Channels, Spring 2019

Channels • 2019 • Volume 3 • Number 2 Page 47 Polsky also highlights the ability of a president to manipulate situations to favor his intended outcomes and agendas. The president can place troops or the United States’ resources precariously close to hostile territories. Moreover, since Congress authorized such a huge military apparatus during a time of peace, Congress “effectively surrendered its constitutional power to deny presidents the means to wage war. 69 ” The president also commands a large amount of discretion in building a team of advisors and leaders (like FDR did by picking Eisenhower), setting the military objectives, and establishing a strategy. 70 President Richard Nixon, too, expanded executive powers. Nixon began the turning of recognizing mainland China versus Taiwan, which was the representative of China on the international stage. This policy was an extension of President Nixon’s ability to determine which ambassadors to not only receive, but also which representatives of other countries to engage with. President Nixon’s time as president, however, saw incredible shifts in presidential power. New York Times Co. v. the United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971) 71 proved to be a decisive case in determining that the United States’ government had an obligation to protect its classified information; the failure of the government is what produced the leak known as the Pentagon Papers, and led to a widespread national backlash against President Nixon, and the government in general. Specifically, though, the presidency was under attack as the Supreme Court case highlighted the shortcomings of the executive branch and its corresponding bureaucracies, and heightened concerns over backroom dealings. In practical terms, the application of the War Powers Resolution was difficult to discern. For example, President Jimmy Carter, upon the capture of the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran, ordered an evacuation operation to retake the Embassy and the 52 Americans hostages held there. However, President Carter stated he had full constitutional authority, under the guise of the War Powers Resolution, to act in regard to the military rescue operation. However, Carter notified Congress (notably Senator Byrd [D-WV]) following the unsuccessful rescue attempt. Congressional and public backlash was swift in condemning the president’s actions as unconstitutional and reckless. However, no moves were made by Congress to limit the president further in regard to the Iran hostage situation. Goldwater v. Carter (444 U.S. 996, 1979) was another Supreme Court case in which executive- legislative authority was disputed. Carter suspended a treaty that recognized Taiwan as the legitimate representative government for the country of China as it had been established for decades. Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) vehemently opposed this action, contending that the president did not have the sole power to terminate the treaty and must instead consult Congress for approval to nullify a treaty. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Carter, extending more authority to the presidency in the realm of terminating treaties, and removing the suggested necessity of Senate approval before the treaty could be nullified. 72 President Reagan was confronted with an attack on U.S. military personnel in Lebanon early in his administration. Prior to congressional involvement, Reagan “deployed troops pursuant to his ‘constitutional authority’.” 73 Following the attack, Reagan cooperated with Congress, and sought 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. 71 New York Times Co. v. the United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971). 3 72 Goldwater v. Carter , 444 U.S. 996 (1979). 73 Fisher, Presidential War Power , 160.