1. War Powers
Resolution of 1973- Low Effectiveness: Congress passed the War Powers
Resolution after the Vietnam War with the aim to check the President’s ability
to send troops into armed conflict. The Resolution demands the President must
seek Congressional approval of committing ground forces into armed conflicted
after 60 days of deployment. However,
the executive branch feels this Resolution is an over-step on Congress’s part
and never follows it. President Clinton refused to ask Congress for the bombing
campaigns in former Yugoslavia and President Obama never asked for permission
for his bombing campaigns in Libya. There is hope, though, that putting
thousands of troops on the ground may force Congress to attempt to invoke this
right, but the President could just ignore Congress’s demand.
2. Impeachment
High Effectiveness: Congress can impeach the President based on former or
present illegal charges on the President. The United States Congress can try
any high-ranking government official. The House calls for the investigation and
the Senate convicts. In the past, Congress began the impeachment process for
only three Presidents: Nixon, Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton. However, the
Senate convicted none. Since this act is rarely used and no one President actually
ever convicted, it is high unlikely Congress will go this far with President
Trump.
3. Congressional
Investigations- Medium Effectiveness: Congress reserves the right to
formally investigate any action or situation taken by the U.S. government and
its officials. If Donald Trump decides to take any disproving actions, like
helping Russia bombers in Syria, not helping an NATO ally consequences, or commits
a security violation that has detrimental, Congress can began an investigation.
Due to how the Iran-Contra investigation hurt Reagan's Administration and the
Benghazi investigation damaged Hillary Clinton’s chances at presidency, the
President-elect may think twice about overstepping Congress’s opinion in fear
of an investigation.
4.
Power of
the Purse- Low to Medium Effectiveness: The Constitution places the
appropriation of money into Congress’s pocket. This means all the money for
Trump’s plans must come from Congress, and Congress can decide to not fund
Trump’s endeavors. It is highly unlikely to this nations focus on military and
Industrial Military Complex that Congress would ever cut military funding, but
Congress may cut funding for some of Trump’s other projects. For example, after
the latest START treaty, Congress floated around a bill that would essentially
not allow any congressional funding to be used for the new START bill, which
would make the bill ineffective. Congress can use the threat of hurting Trumps
pet projects like building a wall to get Trump to listen more.
5.
Stalling
Senate Confirmations High Effectiveness: The Senate must approve most of
Donald Trump’s cabinet, Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, and Ambassador
positions. The Senate stalled appointments this in the past, such as President
Obama’s Supreme Court Justice and Cuban Ambassador picks. By not allowing or
stalling certain confirmations, Congress can put a wrench in Donald Trump’s
agendas regarding his appointees and the policies they were going to help him
push through, such as throwing away the Iran Deal. However, since the
Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, it is
unlikely they will go
against Trump by stalling confirmations.
Though there are currently only
miniscule to checks Trump’s power, there have been rumblings in the past by
Congress to attempt to pass more legislation to check the President’s power. One
such case rumbling is repealing the War Powers Act and replacing it with a more
stringent act that would give Congress more of a say in deploying forcers.
Congress could build on this idea to pass more laws to check Trumps power. But,
the question then is “are we willing to give Congress all that extra power and
throw-off the balance of power just to protect ourselves from Trump?”
1 comment:
The real problem is that - especially in matters of foreign policy intervention - the notion of checks to the President through separation of powers, must finally depend on real and present quarrelsome discourse between the three branches of government. It may be that the President can not control the other two branches technically, but if Congress agrees with him and the Supreme Court is composed of just one or two key individuals, (at present one new appointment could be enough) the outrageous decisions can slide through. The commanding present case is Taiwan and China and the challenge to the 'one China' compromise. Given a background of commercial irritation between China and the US, where the US really does seem to need some major concessions relating to Chinese commercial power, then we can imagine decisions at the legislative and judicial working in conformity with that of the White House.
This is not abstraction. Whether historical curbing of Presidents has arisen primarily from the Constitution as such or from the separation of powers in particular, there is every indication that the political culture of the US now allows for untoward results - institutional process may be kept to but a maverick President might win a case against the welfare of the American people. In the present instance the small island of Taiwan looks of little matter to many in Congress, using it once more as a pawn in a great power game is becoming more likely.
Ian Inkster SOAS, London.
Post a Comment