Continuing our discussion of foreign policy, this week will talk about the US President and his ability to make foreign policy -- especially, his capacity to make war.
Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon:
Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.
To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict...
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make.
What do you think?
Has the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy, especially in terms of war?
Should the US President (the Executive branch of the government) be the primary maker of foreign policy? Or, should the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the policies of the US President?
Should the President be able to kill American citizens and take away their Constitutional rights?
Should citizens be more involved in US foreign policy making -- that is, should US foreign policy be more democratic? Or, should citizens be kept out of foreign policy decision making and trust their political leaders -- that is, should US foreign policy be more elitist?
I think citezins should be kept out of foreign policy. I say this because there are some things people are not going to want to hear and if they do they will freak out and the last thing we want when we are on the brink of war is for our whole nation o be scared and freaking out with what is going on. I think we should just trust our government to make the right decision.
ReplyDeleteTim Hoover
PSCI 100.04
i feel as though citizen should be kept out of foreign policy simply because it isnt really our place no matter our opinion we will never have an effect.
ReplyDelete-Costen
I feel as though that citizens should be kept out of foreign policy because we as American people chose a leader to make decisions for our country so we dont have the power or the right to make decisions for our country.
ReplyDeleteTrevon Butler
PSCI 100.04
If the President or any decision making branch of the government cared about what each individual had to say about the matter it would become a mess. I think the government does what it needs to do with these foreign policies because they have their own ideas. If we didnt elect one person to lead this country it would be a different story, but because he is the " leader" we have to trust him because we put him in that position.
ReplyDeleteMorgan McDonald psci 100.04
I believe all branches of the government. The foundation of America is the chance for everyone to have an equal say in what happens to our country. If we give the president more power, it can turn into a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteKimberly Clegg
PSCI 100.03
I believe that Congress and the U.S. president should have equal authority over foreign policy. The U.S. president is only one person and needs to be checked by someone. I do not believe that the president can take away Constitutional rights from citizens unless there was proof of terrorism or any other reason of worry. I think with foreign policy, citizens should stay out of it. There are certain things that citizens do not know that should stay like that. We elected the president in some form so we should trust him to make decisions in foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteTyler Messersmith
PSCI 100:03
I believe the war on terrorism fundamentally changed the role of the US President in making foreign policy especially in terms of war because ever since terrorism has becoming more active and more social seen in this world espeically with 9/11 the president has to be more tightly secured with what foregin policy he makes. Congress and the President i think need to have equal authority on making foreign polices because we all need to agree on what believe is the right decsion not just all by the President. But on the other hand, No i dont believe the President to be able to kill incident American citizens and take their Constitutional rights because we all should have a legal reasonaing on what you beleive is right. Last, No the citizens of USA should not be all to decide on the involvment in US foregin policy making because there are jobs where that is what you do in the country with the experience ans knowledge those people have the rights i think to decide clearly on what is needed to make this country and nice and successful country.
ReplyDelete(PSCI Brennan Fanning 100.03)
I think that both the U.S. president and Congress should have the authority in making foreign policy because their needs to be an agreement thoughout each branch, The president should not be allowed to take away a person's constitutional rights without solid evidence and a trial.
ReplyDeleteBianca Redmond 100.4
I definitely feel that the foreign policies have changed since the appearance of terrorism, we have become a bit too involved in other countries business and need to focus more on our own. There should also be some kind of balance like the people voting on it or congress checking the president before he implements these policies because some them can have some large repercussions on Americans and it should be left up to more than one person
ReplyDelete100.03 Skyler Bartles
This a tricky question-- On the one hand, I'm all for government transparency, but on the other, I know that in certain situations it's a safety matter not to reveal certain intelligence information.
ReplyDeleteI also think terrorism is complicating everything, especially the "war on terror." If the combatants are only sometimes specific to one group, and that group is spread out all over the place, then it makes perfectly logical sense to try to gain as much widespread control over them/information on them as possible...What is permissible during war in general, what classifies a war...what about a just war?
Personally, the amount of power the government has scares me. I don't want them to have anymore. I think we should tighten our belts, and cut losses. I don't want to become a nation of paranoid people who violate others' rights.
Nathaniel Warburton - PSCI 100:05
I feel as though the government should not be able to violate the rights they claim to have given us to begin with, and regarding National policy the President should not be able to make foreign policy without having legitimate reasons that congress agrees with. This will make sure that the American citizens' interests are fairly represented and that we all feel safe in our country's affairs. Sometimes we may want to be kept in the dark, such as situations regarding our taxes and other expenditures, but obviously we do want to know when our country is invading others and starting wars.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Mercer PSCI 100:05
No, I do not think that the president should be able to kill American Citizens and take away their constitutional rights. The criminal Justice system should be the ones to decide whether or not one should be killed.
