Congressional Approval Research Articles

Presidential War Powers and Humanitarian Intervention

Does the fact that Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution reserves to Congress the authority to “declare war” mean that the president needs congressional approval before using military force? As this Article discusses, there are a range of answers to this question. The Article examines this debate in the context of humanitarian intervention, i.e. military actions taken, not for purposes of conquest, but instead to stop largescale, serious violations of human rights. If the president wishes to use the military for these purposes, should he have more authority under the Constitution to do so? Less? The same? What this Article suggests is that the concerns which drove the Founders to place limits on the President’s war powers, especially the fear that a glory-seeking chief executive would precipitously use the military in order to serve his own desire for fame, are not as serious when it comes to humanitarian intervention. Presidents are unlikely to significantly enhance their short-term popularity or historical legacies by using the military in this way. As a result, there is less reason to fear that they will be incautious in these situations. In addition, it is possible to establish standards by which to judge presidential action in this arena, placing another effective limit on the President. In light of the reduced risks, as well as the terrible costs of inaction in the face of grave human rights crises, we should accept some flexibility for the President to decide to intercede for humanitarian reasons.

Art of the arms deal: Reagan, AWACS, and the rhetorical presidency

ABSTRACTDuring his first year in office President Reagan sought to authorize the sale of the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), an advanced weapons system, to Saudi Arabia over strong congressional opposition. The Reagan administration employed a range of strategies to ensure congressional approval of the deal, including tactics of deferring and promoting and rhetorically leveraging the presidential office. By overtly breaking from Jimmy Carter’s rhetoric of arms control, Reagan’s rhetoric reconstituted the bounds of accepted political action regarding conventional arms transfers, in the process setting new precedents in presidential rhetoric, US–Saudi relations, and the discourse of arms control.

FDA’s Streamlined Health App Approval: Better for Patients or Companies?

FDA’s Streamlined Health App Approval: Better for Patients or Companies?

Qualified Immunity and Constitutional Structure

A range of scholars has subjected qualified immunity to a wave of criticism— and for good reasons. But the Supreme Court continues to apply the doctrine in ever more aggressive ways. By advancing two claims, this Article seeks to make some sense of this conflict and to suggest some thoughts toward a resolution. First, while the Court has offered and scholars have rejected several rationales for the doctrine, layering in an account grounded in structural constitutional concerns provides a historically richer and analytically thicker understanding of the current qualified-immunity regime. For suits against federal officials, qualified immunity acts as a “compensating adjustment” to the separation-of-powers error ostensibly underlying the Court’s decision to allow such suits without congressional approval. For suits against state officials, qualified immunity addresses federalism concerns by leveling the field for constitutional enforcement so that state defendants do not face harsher penalties than their federal counterparts do. Second, while this structural account situates the doctrine within powerful constitutional currents, it does not justify the current qualified-immunity regime. For suits against federal officials, the structural account articulates a poor compensating adjustment because qualified immunity supplies an awkward solution to any separation-of-powers problem. For suits against state officials, the structural account appears to rest on a notion of “freestanding federalism” that is too far removed from the actual constitutional design. Alongside prior scholarship, and for different reasons for suits against federal and state officials, this analysis leaves the present model of qualified immunity ripe for rejection or replacement with a more rights-protective alternative.

Is performance information used under performance budgeting A systematic review

Scholars argue that performance budgeting reforms should move away from congressional budgetary approval and towards multiple decision-making processes within the executive branch. The arguments for that shift are often based on evidence from individual case studies and not from systematic analysis of multiple experiences. This study fills that gap by presenting a systematic review of more than 60 studies that cover reforms in over 20 countries. Our findings show that performance information is often used as an input for decision-making; that officials throughout the executive branch (line ministries, executive cabinets, and executive budget offices) are much more likely to use performance information than legislators; and that performance information is as often used for strategic planning and program management as for resource allocation. This study also analyses the factors that explain the use of performance information and builds a framework for future research.

