October 15, 2021 by Uncategorized 0

Which of the following Statements Is True about the Modern Use of Treaties and Executive Agreements

Which of the following Statements Is True about the Modern Use of Treaties and Executive Agreements

Foreign policy interest groups are domestic interest groups that seek to influence government foreign policy. Nor is the argument confirmed by a history of institutional practice. The manual work of the First Congress on the structure of the original administrative departments contradicts the idea that the drafters intended a unified executive. Congress has welcomed the president`s control at various levels, from seemingly complete, such as the State Department, to essentially non-existent, such as the boards and commissions empowered to oversee the Mint, buy back U.S. debts, and rule on patent applications. Proponents of the unitary executive can cite a variety of presidential statements over the years affirming the existence of full presidential oversight. But again, to quote Judge Jackson, who wrote in 1952 about constitutional debates about the extent of presidential power, “A century and a half of partisan debate and scientific speculation does not provide a net result, but only provides more or less accurate citations of reputable sources on every page of each question.” Youngstown Sheet Tube vs. Sawyer (1952). Unitarian arguments based on presidential statements simply cannot overcome the glaring eclecticism of Congress from its first session by designing different administrative structures with different lines of responsibility to different sources of oversight. For this reason, there is a close connection between the president`s relationship with Congress and the president`s relationship with the rest of the executive establishment. In particular, the latter is largely determined by the former.

The Constitution gives Congress the discretionary political power to essentially bow to the demands of the executive branch for highly centralized control over administrative agencies, but only if Congress so decides. The simple framework of Article II leaves it to the president to convince Congress that allowing such control over a particular agency is in the public interest — a judgment on politics, not constitutional interpretation. Article II of the U.S. Constitution is clearly crucial to establishing two fundamental institutional relationships: the president`s relationship with Congress and the president`s relationship with the rest of the executive establishment that we would now call “the bureaucracy.” Despite the apparent specificity of the text on some key points — e.B. The role of the president in the nomination process – the silence of the Constitution and the ambiguity of the text in other respects have fueled arguments animated over the centuries for very different concepts of the American presidency. To paraphrase Judge Robert Jackson, Americans may be “surprised at the poverty of a truly useful and unambiguous authority applicable to the concrete problems of executive power as they really arise.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer (1952).

President Wilson: Wilson had disagreements with Congress over how to manage the peace treaty that ended World War I. Presidents often have broad influence over U.S. foreign policy. It is also essential to note the practice whereby the Senate expresses reservations to treaties in which it modifies or excludes the legal effect of the contract. The Speaker then has the choice, as with all treaties that the Senate has approved, whether or not to ratify the treaty as he sees fit. As head of the U.S. Diplomatic Service, the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the U.S. Diplomatic Service. The Foreign Service employs approximately 12,000 people at home and abroad. It supports 265 U.S. diplomatic missions around the world, including ambassadors to various countries. The Korean War was the first modern example of the United States entering the war without a formal declaration.

This has been repeated in all armed conflicts since then. Starting with Vietnam, however, Congress issued other forms of empowerment to declare war. Some debates on the appropriateness of the measures are ongoing. The tendency of the executive to participate in the emergence of such a push, its marketing and even propaganda or related activities in order to generate such support is also hotly debated. In United States v. Pink (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that valid international executive treaties have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. Also in Reid v. Covert (1957), he reaffirmed the president`s ability to enter into executive agreements, but noted that such agreements cannot conflict with existing federal law or the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is right that the Speaker and the Senate can enter into treaties that go beyond the powers listed. The contractual clause is an executive in Article II and does not have the limitations of Article I. Moreover, as Alexander Hamilton noted, its abuse is carefully protected by a significant super-majority rule that does not apply to the legislation. Nor did the Court follow the original meaning of the recreation appointment clause. (For an excellent discussion of original meaning, see Michael B. Rappaport, The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause, 52 UCLA L. Rev. 1487 (2004)).

First, the power to appoint vacationers extends only to vacancies that were originally created when the Senate was not on recess. This “interpretation of origin” is much better supported than an interpretation that makes the clause applicable to vacancies that exist in the event of a break. Of course, the phrase “occur during the break” implies an event that occurred during the break, not a state of affairs. In fact, not reading the article in this way deprives the word “arrives” of any independent function. The “emerging” interpretation was also the meaning of the clause, which was even adopted by the executive at the beginning of the republic. For similar reasons, the idea that Congress and the president can jointly enter into international agreements as long as they reach an agreement between Congress and the executive branch is false and would deprive much of the treaty clause of its power. Perhaps practice in some areas of congressional executive agreements, such as trade agreements, is established in such a way that it should not be reversed. But practice has never included the full interchangeability of treaties and executive agreements, and this interchangeability cannot be reconciled with the explicit requirements of the Constitution for the conclusion of treaties.

A question still being debated is to what extent the contractual clause is the only mechanism allowed to reach substantive agreements with other nations. In fact, the majority of U.S. pacts with other nations are not formal “treaties,” but are sometimes adopted unilaterally due to legal powers and sometimes by the president. The Supreme Court has approved unilateral executive agreements of the President in certain circumstances. For example, in United States v. Belmont (1937), the Court upheld an agreement to settle the property claims of the U.S. government and citizens as part of the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union. In Dames & Moore v.

Regan (1981), the Court upheld President Carter`s agreement with Iran, again with respect to citizens` property claims, in relation to the release of U.S. diplomats held hostage by Iran. The tribunal never clarified the exact scope of the executive agreements, but the authorized agreements appear to include ad hoc settlements of claims and agreements related to diplomatic recognition. As the most senior member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State is the third most senior official in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government after the President and Vice President. The Secretary of State is the fourth in the order of succession to the Presidency, after the Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate. Six Secretaries of State were elected Presidents. The U.S. Constitution provides that the President “has the power to enter into treaties by and with the counsel and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the senators present agree” (Article II, Section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and are part of international law. The treaties in which the United States is involved also have the power of federal legislation, which is part of what the Constitution calls “the supreme law of the land.” The Department of Defense (also known as the Department of Defense, USDOD, DOD, DoD, or Pentagon) is the executive division of the U.S.

government responsible for coordinating and overseeing all government agencies and functions directly involved in U.S. national security and the U.S. armed forces. The ministry – headed by the Secretary of Defense – has three subordinate military departments: the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force. The military departments are each headed by their own secretary, who is appointed by the President with the Council and the approval of the Senate. The Case Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the president to inform the Senate within 60 days of reaching an executive agreement. The Powers of the President to conclude such agreements have not been limited. The notification requirement allowed Congress to vote on the repeal of an executive agreement or to refuse to fund its implementation.

[3] [4] With regard to most of what the executive branch does – namely the implementation of national laws without close reference to foreign affairs or military leaders – this interpretation is not convincing. .