Research paper for my Government class.

The balance of legal power in the United States is divided between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Domestic and foreign policy is dictated by the executive and legislative branches and their various subunits. Although the constitution spells out how policy and laws should be implemented in a broad manner, many aspects have developed since drafting of the constitution. The legislative branch creates laws and the executive branch enforces, and typically the legislative makes law the public policy while the executive sets foreign policy. However, these roles are not always black-and-white, and each branch has a role to play in the various policies legally implemented in both domestic and foreign policy. Through careful study of policy, it can be shown that the legislative and executive branches are fairly balanced, and this analysis proves that the checks-and-balance system put in place by the founders of the United States continues to help keep this power balanced.

In the United States, domestic policy is the intended course of action to respond to the perceived need of the people. Although the constitution does not clearly define the process of law making, standing rules of both houses of congress state that a piece of policy must go through a lengthy process to become legislation that may be voted on. The desired outcome for the policy’s supporters is legislation that passes and becomes law. Foreign policy is the government’s position on the many nations of the world. It is through the executive and legislative branches, the president’s cabinet, and various agencies that the full picture of the United States’ foreign policy begins to take shape. Unlike the law making process for domestic items, foreign policy is not clearly defined in the constitution. Although the executive branch tends to take the lead in forming foreign policy, the framers of the constitution had desired a process where the president and congress crafted foreign policy in unison (Sidlow and Henschen 367).

The process of creating laws is broadly defined in Article I, Section 7. Although anyone may draft a piece of legislation, the power to consider bills is granted exclusively to congress. A proposed bill must first have a sponsor, a senator or representative that wishes to present the bill, before it can be considered. Therefore, all proposed laws must first work its way through the legislative branch. Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, defines the duty of the executive branch is to execute the laws passed by congress faithfully. George Washington interpreted this to mean that it was his duty to ensure that laws were executed, and he wrote to Alexander Hamilton that “[i]t is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to it” (“Letter to Alexander Hamilton”). The executive branch plays a role in developing public policy, and the president maintains a council to help guide them on such goals. Although the executive branch may use its influence to direct policy, it is the legislative branch that shapes and makes law the public policy of the country.

The development and execution of foreign policy is the delicate process of protecting the nation from outside of its borders while cultivating international allies, and it is a process that takes many people over various branches and agencies of the government to perform. Initial foreign policy in the United States was minimal. It was believed that for the nation to succeed it needed to remain closed off to the world. Beginning with George Washington, isolationism dominated foreign policy. It was the nation’s first president that asked “[w]hy quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” He followed up by stating that “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” (“George Washington’s Farewell”). However, this policy was not to last long and by the mid-20th century the United States had decided to take a large role in international affairs.

The American founders’ desire to keep out of foreign affairs led to little guidance on the process to formulate foreign policy. Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution states that the president is to receive foreign ambassadors and public minsters and this has been interpreted to give the president broad powers over foreign policy. In addition, the 1936 Supreme Court case United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. gave judicial precedence to the President being the international figurehead of the nation, and the ruling held that the executive branch was empowered to conduct foreign affairs in such a matter that the legislative branch should not (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.). It is with these concepts that the executive branch wields the power to shape foreign policy. However, this branch does not stand alone in a vacuum. The Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and various other agencies help form foreign policy. On top of this, the legislative branch has its hands in molding international policy. Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution gives the responsibility of approving the ratification of treaties to the Senate. Due to treaties having the full force of law, the founders believed it necessary for the legislative branch to have some form of participation in the approval of treaties (Hamilton).

An example of a piece of public policy debate has been the access to affordable health care. This access has been the concern of health activist as far back as the mid-1800s with both the House of Representatives and the Senate passing the bill “An act making a grant of public lands to the several States for the benefit of indigent insane persons.” President Pierce vetoed this bill because he believed that to allow the bill to become law “[t]he whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and culture of the Federal Government” (Pierce). By using his veto power, President Pierce was able to exercise his part in shaping public policy. In order to balance this veto power, the congress has the ability to override a veto if support is strong enough. There are many examples of overridden vetoes though no president has had as many vetoes overridden as President Andrew Johnson with 15 of his vetoes overridden by congress. One such law overridden was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The president had vetoed this bill due to what he perceived as discrimination towards white Americans (Foner 250). The two houses of congress, having urged the president to sign the bill into law, overrode his veto and set in motion a political tug-of-war that lasted throughout the rest of Johnson’s presidency. Both examples of public policy, civil rights and health care, show that the executive and legislative branches have powers to check each other.

The foreign policy history of the United States is far shorter than the age of the nation as the county’s isolationist views left the nation out of global politics for its first 100 years. However, American foreign policy shifted towards intervention throughout the 20th century (Sidlow and Henschen 369-370). The time between World War II and the Vietnam War is seen by law scholars as a period when “Congress had permitted its authority to atrophy, acquiescing repeatedly in executive incursions upon its war and treaty powers” (Sparkman 2). To combat this decline in congressional oversight, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was signed into law over President Nixon’s veto. The intent was to limit the actions of the President militarily when acting without the approval of congress. Even with this Resolution set as law, many presidents have sent troops into combat without congressional approval. Most recently, President Obama sent troops to Lybia without a declaration of war. The executive branch defended its use of military personal in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner and declared that due to “the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs power, to direct such limited military operations abroad” (Macmanus and King 1). Since the passing of the War Power Resolution, presidents have entered conflicts without a declaration of war from congress, and the legislative branch has yet to legally challenge these actions (Holan and Jacobson). As a proper check-and-balance mechanism exists, congress’ lack of action does not infer that there is no legal remedy.

For the foreseeable future, politics will remain a tug-of-war between the various branches and parties of the government. The constitution has installed into it the checks and balances that keep one branch becoming more powerful than the other. Each branch has the ability to check the other, but they also have the ability to force their will when overwhelming support exists. With such a strong legal framework in place, the United States shall continue to operate under a government that maintains three branches of government in equal parity.

Works Cited

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: Perennial Classics, 2002. Print.

Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist No. 75.” Independent Journal 1788-03-26. Rpt. in The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 16. Ed. Gaspare J. Saladino and John P. Kaminski. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 1986. 481-85. Print.

Holan, Angie D., and Louis Jacobson. “Are U.S. Actions in Libya Subject to the War Powers Resolution? A Review of the Evidence.” PolitiFact. N.p., 22 June 2011. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.

Macmanus, Joseph E., and Elizabeth L. King. Letter to John Boehner. 15 June 2011. Nytimes.com. New York Times, 15 June 2011. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.

Pierce, Franklin. “Veto Message – May 3, 1854.” Constitution.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013.

Sidlow, Edward, and Beth Henschen. GOVT. 5th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012.

Sparkman, John. “Checks and Balances in American Foreign Policy.” Indiana Law Journal 52.2 (1977). Indiana Law Repository. Indiana University. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. Supreme Court. 21 Dec. 1936. Cornell University Law School. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.

Washington, George. “President George Washington’s Farewell Address.” American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia] 19 Sept. 1796: n. pag. Print.

Washington, George. Letter to Alexander Hamilton. September 7, 1792. Letter.