ПОЛІТИКА США ТАВИКЛИКИ ДЕМОКРАТІЇ В ЛАТИНСЬКІЙ АМЕРИЦІ ТА КАРИБСЬКОМУ БАСЕЙНІ

Formulation of the problem: In the article management problems are examined Geographic proximity has ensured strong linkages between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean, based on diverse U.S. interests, including economic, political, and securityт concerns. The United States is a major trading partner and the largest source of foreign investment for many countries in the region, with free-trade agreements enhancing economic linkages with 11 countries. Purpose of the research: The region is a large source of U.S. immigration, both legal and illegal; proximity and economic and security conditions are major factors driving migration. Curbing the flow of illicit drugs has been a key component of U.S. relations with the region for more than three decades and currently involves close security cooperation with Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. U.S. support for democracy and human rights in the region has been long-standing, with particular current focus on Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The article analyzes the priorities of Administration of President Trump ordered U.S. withdrawal from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which would have increased U.S. economic linkages with Mexico, Chile, and Peru. President Trump criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada as unfair, warned that the United States might withdraw, and initiated renegotiations; ultimately, the three countries agreed to a United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in late September 2018. The proposed agreement, which requires congressional approval, largely leaves NAFTA intact but includes some updates and changes, especially to the dairy and auto industries. Administration actions on immigration have caused concern in the region, including efforts to end the deportation relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras. President Trump unveiled a new policy in 2017 toward Cuba partially rolling back U.S. efforts to normalize relations and imposing new sanctions.

ПОЛІТИКА США ТАВИКЛИКИ ДЕМОКРАТІЇ В ЛАТИНСЬКІЙ АМЕРИЦІ ТА КАРИБСЬКОМУ БАСЕЙНІ

Formulation of the problem: In the article management problems are examined Geographic proximity has ensured strong linkages between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean, based on diverse U.S. interests, including economic, political, and securityт concerns. The United States is a major trading partner and the largest source of foreign investment for many countries in the region, with free-trade agreements enhancing economic linkages with 11 countries. Purpose of the research: The region is a large source of U.S. immigration, both legal and illegal; proximity and economic and security conditions are major factors driving migration. Curbing the flow of illicit drugs has been a key component of U.S. relations with the region for more than three decades and currently involves close security cooperation with Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. U.S. support for democracy and human rights in the region has been long-standing, with particular current focus on Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The article analyzes the priorities of Administration of President Trump ordered U.S. withdrawal from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which would have increased U.S. economic linkages with Mexico, Chile, and Peru. President Trump criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada as unfair, warned that the United States might withdraw, and initiated renegotiations; ultimately, the three countries agreed to a United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in late September 2018. The proposed agreement, which requires congressional approval, largely leaves NAFTA intact but includes some updates and changes, especially to the dairy and auto industries. Administration actions on immigration have caused concern in the region, including efforts to end the deportation relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras. President Trump unveiled a new policy in 2017 toward Cuba partially rolling back U.S. efforts to normalize relations and imposing new sanctions.

Tratados que requieren la aprobación del Congreso de la República del Perú

This paper presents the problems regarding the application of articles 56 and 57 of the Political Constitution of Peru, referring to cases in which a treaty requires or not to be approved by the Congress before the President express the consent of the State to be bound by it. Raised the problem, this paper analyzes each case in which the Constitution requires the Congress approval, considering the doctrine, the Peruvian practice on the matter, as well as the rules in force and normative proposals.

The threat of monument designation as a technique for successful wilderness legislation: Using the Antiquities Act as a carrot or a stick

Congress provides the highest level of federal lands protection when it creates wilderness using the Wilderness Act. There are times, however, when Congress refuses or seems unwilling or unable to take such environmental policy action. In a handful of instances, presidents have strategically used the threat of or actual unilateral monument designation under the Antiquities Act to get Congress to create new wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Under the Antiquities Act presidents may, without stakeholder or congressional input or approval, unilaterally create national monuments covering public lands that fall within the parameters of its provisions, including lands that would be considered wilderness. This strategy may be used by future presidents that wish to encourage Congress to enact environmental policy protecting remaining pristine federal lands with a wilderness designation. This article analyzes three instances where this strategy was successfully used and identifies specific steps taken in each situation that ultimately led to congressional action creating new wilderness.

