How do the foreign policy powers of Congress compare to the foreign policy powers of the president?
Congress can declare war, while the president can make treaties.
Congress can command the military, while the president appoints diplomats.
Congress can regulate trade, while the president can use judicial review.
Congress can appropriate money, while the president approves diplomatic appointments.
Congress has the power to declare war, while the president has the power to make treaties. This means that while Congress can formally initiate military action, the president has the authority to negotiate and finalize international agreements.
Congress can also command and fund the military through its power of oversight and appropriation, while the president has the authority to appoint diplomats who represent the United States in foreign affairs. This means that Congress can regulate the military and decide how its resources are allocated, while the president has the ability to shape diplomatic relations through the appointment of ambassadors and other representatives.
In addition, Congress has the power to regulate trade through its control over commerce, which involves the ability to enact tariffs or develop trade agreements. On the other hand, the president can use judicial review, through the appointment of federal judges, to influence foreign policy through the interpretation and application of international law.
Furthermore, Congress determines the budget and has the appropriation power, meaning it has the authority to allocate funds for various foreign policy initiatives or withhold funding from specific endeavors. Conversely, the president has the power to approve diplomatic appointments, allowing them to strategically shape the composition of diplomatic teams and the direction of foreign policy.
Overall, while both the president and Congress have significant foreign policy powers, they have different roles and responsibilities within the framework of the United States government, ensuring a system of checks and balances.
How does the Supreme Court participate in matters of foreign policy with the legislative and executive branches?
by approving the Senate’s majority vote for treaties and diplomatic appointments
by performing judicial review in cases involving constitutional law between branches and other nations
by determining whether the president is able to take military action against other nations
by overseeing the appropriation of funds that is decided on by Congress
The Supreme Court participates in matters of foreign policy with the legislative and executive branches in several ways.
Firstly, the Court plays a role in the approval process of treaties and diplomatic appointments. The Senate ultimately ratifies treaties with the advice and consent of a two-thirds majority vote. The Supreme Court does not have an explicit role in this process, but it may indirectly influence foreign policy decisions through its interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent decisions that impact treaties and appointments.
Secondly, the Supreme Court performs judicial review, which is the power to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. In cases involving constitutional law between branches and other nations, the Court may review and determine the legality of certain actions or policies. This can have significant implications for foreign policy decisions made by the legislative and executive branches.
Thirdly, the Court has the power to determine the legality of the president's ability to engage in military action against other nations. While the president has the authority to lead the military, the Supreme Court has the power to review and determine the legality of these actions if they are challenged on constitutional grounds.
Lastly, the Supreme Court oversees the appropriation of funds decided on by Congress in the broader sense of ensuring constitutionality. While it does not directly oversee the allocation of funds, the Court may be involved in cases that challenge specific appropriations or the constitutionality of broader budgetary decisions related to foreign policy.
In summary, the Supreme Court participates in matters of foreign policy by approving treaties and diplomatic appointments, performing judicial review on constitutional issues involving foreign policy, examining the legality of presidential military actions, and overseeing the constitutionality of broader appropriations made by Congress.
How does U.S. foreign policy today differentiate from foreign policy during the country’s founding?
Foreign policy has not changed throughout the country’s history.
Foreign policy has shifted from an internationalism perspective to an isolationism perspective.
The country’s foreign policy has shifted from an isolationism perspective to a internationalism perspective.
Foreign policy has gone back and forth between internationalism and isolationism perspectives.
Foreign policy today differentiates from foreign policy during the country's founding in that the country's foreign policy has shifted from an isolationism perspective to an internationalism perspective.
During the country's founding, the United States followed a policy of isolationism, focused on avoiding entanglement in foreign conflicts and maintaining a position of neutrality. This perspective was exemplified by President George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796, where he advised against permanent alliances and emphasized the importance of avoiding foreign entanglements.
However, over time, U.S. foreign policy gradually shifted towards internationalism. This change was motivated by various factors, including increasing global interconnectedness, the rise of the United States as a global power, and the challenges posed by world wars and emerging global threats.
The United States became increasingly engaged in international affairs, participating actively in global organizations like the United Nations and forming alliances such as NATO. The Cold War era also played a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy, with the United States taking a leading role in countering Soviet influence.
In recent years, there has been some debate and shifts in U.S. foreign policy, with periodic tendencies towards more isolationist rhetoric and policies. However, the overall trajectory has been towards internationalism, with the United States maintaining an active role in global affairs, advocating for democracy and human rights, and engaging in military interventions and diplomatic efforts around the world.
Therefore, it can be concluded that U.S. foreign policy has shifted from an isolationism perspective during the country's founding to an internationalism perspective in modern times, with some fluctuations and debates along the way.
The EBSCO article “The Two Prices of Soy” discusses Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan. Interpret which of the following describes the impact of Nixon’s decision.(1 point)
Responses
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan caused Japan to invest in agriculture in its own country.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused environmental damage to Brazil’s agriculture.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused the U.S.’s soy business to prosper.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused a major soy shortage in Japan.
Based on the information provided, none of the provided responses accurately describe the impact of Nixon's decision to stop selling soy to Japan. The impact of Nixon's decision is not hinted at in the given options, and without additional context or information, it is difficult to determine the specific impact accurately.
The EBSCO article “The Two Prices of Soy” discusses Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan. Interpret which of the following describes the impact of Nixon’s decision.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan caused Japan to invest in agriculture in its own country.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused environmental damage to Brazil’s agriculture.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused the U.S.’s soy business to prosper.
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused a major soy shortage in Japan.
Based on the provided options, the most accurate interpretation of the impact of Nixon's decision to stop selling soy to Japan would be:
Nixon’s decision to stop selling soy to Japan has caused a major soy shortage in Japan.
Which statement summarizes the impact lobbyists have on foreign policy?
A major soda company lobbies for soda to be provided in public schools.
Lobbyists advise the president on what decisions to make on foreign policy issues.
Lobbyists engage in demonstrations in order to have legislators understand how their company is affected.
A major soda company lobbies for free trade laws to expand their company.