Channels, Spring 2019

Page 34 Wilt • The President, Foreign Policy confirmations. The Senate’s “Advise and Consent” role is hotly debated as to the extent of political considerations when considering appointments or treaties; but, the undefined nature of the Senate’s proper role is open to interpretation, and therefore, has varied in its application. The historic context of the legislature has been relatively inconsistent with the nature of its role in foreign policy. In some cases, the legislature has moved to limit the president’s foreign policy and international security powers, while in other cases, Congress has moved to increase the powers of the president or acknowledge his leadership within this field. One such example was the USA Patriot Act, which moved to authorize the president to collect information and data about the American populace in order to combat the global rise of terrorism. Additionally, supplemental legislation has supported executive action in a number of cases, specifically when the president did not have enough time to receive congressional authorization. At the same time, Congress has moved to condemn the president’s actions, and has limited the scope of the president’s powers. Such pieces of legislation include the War Powers Act, which has been seen by some as a usurpation of the legislature over the executive in the realm of foreign policymaking and national security concerns. Still, others contend it serves as a proper check upon the ‘imperial presidency.’ This legislation will be considered in the forthcoming sections concerning the historic context of the president’s powers, the expansion of those stated powers, and the reaction of the courts and legislature. The Courts The courts have been a constant force when dealing with the separation of powers. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled on several cases dealing with the extent of the foreign policy powers of the legislative branch in comparison to those of the executive. The Supreme Court has also ruled on cases concerning presidential authority and power demarcation that will be important to note in the overall considerations of the president’s powers. Furthermore, the nature of the Court’s stare decisis concerning the president’s role in foreign policy will be important to note for the concerns of the paper. The two most notable cases involving presidential power in foreign affairs come from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation. These two cases present the epitome of the culmination of presidential power in relation to Congress ( Youngstown ), and the codifying and preeminence asserted in the presidency concerning foreign powers ( Curtiss Wright ). United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) During President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure, Roosevelt sued the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation for selling arms to Bolivia and Paraguay in violation of an arms-sale ban to these countries. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sutherland pens what has been called the sole-organ theory . Justice Sutherland wrote that the president is the “sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” and that “He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in times of war.” 16 Here, one can see the implications of such a broad claim: The president, argues Sutherland, is the chief leader in the realm of foreign affairs, and should then receive discretion in how he or she carries out foreign policymaking. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) Likely the most well-known and most-cited case concerning the extent of presidential power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer ( Youngstown , hereafter) serves as a legal precedent. In this 16 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation , 299 U.S. 304 (1936). Concurring opinion, Justice Sutherland.