ReplyDeleteKrystal Hambright PSCI 100.05
I think that people should be given more say in pressing matters as well as Congress, because if too much power or all power is given to the president than it turns into a Dictatorship! I also think that it helps at to the unity of the nation by giving the people more of a say in important issues that affect the whole country.
ReplyDelete-Hayley Glover
PSCI 100.03
This is a very delicate situation; I can see both sides. For instance, the President is supposed to be answerable to the Rule of Law, and Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. On the the other hand, members of Congress and especially the general US population, don't have the first clue about some of the things that are going on; there is information that is reserved for the President and his advisers (often for the safety of the citizenry), which the President alone is qualified to act on. Who knows what the best answer is?
ReplyDeleteI have to think that the President, being a human being as sane and (hopefully) moral as the rest of us, would not make such earth-shattering decisions on a whim, or even based solely on ulterior motives. It is very likely, however, that I am wrong on that front.
As for the changing role of the President - hard to say. Yes, a lot of new policies have come out of the War on Terror. But then again, haven't accusations similar to these been around for a while? Wasn't Johnson, for instance, infamous for running the Vietnam War his own way, rather than relying on the advice of even his Generals? Wasn't Lincoln's imposition of the Emancipation Proclamation on the Southern States - legally their own nation - technically illegal (however just and good an act)?
My point is that the President has always "bent the rules." The degree to which they've been bent or broken is debatable, but that much is certainly true.
Again, this is an issue that does not have clearly defined lines and is much more complicated than can be dealt with in one short blog post.
Ian Karraker PSCI 100.05
I believe dealing with the president our laws should never be violated especially by the man who is suppose to uphold them. Although for foreign war, anything should be possible and citizens have never been fully included in decisions like this, so why start now giving them such a big commitment and decision. The people we choose should have good sense in knowing what we want. So i believe the congress should have more say but if they did not alot would be getting done. So there vote should be like ours popular but having no decision on the final decision because we elected our president for a reason.
ReplyDeletei think that terrorism has changed americas foregin policy greatly. i tyhink that we are so focused on "sercuriy" that we are willing to make rash descisions. our current war was started because our security was "threatented". i think that the purpose of having congress and three branches of government is to check and balence one another, so i do believe that congress should check the presidents efforts for foreign policy. i also think that citizens should be aware of current foreign policies and should have some say in what will happen, because it is the citizens that will be fighting in the possible war. foreign policy can be benefical but it can also be hazordous to our country, so citizens need to be aware and educated.
ReplyDeleteAmanda James 100.04
The president shouldn't be able to kill American decisions nor make the decision of whether or not to. This should be left up to the judicial system.I think that even if US citizens were 'more involved with foreign policy making' it would still in the end be left up to the political leaders or they would get the more upper-hand say about it. I feel that this is how most of the policies and laws are today anyways. I also think that the US Congress should have an equal say in foreign policy making, I don't think that it should just be one person's say even if it would be someone with a lot of power; the president.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Sentinella
PSCI 100.05
I believe that the foreign policies have been changed after September 11th. Our security has a huge impact of everyones life. Threats to our security would not be held without it though. I believe our laws shouldnt be violated unless nessesary with a majority vote!
ReplyDeleteLatavia Smith
100.05
I also see this as a complicated question to answer, then again what about the government isnt complicated? The foreign policy has changed since terrorism has been occuring, but I also feel like terrorism is occuring because America invaded countries that didnt need to be invaded. Our President puts America in situations that we do not need to be involved in and in other countries business. Then again, we do not need to completely be isolated from the world.
ReplyDeleteThe President does not have the right to kill innocent Americans and take away their right just because the President is paranoid and suspicious that everyone is a terrorist and out to get America. Citizens should have rights until they do something to break the law and the consequence will result in loss of rights to do things.
The issue of citizens having a say on foreign policy is something I believe in. It should be more democratic. The Americans are the ones fighting in the front line..not the President. Yes, he is aware of what other countries leaders are doing but he is not the one being sent to fight in war. I could go on for days but this sums up most of it.
Jenny Cavey PSCI 100.04
Would it be a joke if any policy that the government was trying to make is FOREIGN...at least to them.And I'm not talking about dealing with overseas countries...I am speaking of their ability to make and understand a policy.