Sentimientos y políticas antimigrantes y antimexicanos durante los primeros 18 meses de la Presidencia Trump

Trump’s destructive anti-immigrant and “Mexican-phobic” rhetoric has been the common denominator justifying the wide variety of executive orders he has signed and the highly punitive directives he has established as part of his hard-line immigration policy, which has played a leading role during his first 18 months as president. The author describes how, without congressional approval, he has made several moves and imposed numerous actions such as significantly increasing the criminalization of immigrants; considerably raising the number of detentions of non-criminal undocumented migrants; responding aggressively to sanctuary policies; putting an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of more than one million immigrants; appreciably decreasing refugee admissions; banning Muslims from entering the U.S.; and very inhumanly and cruelly separating families at the border, among other measures. As president, Trump has enjoyed broad discretion to implement his aggressive hard-line immigration policy as never before; nonetheless, divisions within Congress and some objections from the courts have been crucial for stopping his harsh anti-immigrant policies. Trump’s actions have negatively affected immigrants, mainly of Mexican and Muslim origin, significantly damaging the historically strong bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Mexico.

Policy, Politics, and Public Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

We assess the importance of the public’s policy agreement with the Supreme Court on public approval of the court. Using survey data on a range of recent court cases, we measure respondents’ perceived ideological closeness to the court. Then, we test various theories of court approval (doctrinal, functional, attitudinal). People who believe the court has decided recent cases as they themselves would have done, or that judges share their partisanship, report higher court approval than those who perceive the court as ideologically distant from them. We compare these findings with similar effects of policy agreement on Congressional and Presidential approval.

U.S. industry applauds Trump’s infrastructure plan

Chemical companies are welcoming President Donald J. Trump’s long-awaited $1.5 trillion plan to rebuild aging U.S. infrastructure systems. “Building and repairing the nation’s network of roads, rails, and waterways will create jobs and strengthen America’s efficiency and, by extension, our economy for generations,” Dow Chemical says in a statement. “Dow and the chemical industry, as well as countless U.S. workers and citizens, will benefit from the President’s proposal to invest in our infrastructure.” The framework, released on Feb. 12, seeks congressional approval for $200 billion in direct federal funding. The administration expects the federal allocation will draw matching funds from cities, states, and the private sector, resulting in a $1.5 trillion total investment in repairs and new construction. In recent years, states have assumed a greater share of public infrastructure spending, and the White House wants to accelerate that trend. Modernizing and repairing the nation’s transportation infrastructure is critical for

U.S. industry applauds Trump’s infrastructure plan

Chemical companies are welcoming President Donald J. Trump’s long-awaited $1.5 trillion plan to rebuild aging U.S. infrastructure systems. “Building and repairing the nation’s network of roads, rails, and waterways will create jobs and strengthen America’s efficiency and, by extension, our economy for generations,” Dow Chemical says in a statement. “Dow and the chemical industry, as well as countless U.S. workers and citizens, will benefit from the President’s proposal to invest in our infrastructure.” The framework, released on Feb. 12, seeks congressional approval for $200 billion in direct federal funding. The administration expects the federal allocation will draw matching funds from cities, states, and the private sector, resulting in a $1.5 trillion total investment in repairs and new construction. In recent years, states have assumed a greater share of public infrastructure spending, and the White House wants to accelerate that trend. Modernizing and repairing the nation’s transportation infrastructure is critical for

The Judicial Response to the Presidential Polarization of the Administrative State

From the late 20th century through today, the relationship between the administrative state and the judiciary has undergone major changes. The same period has seen presidential administrations seek to make use of bureaucratic power to implement their public policy initiatives without having to obtain the approval of Congress. After reviewing the evolution of judicial oversight of the administrative state, the essay argues that the federal courts now make use of an ad hoc approach for determining the scope of judicial oversight of the administrative process. The essay argues that the use of this ad hoc approach has done serious damage to the administrative state, providing insufficient guidelines for presidential administrations to make use of bureaucratic power to implement public policy initiatives.

