POLSC 274: American Foreign Policy

Jason Brown
Professor Zachary Shirkey
November 17, 2014

Paper #2

Whether domestic or abroad, the President of the United States has had an
increasingly challenging role in directing American foreign policy. This fact has in
part been due to the increasingly nuanced issues of modern international politics,
and (especially since the Cold War) a lack of a uniform American agenda on foreign
policy. However, it has also been due to the many factors that serve as constraints
on the Presidents abilities. Four of the most important constraints are Congress, the
media and public opinion, influential interest groups, and the Supreme Court.
Congress has been granted a long list of powers regarding foreign policy
from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, with the presumption likely being that a
healthy level of cooperation with the executive branch would arise from it. The
legislative and executive branches of the United States were given powers that
almost rely on each other, and in times where the United States agenda on foreign
policy is clear or the majority of Congress opinion on an issue is similar to that of
the President, this idea works easily. However, upon times of disagreement between
the President and Congress, the checks of power available to the latter quickly
become evident. Some of the major constraints available to Congress when limiting
presidential authority include their ability to declare war, financial power or Power
of the Purse, their ability to ratify treaties, and their ability to confirm
appointments made by the President.

The financial authority of Congress over the United States has served as a
major constraint over the goals of Presidents, especially in times of domestic
political conflict. As they are granted the power of providing the funds for any
exploit of the United States in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and
the power to make appropriations for money drawn from the treasury in Article I,
Section 9, Clause 7, Congress holds most of the power in terms of military spending.
As a result, the President cannot actually send troops overseas without
Congressional approval, although a few provisions have been put into place since to
further interpret that rule and expand executive power. During World War II, The
War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 gave the President much more power to quickly
mobilize troops and organize the military in times of urgent importance. These acts
quickly cut the red tape that President Franklin D. Roosevelt would have had to go
through by moving through Congress, but it was agreed upon by all that it was
necessary and Congress did ultimately wind up officially declaring war on the Axis.
However, since then, Presidents have tried to use the more lenient
restrictions available to mobilize troops for less unanimously agreed upon issues,
which Congress has then checked by exercising their financial power. When Gerald
Ford attempted to intervene using only his executive power during the Angolan Civil
War of 1976, he needed additional funding to continue. However, much of Congress
did not approve of the bill in the first place, and denied it, forcing the troops to come
back home after only 45 days. 1

Mieczkowski, Yanek. Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s. University Press
of Kentucky, 2005.
1

The Senates abilities to ratify treaties and confirm appointments are also
used as tools for constraining executive authority. One example of the Senate using
their ability to ratify treaties to check the President was at the end of World War I.
Because Woodrow Wilson almost refused to involve Congress in discussions with
the winning European powers, they refused to allow the United States to join the
League of Nations, despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson had a major part in
developing it.2 An example of their use of power to confirm appointments was found
in President Barack Obamas appointment for Secretary of Defense in 2013. The
Republican Senate filibustered the appointment of former Republican senator Chuck
Hagel, and consequently made the process much longer than it normally is. This had
been one of the first times a Presidential appointment had been filibustered, and
while the Republicans had defended it an attempt to [force] the confirmation
process to be more deliberative3, many critics suggested that it was a purely
political move to inconvenience the President.
As presidents ultimately have to work with the approval of the public to
remain in office with a cooperative session of Congress, public opinion can be a
major influence on the behavior of presidents. Its a common misconception that
Americans have limited interest in foreign policy, but they actually have a variety of
developed opinions on international issues. In What Americans Really Think about
Hamilton, Lee H. A Creative Tension: The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and
Congress. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2002. Page 20.
3 Peters, Jeremy W. Hagel Prevails in Senate After Bruising Bout With G.O.P. The
New York Times, February 26, 2013, sec. U.S. / Politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/hagel-filibuster-defensesenate-confirmation.html.
2

U.S. Foreign Policy, Daniel Yankelovich notes that the issues of 2005 were reaching
a tipping point: [a] moment at which large swaths of the public begin to demand
that the government address their concerns.4 In 2005, amidst the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, immigration policy issues, and job outsourcing, public opinion became
polarized in ways that were ultimately bipartisan. President George W. Bush had
been reelected at the time of Yankelovitchs article, and likely didnt budge on his
stance on contentious international problems because he expected to have the
unwavering support of a large Republican base. However, during the 2006 United
States midterm elections, both the House and Senate won Democratic majorities,
and in the 2008 presidential election resulted in the Democratic win of President
Barack Obama as well. These victories came from public frustration with President
Bush from both parties, and the congressional takeover form the democrats lead to
multiple veto overrides in areas such as environmentalism and healthcare.5
Its no secret that many areas of the Media are biased, but often times they
will use their influence over uninformed viewers and readers to shape ideas that
wouldnt have been formed otherwise. They, as well as Congress, can use hot-button
politicized domestic issues to sway the public in one direction that ultimately
shapes their opinions on foreign issues. This influence of public opinion in turn
affects major elections, which can constrain presidential actions. Lee Hamilton notes
Yankelovich, Daniel. Poll Positions: What Americans Really Think About U.S.
Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs 84, no. 5 (September 1, 2005): 216.
doi:10.2307/20031701.
5 Doering, Christopher. Bush Sees First Veto Override in Water Bill. Reuters.
November 8, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/11/08/us-congressveto-idUSWBT00789620071108.
4

