|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The Separation of Powers and the Control of Foreign Policy
| Article
# : |
11940 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
8 / 1987 |
6,185 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
The genius of the American Constitution lies in the separation of powers. The reasons for this limitation upon government, so eloquently expressed in the Federalist number 10 by James Madison, lie in the belief that imperfect human beings would misuse government if they were free to do so. The founders instituted a system of government with self-balancing limitations to protect the public from encroachments and domination by factions. This balance is underscored in the area of foreign policy by Congress' power to declare war and that of the president as commander in chief to wage war.
The opponents of an "imperial presidency" are not without a case if we turn to the original intentions of the founders. Their profound understanding of how the continued wars of Rome led to the decline of the republic, under the pressure of war generals who created a class of soldiery dependent upon the largess of the state, naturally led them to distrust situations in which the president alone could make decisions on war and peace. Thus, congress was given the power to declare war, raise armies, and authorize expenditure of funds.
The case against an "imperial presidency" from the standpoint of the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution, however, is often overstated. It leaves out of account the extent to which circumstances have created a context in which the distinctions they drew have no easy application.
There is irony in the discussion of presidential powers in foreign policy, for most of those who turn to original intention on this issue reject it with respect to school prayer, the incorporation argument, and abortion, among other decisions of the Supreme Court. And those who, like myself, object to these innovations on the part of the Supreme Court are among the strongest defenders of presidential prerogative in the area of foreign policy.
The irony, though real, can be overemphasized. Even where persuasive evidence can be mustered with respect to original intentions, those intentions hold only with respect to foreseeable circumstances and for a state of affairs anticipated by the founding fathers. For instance, the detailed micromanagement of foreign policy that Congress has attempted in recent years and the types of circumstances that gave rise to it were certainly never contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution. It may be possible to argue that the present congressional course comes closest to the intentions of the founders given the current circumstances. But it is also possible to argue the opposite. It seems more
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