ReplyDeleteCitizens across the nation rally around the ideas set forth for freedom and liberty, however, most have no clue as to whom our allies are (they keep changing depending on the global crisis), what the policies are for interaction with said nations, or what the levies are and the embargo's that the President is trying to put into place against those that do not agree with his way of thinking.
Americans should have the right to have input into what is going on in the world, regardless of the policies..domestic or foreign. Sure, call you Congressman or Senator but all you'll get is either an answering machine, a switchboard operator, or if your lucky, you'll talk to an intern who will give you the standard line of "I understand and I will see to that the [Congressman/Senator] get the message as soon as they return."
There should be a way for each constituent to have access to what policies are being debated and what laws are in discussion. This could be done as easily as setting up a secure server and having the information posted - even in blog form. A required sign on and password would be required of course. They could go in, read, and put their thoughts/feelings into a section where the government, including the President,should be made aware of a consensus of what the American people would like to see or not see.
G. Fry
Poli Sci 100.3
I think that all parts of the goverment should have a say on foreign policies; by this I mean the three branches of goverment. This was the way our country was set up to work and the president should not hold all the power. It should not be okay to kill american citizens but somehow I just can't help but feel that this is all a result of people's paranoia over terrorism. We need to move past this issue and think of a way to defuse our war status that has been continuing for too long.
ReplyDeleteJoan Conte
PSCI 100:05
The war on terror definately has changed the power of the president. Just look at what the Bush administration did by going above Congress. I think there needs to be more checks and balances but not so many that we can't get anything done. I think we are falling further and further into the mold of a dictatorship. I also do not think that Americans should have a direct opinion on foreign policy. I think the truth about foreign policy should be told because I know it probably isn't. Americans are too based on emotions and don't think of the consequences of the actions. I think the President, his advisers, and congress know what to do and how to handle certain situations better than someone who has never even traveled out of their state would know.
ReplyDeleteEllen Sassaman
PSCI 100:04
The war changed alot but didnt congress vote to go to war with Iraq? Everything that happens should be voted on but when national defence and civilians lives are at stake someone needs to take charge and protect us. We all have a right to vote unless we messed up and lose our right. So for the most part we can all vote for who we want to lead our country and WE voted there for thay are the most quailified person to make the call on what needs to happen.
ReplyDeletecody whetzel 100.05
I do feel that the war on "terrorism" has fundamentally changed the role of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy, especially concerning war . Other individuals, not just the President of our nation, need to help in the decision process. Congress should also be able to have a voice when it comes to these matters, especially considering the vast amount of responsibilities that the President must attend to on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteThere is no possible reasoning for why the President should be able to kill U.S. citizens and take away their constitutional rights. Furthermore, I think our government should be less elitist when it comes to our foreign policy. Any citizen in out country should be able to voice their concerns on the current state of America's current and future foreign policies.
Trevor Phadden
PSCI 100:04
I feel as the war on terrorism is slowly changing the role of the President in the sense that he is so worried about terrorism that sometimes small things get overlooked, that should be taken more serious. such as funding for public schools, transportation, basically anything that is publicly owned. This shouldn't be happening and more people should be involved in making big time decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe president should not be able to kill US citizens but nowadays that doesn't matter if the government feels as though you are a treat they have the power to do whatever they feel is necessary, just know I would never do anything or want to be label as a threat.
William Mckenzie
PSCI 100-03
Congress should definitely have the authority to check the president because otherwise our nation would turn into a dictatorship. Also, I feel as if citizens should have much more say in what decisions are made. However, I believe that it should be made more difficult to be considered a citizen of the United States.
ReplyDeleteTrevor McClain 100.05
The war on terriorism has changed a lot. Things, big and small might get over looked and a very large amount of money is being spent on war. It could definitely benefit a lot more things than war.
ReplyDeleteI think that congress should have the authority to check the president. I do agree that if congress didn't have the authority then the United States could possibly turn into something like totalitarian or dictatorship.
April Cave 100.05
I think that we should stay out of foreign policy simply because we chose a leader to make the decisions for a reason. If we don't trust our leaders decisions then why was he elected in the first place?
ReplyDeleteTaylor Hardee
PSCI 100:05
I agree that citizens should be kept out of foreign policy becuase we just simply do not know what exactly wars are trying to gain us besides security. I do not think that the president should hold all of the power in telling us if we are going to war or not, but I think that it should be up to the high ranked military leaders because they are the ones that know the most about war and fighting. The president should not be able to kill a citizen unless there is a reason that could truly harm him or the country.
