War and the American Presidency

Schlesinger's War and the American Presidency offers great insight into American foreign policy and its implications on presidential power. Specifically, it looks deep into Bush's administration and the public's perception and dissent of Bush foreign policy. He claims that Bush is fighting wars solely to prevent future wars and attacks. Furthermore, he claims that giving the president all this power during extreme circumstances and during wartime is creating a presidential office with too much power. He calls this the imperial presidency and explains that since there is a precedent set during wartime to abuse these powers it is becoming more and more common for the presidential office to abuse these powers during times of peace. I agree with Schlesinger's argument, because by allowing the president to expand and abuse his Constitutional powers during wartime we are unknowingly setting a precedent for him to do the same without a declaration of war.

The presidential office always uses past administrations to model their own policy. In Bush's case, when he suspended habeas corpus, he was able to reference Lincoln and his suspension of habeas corpus. The reasoning sounds better when you are able to show that it worked in the past from one of the country's most well-known presidents. However, they were two different situations and Lincoln's suspension was more justified. During the Civil War, the fight was on American soil and suspending habeas corpus was a much needed measure to ensure national security. However, Bush's War on Terrorism is not being fought in America and suspending habeas corpus wouldn't achieve as much for national security. This example reveals that presidents look for a precedent to justify their abuses of power. So, a president abusing a power once during wartime, you are setting up future presidents to abuse the same power.

If we look at Obama's presidency, he is continuing the abuses that Bush started. In Obama's case, he has faced little scrutiny even though he took Bush's abuse a step further. Bush suspended habeas corpus, but Obama went even further by ordering assassinations of US citizens and not giving them their right to due process. However, there hasn't been as much interest in this abuse of power compared to Bush. In my opinion, the lack of attention is because their was already a precedent set by Bush. There was a smooth transition of this policy from the Bush to Obama administration. So, it was easy for the Obama administration to continue the abuse of the Bush admin. How long is this abuse going to last? Because the longer it last and if it continues to be used by future presidents, then it will become a part of the American presidency. It will become one of the assumed powers of the president. By giving the president the leeway to abuse these powers we are setting up future presidents to do the same. It will become common for the president to suspend habeas corpus and that will not be good for American citizens.

So, Schlesinger is bringing up a good point. We need to look at these abuses of power and limit them. We need to set a precedent of not allowing the presidential administration to abuse their powers during wartime. Because these powers start to leak over past the actual wartime and become more common and more acceptable. This is dangerous. Even though we don't notice the long-term implications when the president abuses his power, we need to start thinking about it. This brings up one of Cato's main fears from Cato's Letters. He argues that if we give the president all this power, then a president who has the ambition to be tyrannical can assume that position. We are handing over too much power to the president and this will come back to haunt us when these abuses become a more common aspect of the presidency.

Jackson's Opinion on Relationships Between Branches

The decision from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer isn't as important as the implications of the concurring opinion of Justice Robert Jackson. He split up presidential power into three situations and ranked them according to how strong his authority is. The first category is when the president exercises a power granted to him by Congress and this is when his power is the strongest. Also, the president can act when there is no Congressional law or grant; executive power may vary in this situation and is uncertain. Finally, he can act by going against a Congressional act, which has the lowest amount of power and is most relevant to the court case.

When thinking about the roles of the president and Congress, the end of Jackson's opinion gives us some insight into the relationship between these branches. First off, he explains that laws govern us not the people. And the law-making ability is solely in the hands of Congress and the only powers that the president has are vetoes and recommendations. The president cannot act without the approval of a law. And laws are set up solely by Congress. Jackson wants to keep the power in the hands of Congress and not sacrifice Congress' power and give it to the president. If the president can act against a law, you are giving him more power over the other branches. The president must "... be under the law" and the law must be made be Congressional considerations and discussions.

It seems like Jackson's understanding of the relationship between Congress and the president is lopsided. He believes the president is "... under the law..." and Congress is the one who makes the laws. Therefore, the president is under the rule and power of Congressional actions. He needs to abide by these rules. This understanding is extreme, but I do agree with it. The president needs to follow the laws. The founding fathers of our country wanted to set up a system of governance that separated powers and created checks and balances between branches. It won't allow one branch to gain too much power. If we allow the president to act out against Congressional laws, then we are disrupting the delicate system of checks and balances. You would be giving the president too much power to do what he wants. He wouldn't have to follow Congressional acts that he didn't want to. Regardless of the fairness of the law, it is still a law. As Jackson stated we should "... be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law." Nobody should be able to escape the law and its intentions (not even the president).

On the other hand, Justice Jackson also gives us insight into his opinion about the relationship between the president and the Courts. The last two sentences of his opinion illustrate his opinion on the relationship. "Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up." This means that the court shouldn't "...aggrandize the presidential office.. at the expense of Congress." It seems that he is implying that he doesn't expect the Court and doesn't want the Court to let the president gain too much power. He is assuming a new role for the Court. He wants to protect the law and make sure the president cannot escape Congress' laws. Usually, the Court assumes the role of interpreting and reviewing the Constitutionality of the law. In this instance, however, he is suggesting that the Court must enforce the law when the president is unwilling to. With respect to our system of checks and balances, it seems like the court is creating a check to make sure the president follows the law which legislators make. Before this, there wasn't much we could do if the president wasn't sticking to the law. The Court will hold by this even when this idea starts to deteriorate. It is a balance of power that the Court seems to hold firmly in its beliefs.

