Explain why a president might make an executive argument rather than negotiate a formal treaty.
A president might make an executive argument rather than negotiate a formal treaty for several reasons:
1. Time constraints: Negotiating and ratifying a formal treaty can be a lengthy process. It requires drafting the agreement, submitting it for Senate approval, and gaining a two-thirds majority vote. If the president needs to quickly address a pressing issue or respond to a crisis, making an executive argument allows for more immediate action.
2. Opposition or gridlock in Congress: The president may face opposition or partisan gridlock in Congress, making it difficult to gain support for a formal treaty. If the president's agenda aligns with a significant portion of the population or is consistent with existing legislation, they may opt to make an executive argument to bypass congressional opposition and bring forth immediate change.
3. Flexibility and adaptability: Negotiating treaties involves a multitude of stakeholders, long deliberations, and compromises. Executing an agreement through executive argumentation provides the president with greater flexibility to adjust or adapt to changing circumstances without being hindered by the formal negotiation and approval process.
4. Urgent and limited impact: If the president's objective affects a relatively small or limited area, it might not warrant the extensive process of negotiating a formal treaty. By making an executive argument, the president can directly address the issue without involving multiple parties or waiting for the lengthy treaty approval process.
5. Precedent or policy statement: In some cases, the president may use an executive argument to set a precedent or make a policy statement. By acting unilaterally, the president asserts their authority and frames the issue according to their vision, bypassing the need for consensus or negotiation with other nations.
However, it's essential to note that making executive arguments, also known as executive orders or executive actions, is subject to legal and constitutional limitations. The president's ability to act unilaterally is constrained by checks and balances, judicial oversight, and potential challenges from Congress or interest groups.