiting funding for the military, but incumbent lawmakers typically do not act until a conflict is over. In modern times, however, military spending has only increased and shows no signs of slowing down, regardless of who is in power. Another deterrent to limiting military spending by lawmakers is the fact that they are often seen by their constituents as an obstacle to funding for U.S. forces fighting overseas and are therefore unpatriotic or do not care about our military/veterans . Previously, during the Vietnam War, lawmakers passed several amendments that prohibited the use of funds for combat operations in Vietnam and neighboring countries. Congress took similar measures in the 1980s with respect to Nicaragua and in the 1990s with Somalia. Presidents have also blocked congressional attempts to deny economic or security assistance to governments or entities with poor human rights records. For example, during the Obama administration, senior U.S. military commanders said that, while well-intentioned, restrictions on U.S. aid complicate other foreign policy objectives, such as counterterrorism or counternarcotics. Intelligence. Congress passed several laws regulating intelligence gathering and established committees to oversee the activities of the executive branch in areas including covert operations. Many presidents objected to these developments by claiming that the legislature was encroaching on their jurisdiction. Beginning in the 1970s, Congress also began to claim a larger role in intelligence oversight. One case in particular occurred after the Church Committee uncovered privacy abuses 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, which at the time was being negotiated in France by President Woodrow Wilson. More recently, however, 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 always plagued treaties and led presidents to create many major multinational agreements without Senate consent. A modern example is the Paris Agreement to address climate change or the Iran nuclear deal to stop Iran's nuclear program. Both agreements were negotiated by the executive branch without the consent of the legislative branch. Both of these were not approved by congress, but still have significant importance on the global stage and have dictated the position of the United States on very important issues. Therefore, legal analysts say, future presidents could likely withdraw from them without congressional consent granting the president complete power over the deal and flow made by predecessors. The Constitution does not clearly say whether presidents need the consent of the legislative branch to end treaties, so from now on the current president has all the power. The Constitution, however, clearly grants the executive power to regulate foreign trade, although lawmakers have for decades granted the president's authority to negotiate trade deals within established parameters. This follows.