ReplyDeleteShelby Knepper
PSCI 100.04
I think that it has. The war definately makes the presidency a lot more aware of foreign trade and I think that it is very important for the president to continue to run our foreign policy with other countries. I think that the president should be the one who deals with this because he is the face of our country.
ReplyDeleteTyler Beard
PSCI 100.04
I think nowadays people believe it's acceptable for the president to ignore the rules and do what he wants for the "security" of the country. I believe the president and Congress should both have equal authority when it comes to foreign policy. Declaring a war or making a decision to drop missiles on a country, to me, is too big for just one person to decide. I don't think the president should have any right to kill any American and take away their Constitutional Rights. Politicians preach about the Constitution, yet they don't follow it. That makes them seem a little more un-American than perhaps the person they are going to kill. I don't know whether foreign policy should be democratic or not. If our vote for president ultimately doesn't count, then what would stop the government from overthrowing the peoples' vote on foreign policy?
ReplyDeleteHannah Piper PSCI 100.04
I do think that the war has changed the role of the president. It seems to have given the president more leniency and power in office. I do think it is very important that the US Congress have equal authority to make foreign policies and check the policies of the US President, because it is essential that the President never gain too much power over the people.
ReplyDeleteNO!!!! The president should not be able to kill American citizens or take away their constitutional rights.... that is not his job and he has no right to make such crucial decisions that go against everything this country have been built upon... such as trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty.
I think the citizens of America have the right to be as involved or uninvolved in politics as they wish. I think the U.S. is TO involved in foreign policies and there are times when America should back off and let other countries run their own countries.... the same goes for feuds between countries.
Chelsea Lemley
PSCI 100.05
The role of the US President has certainly turned to more of the Commander and Chief like it was when the presidency in America originated. However, the difference is that our last few Presidents have been over using their power and therefore caused a massive economic debt in America.
ReplyDeleteUS Congress should have equal authority to make foreign policy and check the President's ideas. No one should be solely involved in policy making. However, regardless of who is in charge we have always managed to have policies that have flaws or holes in them and we have to go through a recycling process every time.
The President should absolutely have no authority to kill US citizens. We have rights for a reason and even if we are seen as a threat we should be treated like the Constitution says, "Right to a Fair Trial with a jury of your peers."
We place our leaders in the position of leadership because of the responsibilities put forth like policy and law making. I believe the public should be able to vote for the policy and discuss any flaws they see in the policy and then Congress and the President can go back through it and amend it accordingly.
Blaine G Gibson
PSCI 100.04
I think that the war on terror has given the President more power then he should be allowed to have. Congress should definitely be involved in U.S. foreign policy and war making. If both Congress and the President had to come to an agreement of when to go to war I feel that could keep the presidents war time power in check. When it comes to the presidents power to kill U.S. citizens who may or may not be involved in terrorist acts i think he has way to much power. The person should at least be allowed a fair trial so that evidence can be assembled that can prove that the person is guilty.
ReplyDeleteNick Mullican PSCI 100.04
I think that any doings of any branch or government should be checked and balanced by the others, no matter what is going on. And any policy or action that could effect the citizens in any amount should be voted on by the public and discussed thoroughly through out the government to prevent any over reaction on the presidents part, and while americans might not be able to have the final say they should be informed of what the government is doing and be allowed to speak there mind on any matter that involves this country. If the president feels the need to kill anybody i think that he should follow the rules, and be able to provide real evidence for why this person is such a threat to our country.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.04
Sarah Barry
Yes, I think the war on terrorism affects the president. I feel that if someone does something bad to our country, the only way is to go after them. Like going into war with another country. If the president does no do something, then the citizens think the president is not protecting the country or the citizens of it.