one example of Congress doing this in the 1990s, where members likened increased
UN funding to a focus on abortion, despite the fact that there was no actual
connection between the two.6 In recent times, the politically polarized media groups
have spun the foreign policy of the President in different directions by interpreting
events in ways that reflect their views. One example of this is found in Oliver Willis
article Conservative Media Blames Rise of Islamic State on Long Debunked Claim That
Obama Missed Intelligence Briefings. Pundits on Fox News repeatedly tried to
connect the rise of terror group ISIS/ISIL to presidential oversight by saying that
President Obama failed to attend important intelligence briefings, despite the fact
that this idea had been disproven years prior by the Washington Post.7 The writers
on Fox, Willis argues, likely knew this already, but continued to argue the disproven
claim in order to sway citizens who wouldnt be inclined to look further into the
issue.
As international politics affect more and more Americans, interest groups
that would normally stay domestic have started working to influence executive
foreign policy as well. Interest groups with high involvement in foreign policy
include business and environmental organizations, but also ethnic and religious
groups. The increasing sophistication of interest group strategy in the United States
has now lead to their influence going past the legislative branch, where it has always
Hamilton, Lee H. A Creative Tension: The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and
Congress. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2002. Page 14
7 Conservative Media Blames Rise of Islamic State On Long Debunked Claim That
Obama Missed Intelligence Briefings. Media Matters for America. Accessed
November 18, 2014.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/30/conservative-media-blames-rise-ofislamic-state/200949.
6

been influential, to the executive. Lee Hamilton notes that the methods of interest
groups are often dependent on the type of interest group working. Religious and
ethnic groups now tend to align themselves with other powerful groups to reach a
mutual goal. For example, he notes, American Jewish groups have courted and
gained the support of evangelical Christians and prominent labor organizations for
causes related to Israel Americans with roots in India have reached out to U.S.
businesses to strengthen their support for increasing the number of immigrant visas
given to highly skilled technology workers.8 Foreign embassies in countries such as
Taiwan will also partner with ethnic interest groups to draft policies for
consideration of Congress, which can potentially put pressure on the President.9
The effect of these interest groups advanced methods on influencing
executive foreign policy is well documented. Understanding American Government
points to the power of the African American lobby, mentioning its influence on US
involvement in Haiti and Africa, from military conflicts to environmental and public
health issues. In 1998, they successfully persuaded President Bill Clinton to take a
twelve-day trip to six African nations, which was the most extensive African trip by
a US President. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also partnered with several
womens rights groups under President Bush, effectively maintaining an emphasis
on womens rights internationally.10

Hamilton, Lee H. A Creative Tension: The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and
Congress. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2002. Page 20.
9 ibid
10 Welch, Susan, John Gruhl, John Comer, and Susan Rigdon. Understanding American
Government. Cengage Learning, 2009.
8

The Supreme Court may not have any Constitutional powers relating to
foreign policy, but their abilities to check the president through judicial hearings
have proven to be a constraint. In Noah Feldmans New York Times Article When
Judges Make Foreign Policy, he begins by stating, In a globalized, Post-9/11 age,
decisions made by the Supreme Court are increasingly shaping Americas
international relations.11 Feldman argues that each era of the Supreme Court has
provided answers for important American questions that were subject to
contentious debates, and that the question of how the United States should conduct
foreign policy has become more important than ever as the issues have become
more complex. Supreme Court serves as a group that analyzes these issues in the
form of court cases, using only the Constitution as an arbitrary third party to direct a
government without a clear foreign policy agenda. Feldman references case
Boumediene v. Bush to defend this claim. In Boumediene v. Bush, terror-suspect
detainees were held in Guantanamo Bay, which was considered to be an
international law-free zone for the United States by President Bush. Associate
Justice Anthony Kennedy determined that despite the fact that a similar process had
been done for German WWII war criminals, which set a precedent for holding
detainees unconstitutionally, Guantanamo is in fact a part of the United States and
would therefore be subject to the Constitution. This ruling had a major effect on the
behavior of the executive regarding Guantanamo, and serves as an example of their
constraint over the President.
Feldman, Noah. When Judges Make Foreign Policy. The New York Times,
September 28, 2008, sec. Magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine/28law-t.html.
11

Congress, the media, public opinion, interest groups, and the Supreme Court
all influence the President domestically in ways that other groups abroad cannot.
Because of the close, intertwining relationships that each group has both with the
President and each other, a balance of power is forged, which shifts depending on
the political skill of each. The media can directly influence public opinion, which,
along with interest groups, influence elections. Congress, the body of government
that deals most often with the people can have a considerable amount of control
over the President. At the same time, these groups can directly deal with the
President, and the Supreme Court makes powerful judgments on the policies and
decisions that arise from the dynamic.