For the regular conduct of government, Jackson's view has practical implications. The War Power's Act is  a great example of how Congress can control the actions of the president through their laws. The president needs to adhere to the law and practice the intentions of the War Powers Act. He needs to get Congressional Approval within 60 days of deploying or increasing troops. This shows how Congress is restricting the president's explicit power as commander in chief. This implies that Congress has power over the president in the regular dealings of our government. They were able to construct a law that did just that. Even when the president tried to veto the law from passing, Congress still passed it with a super majority. And the president still needed to follow the law even though he  vetoed and opposed it for practical reasons. So, for reasons like this the president should work together with Congress, because if Congress wanted to they can make the president's time in office as restrictive as the Constitution allows.

A New Look at American Foreign Policy

In President Clinton's speech about the Kosovo conflict, he references a few reasons for reacting with military action. First off, he believed that a unified and stable European region was important to American political and economic interests. Furthermore, Kosovo is too close to other countries with similar problems. This invasion will help prevent a big war in the future and prevent democracies from falling in the region. Most importantly, our alliance with NATO brought us into action. He explained that NATO agreed to defend Kosovo and we needed to keep this commitment for the sake of the credibility of NATO. Most importantly (and most similar to Obama) is the fact that it isn't "American" troops going into Kosovo; instead we are sending NATO troops, so there is  a shared responsibility between all the NATO members for his war. IT won't be directly traced back to America's interests and the blame won't fall solely on the US.

In Obama's speech, he references many similar reasons for deploying American troops to Libya. He explains that our American values and interests are at stake due to Gaddafi's unjust use of his power. He cites Gadaffi's wrong-doings as a major reason why we had to take military action. He explains that innocent people were targeted and killed by Gaddafi's regime without any means to defend themselves. Obama goes on to list nations that are also involved in resolving this conflict. We are acting with them (like Clinton and NATO) and not by ourself. Instead we are acting altogether to bring out Gaddafi's regime. He also brings up NATO and explains that we are handing over our operations to NATO and we will take more of a supporting role in the efforts.

When looking at the possibility of a new doctrine of American foreign policy, it is important to understand the reasons we are going to war. In my opinion, Obama and Clinton have started a new doctrine for US foreign policy. Their main reasons for going to war are, like always, to protect American interests. However, during both of their presidencies, there have been other conflicts that have arose that we didn't get involved in. They were conflicts that had American interests and also threaten global security and human freedom. Obama references human freedoms as a reason for entering the conflict against Libya. So, then how come we haven't been involved in these other conflicts? If they have threatened American interests (like the Egyptian Revolution) and violated human freedom and rights, shouldn't we have acted with military force in these situations too?

Well, in my opinion, there is a new doctrine that has led American foreign policy. Obama and Clinton both adopted this policy. Within this doctrine, America has stepped down in our role as "world police." Acting alone against these conflicts without world support won't work anymore. We need the support of the international community and most importantly NATO if we want to seek out successful operations. We can't act alone. By acting along with the international community's efforts, we are taking a backseat. We are no longer the first-mover. We are no longer taking full responsibility for these conflicts. If we act together, we can split the responsibilities, split the costs, split the losses, and split the victories. So, the new doctrine is based on acting in the interest of the international community by engaging in conflicts that we have back up from NATO or other strong nations. We can't fight our wars alone anymore. The power of the international community is much more threatening and much stronger than that of the US alone.

I like this new doctrine. We are stronger when we act together and it takes the burden off a single country and spreads it across all the nations involved. It is a more economically efficient way of handling conflicts. We can all act together and contribute in some way that we have a competitive advantage in. We've wasted billions of dollars and man hours in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have much support around us. We tried to do everything ourself and we took the burden of all the costs. In this conflict, Obama explained that we are supporting the efforts by providing a few key resources. The main efforts of supporting the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to the larger bodies like NATO (where responsibilities can be split). We will be supplying resources in things we are good at like military intelligence and logistics, search and rescue assistance, and our ability to jam communications within the regime. This new doctrine of American foreign policy has even proven successful in its short life. Gaddafi and the rebels just recently agreed to a cease-fire in negotiations with the African Union. Gaddafi can't handle the pressure of the international community as a whole. Sure, American won't take full credit for stopping Gaddafi and the rebels, but we were a part of the solution. America helped promote peace in the area, along with many other nations, and we should be pleased that we finally reached peace.

In my opinion, we can take action in Libya without taking action in other conflicts like in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria (to name a few). If we don't have the support of the international community, our efforts are going to be seriously hindered. We acted in Libya because we had the support of NATO and other important countries. And so far our efforts in Libya have been able to strip some land and power away from the rebels. However, if we acted alone in these efforts, we would have to fund the war by ourself, use all our resources to fight the war (instead of contributing a few key resources) and still carry out wars in other nations like IRaq and Afghanistan. It is too much to balance. we can't get involved in all the conflicts. We need to choose our engagement strategically and we have done so in supporting the opposition in Libya.