ReplyDeleteBeth Haymond
PSCI 100.05
This is how i feel too. Its like when parents tell their kids if someone hits you, you better hit them back.People feel that power is everything and in some cases it is so if we dont fight back it makes us look weak. Kiana Weller PSCI 100.05
DeleteThe more power the president has, the less democratic this country is. The president should have transparency, meaning he should not be able to keep secrets in office. There is no just reasoning for the president to have so much power that even Congress can't control him. I think that after the terrorists attacks, the frightened people of this country began to put more trust in the president to make decisions, but I think it has been taken advantage of. There's a fine line between providing security and becoming tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteBrittany Custer
PSCI 100.04
I do believe that the war on terrorism has fundamentally changed the role of the President in making foreign policy. Ever since September 11th, the citizens of the United States have viewed the role of the President differently. When the decision of what to do after the attacks was made, people trusted the President in whatever decision he made because frankly no one knew what to do in the face of such a shocking tragedy. However, I do not believe that the President should be the sole opinion when it comes to foreign policy. I think that Congress should have equal authority because Congress is supposed to be a representative body of what the American people want, though that is not always the case. The decisions made about foreign policy greatly affect the country as a whole, and to place that in the hands of one individual is problematic. The President should definitely not be able to kill American citizens and take away their Constitutional rights. Constitutional rights should be granted to every single individual in this country. Simply because someone has the label of President does not mean that they should have the right to take away other people’s rights. I can see where people would argue that it could be in the best interest of the country in terms of terrorism and whatnot, but basic rights are to be given to all people, not just special groups. When it comes to citizen involvement with foreign policy, I think that ideally it would be beneficial to have more citizens involved in foreign policy making, however I’m not sure that it would be likely to happen. A democracy is supposed to allow all citizens to have a say in the government and the way things are run, yet so many of us are so far removed from what is going on that giving people more say could also be detrimental. It is a tough question to answer.
ReplyDeleteHeather Webb PSCI 100.03
I feel as though since the president is a U.S citizen just like us that he should go and obey the say rules and laws as us to. But it does not seem like that is the case the president always feels as though they are excluded from the law which is not fair. No i do not think that the president should be able to kill American citizens and take away are rights for no cause at all. We as the citizens should be able to be more involved with decision making because at the end of the day all decisions will effect us in the long run.
ReplyDeleteAndre' Makell 100.03
I am on the fence about foregin policy making. On one hand I think foregin policy making should be left to the U.S. President and Congress, because they are leaders and should know what's best for the country. On the other hand I think that when the country goes to war it effects everyone, so why not have foreign policy be more of a democracy where people have a say and vote on what the country does?
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.04
The war on terrorism has changed the role of the President in making foreign policy by giving him too much power with not enough checks. Congress should have equal authority to make foreign policy and Congress should be able to check the policies of the US President. The President should definitely not be able to kill American citizens and take away their Constitutional rights; it is too much power for one person to have. I believe US foreign policy should be more democratic, the elite and the political leaders could abuse their decision making, so a more democratic approach in foreign policy would be better.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Waters PSCI 100.03
For some reason, many people believe that the war on terrorism has changed the role of the President. I don't believe it has.
ReplyDeleteThe President is Commander-in-Chief, and this title does seem to create confusion when coupled with our "checks and balances" system. I disagree with the lawyers interpretation referenced in this excerpt though. The importance of Commander-in-Chief does not trump the importance of Congress' rulings on the President's policies.
Personally, I don't care how perfect and intelligent and informed our President is, he will mess up a few times and make stupid policies. That is exactly why we have Congress and our Judicial branch. If we eliminate them from decisions during war, we are saying our President is infallible. That mindset is dangerous and--in my opinion--stupid. Congress' decisions as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court are as valid as the President's, and they should be treated as such.
Cassandra Nipe
PSCI 100.05
I feel the war on terrorism has changed the role of the president because he will do anything to prevent a tragedy like 9/11 to happen again so he would do whatever in his power to prevent it. People should not be involved in the U.S. foreign policy making because we have put leaders in positions for a reason. We should trust their judgment and live with the decision they make.
ReplyDeleteDeandre Montgomery
PSCI 100.04
The other two branches of government were created in order to check the President and the executive branch. That way no one branch would dominate the others and gain too much control. However, now thanks to the war on terror, the president is disregarding the constitution and claiming more power than he should have. Willfully disregarding our only democratically elected officials, and doing whatever he wants. This should be a huge concern for All of us...especially now that a precedent has been set that the executive branch can just strip us of our rights to Due Process and Free Speech. This is worrying.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Seaman
100.03
I also feel that the other branches of government were created so that the president couldn't be like a king and decide how and when we make choices and decisions of any kind. So I think that the other branches need to be more involved in the decisions in foreign policy and how the executive branch handles it's citizen's privacy and freedoms. When the president can make policy choices without regard for the other branches he's acting against what this country was founded on and stands for.
ReplyDeleteDiana Everhart
PSCI 100.05
I think that all forms of government should have a say in foreign policies. I feel that the citizens of the United states should be left out of the decision making because the government doesn't envolve us in anything else. I don't think that the President should be able to kill citizens and take away there rights because he has no control over our body and rights. Athought i do agree with others that 9/11 change our country and the way we run things.
