Executive Branch: Disputed Powers & Foreign Policy Constraints

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Soaring Crane
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Branch
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the powers of the Executive Branch, particularly in relation to disputes with Congress and the constraints on foreign policy. Participants explore the nature of these disputes and the legal frameworks governing them, including the role of the federal judiciary in resolving conflicts between the President and Congress.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the general nature of disputes between Congress and the President.
  • Others mention that treaties require ratification by Congress after being signed by the President, and that wars must be approved by Congress.
  • One participant lists various common disputes, including taxes, war, health care, and others, suggesting that these may not constitute constitutional issues suitable for Supreme Court review.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the Supreme Court typically does not resolve disputes unless there is a constitutional violation, and outlines the veto process and treaty ratification as key aspects of the President's powers.
  • Participants discuss the ambiguity surrounding the President's constraints on military action, noting that while Congress has the power to declare war and fund it, the President retains the role of Commander in Chief and can respond militarily in the short term without Congressional approval.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of disputes and the constitutional implications of various issues. There is no consensus on what constitutes a constitutional dispute, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of the judiciary's role in these matters.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of clarity on what constitutes a constitutional issue and the ambiguity surrounding the President's military powers. Participants also highlight the complexity of the relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Soaring Crane
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
When disputes occur between Congress and the President, what is the tendency of the federal judiciary?

For another question about the Prez, what are his constraints on foreign policy?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What kind of dispute are you talking about?

For constraints on foreign policy, treaties have to be ratified by congress after being signed by the President and wars must be (sorta) approved by Congress.
 
My teacher didn't verify what kind; it was a general statement. What are some common disputes?
 
Some common disputes:

Taxes, war, health care, taxes, marriage, education, guns, snail darters, taxes, federal debt, death penalty, the definition of “is”, taxes, social security, flag burning, pollution, taxes, crime, human rights, animal rights, my rights, taxes, global warming, global cooling, oil, taxes, energy, fishing, whaling, hunting, taxes, this, that, taxes…
 
GENIERE said:
Some common disputes:

Taxes, war, health care, taxes, marriage, education, guns, snail darters, taxes, federal debt, death penalty, the definition of “is”, taxes, social security, flag burning, pollution, taxes, crime, human rights, animal rights, my rights, taxes, global warming, global cooling, oil, taxes, energy, fishing, whaling, hunting, taxes, this, that, taxes…

None of these issues would constitute a constitutional issuebetween the legistative and executive branches, and only that kind of dispute would be brought before the Supreme Court.

One such dispute that came up recently was the attempt by an agency of the congress to find out the names of the industrialists who had advised Vice President Cheney in the development of his energy policy. Cheney pleaded executive privilege and I believe that was upheld by the Supremes.
 
selfAdjoint said:
None of these issues would constitute a constitutional

Not even this or that? Oh shoot!
 
Soaring Crane said:
When disputes occur between Congress and the President, what is the tendency of the federal judiciary?

For another question about the Prez, what are his constraints on foreign policy?

Thanks for any help.

The Supreme Court doesn't resolve disputes between the President and Congress (unless one or the other has done something to violate the constitution).

If the President doesn't like a law that Congress has passed, he vetoes it. If enough members of Congress want the law passed anyway (67% of each house), they over ride the President's veto and pass it anyway.

As Russ said, the President signs treaties (kind of initiates the US entering into a treaty) and then Congress either ratifies the treaty and it goes into effect or they vote against the treaty and the US doesn't take part in the treaty. (In practice, the President will almost never sign a treaty that isn't sure to be ratified).

The constraints on military action are kind of ambiguous. Only Congress can declare war and only Congress can fund a war. The President is still Commander in Chief of the military and can make an immediate military response, but he theoretically can only take short term military action without getting Congressional approval (both Congress and Presidents have carefully avoided disagreeing strongly enough about military action to let this go to the Supreme Court).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
10K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Replies
59
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
14K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K