ReplyDeleteAron Shiley PSCI 100.03
I feel citizens should be left out of decision making. We have voted people to take care of these things, and should trust and let them do their job.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Coffey PSCI 100:04
I do believe the war on terrorism has fundamentally changed the role of the US president. It seems like now people forget that there are other branches of govenment other than just the executive. These branches are there for checks and balances and congress should play a part in deciding these things. The elected representatives in congress better represent the wants of the citizens of the united states better than just the views of the president. On the subject of the President taking away for constitutional rights, he should not be able to do this without due process... and in my opinion shouldnt really be able to take away the majority of those rights at all. Theoretically it would be great to have more citizen involvement in foreign policy making; however that could be just as detremental to our nation as having one individual (the president) deciding it. americans are pretty stupid and that could be pretty scary.
ReplyDelete- Nikki-Lynn Lloyd
Psci 100.03
I have noticed a change in foreign policy since we have gone to war. I don't remember my parents having the chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the Patriot Act. And even though some see it as a necessary evil as security most U.S. citizens see it as an invasion of privacy. I would appreciate the ability for the people to have a say in the foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the war on terrorism being change so much plays a huge role for our president. Because people are getting more worried about if we are going to get attack again then other things. I mean we should be worried about stuff like that though. I don't think the president should kill american citizens because that's not the president role and should not take their right's away. Because with out rights then there would be no right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteKevin Williams
100.04
I think the war on terrorism has changed the role of the President slightly, but not in a overbearing way. I do believe the President should have the most, if not all, of the control over foreign policy and I think that the US Congress should have less say simply because I do not necessarily trust the US Congress to do the right things and do what is in the best interest of the masses while I think the President will be more in tune to what the majority of Americans may want.
ReplyDeleteI think the President should only be able to take away the rights and kill US citizens under certain, very defined terms. If there is hard evidence of some type of connection to terrorist organizations or intent to harm other citizens, on a grand or small scale, I believe that the President should do pretty much whatever he has to do to bring justice.
I think if citizens could make critically thought out decision on foreign policy, then of course I agree that it should be more democratic. The only problem is that I dont think people can make clear, conscious decisions on very important matters, so I think that the elitists, as long as they have the general good of America in mind, should continue to make the important decisions concerning foreign policy. To me, the masses seem to be too ignorant of the big picture or what is really good for the nation, though I think currently the elites are relatively ignorant too, I still think the elite representatives of our nation is the best way to handle foreign policy, at the moment at least.
Alex Bentley PS 100.03
I believe the war on terrorism has changed the role of the U.S. president in making foreign policy especially war. After the terrorist attack people became very opinionated on war and didn’t always agree with the decisions made. But I believe it is only the President’s call on what decisions are made when it comes to war and foreign policy. It is his job and it is not always going to be the right decision but it is what he believes is best for us which is why we voted for him.
ReplyDeleteJordan Dixon
PSCI 100.04
The President is only one person, he does not have all the answers. And who is to say that his judgement cannot be clouded? The President and the Congress should work together to make the decisions to ultimately do what is best for the country, that way many different views can be looked at and discussed. As for the citizens, I think they should know on a "need to know basis" because one, we do have say on who gets elected into the presidency, and two, because it's our country as well. But that doesn't mean the Government needs to tell us everything. That could potentially cause a state of panic if information isn't properly given out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment was by Megan Casteel 100.05
DeleteI think that President overall has the final say, but as Americans there should be a contribution from citizens. There should not be a decision made by the President unless there is a majority vote from citizens. Foreign policy is to defend the people and how can one person know how to defend all of America. It should be up to the people how they would like to be represented. It is our presidents job to defend the people and have their best interest and he can only do that if he knows exactly what the majority of people want.
ReplyDeleteLauren Tyree
PSCI 100.03
I do think the President should be in control of foreign policy, but there needs to be a set of checks and balances so that he doesn't get free reign to whatever he wants. The Congress needs to be able to stop him if need be.
ReplyDeleteTimothy Folk
PSCI 100.03
I think that the president should not be given the ultimate say and final power because if we start to give the president the ultimate authority especially the final say then it becomes a threat of Dictatorship! The people would lose there say all together and become appathetic or live in fear or the ultimatre ruler. For America would no longer be the home of the free.
ReplyDeleteHayley Glover
PSCI 100.03