Public attitudes toward presidential veto powers

Previous research on presidential powers has demonstrated predictable variation in the level of support for presidential usage of those powers. However, much of this work has focused solely on unilateral powers. Here, we seek to further explore public attitudes towards constitutionally prescribed powers—namely that of the executive veto. Using original survey data, we find that public support of the president’s use of the veto is dependent on respondent partisanship as well as approval of both the president and Congress. Overall, our findings provide some support for previous research on the topic, but also offer new insights. First, we find a higher baseline level of support for presidential powers. Second, our results indicate that the president’s copartisans are more supportive of the veto even after controlling for presidential and congressional approval.

Draft Once; Deploy Everywhere? Contextualizing Digital Law and Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet

On Congressional approval in 2014, Brazil’s charter of civil rights for the Internet, the Marco Civil da Internet, was widely acclaimed as a template for national Internet policy elsewhere in the world. This was the result of a phenomenon I dub “draft once; deploy everywhere,” a pervasive belief in the universality of Internet law. This presumption underpins multiple charters of Internet rights drafted by digital rights organizations and policymakers. By showing how the Marco Civil was bitterly contested by blocks of powerful actors, the role played by Brazil’s recent history of dictatorship as well as its status at the margins of the global digital economy, I problematize the Marco Civil’s status as a global blueprint. This matters because without proper contextualization, the effective transfer of Internet law across national jurisdictions will be harder to realize, and their democratic virtues will prove more elusive.

Exiting Congressional-Executive Agreements

Some commentators have argued that, even if the President has the unilateral authority to terminate Article II treaties concluded with the Senate’s advice and consent, the President lacks the unilateral authority to terminate “congressional-executive agreements” concluded with majority congressional approval, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This paper challenges that claim. If one accepts a presidential authority to terminate Article II treaties, this paper contends, there is no compelling reason to conclude differently with respect to congressional-executive agreements. Congressional-executive agreements have become largely interchangeable with Article II treaties as a matter of domestic law and practice, and, thus, for example, either instrument can be used to address matters relating to international commerce and trade. Moreover, while presidents do not have the authority to unilaterally terminate statutes, congressional-executive agreements are not mere statutes; they are, like Article II treaties, binding international instruments that can be concluded by the United States only through presidential action. These agreements also typically contain withdrawal clauses similar to the ones contained in Article II treaties that presidents have long claimed the authority to invoke unilaterally, and Congress has never indicated that it views presidents as having less withdrawal authority for such agreements. Indeed, in its trade legislation, Congress appears to have accepted that presidents may invoke such clauses unilaterally.

Could President Trump Rely on Legal Advice to Order the Offensive Use of Military Force at His Discretion?

ABSTRACT Although the US Constitution permits presidents to order the use of military force without congressional approval only in an emergency context, presidents since Truman—especially after 9/11—have unilaterally ordered the offensive use of military force without congressional approval. Unless Congress asserts its constitutional role, President Donald Trump could continue to draw on this precedent to claim broad discretion to order the use of military force.

Congress Enacts Sanctions Legislation Targeting Russia

In July 2017, Congress passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. The legislation—which enjoyed nearly unanimous legislative support—contained sanctions targeting Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Title II of the Act—titled separately as the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (Countering Russian Influence Act)—entrenched and extended U.S. sanctions against Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and interfering with the U.S. presidential election. Title II's key provisions codified existing sanctions against Russia; imposed new sanctions against Russia; and restricted the president's authority to modify or eliminate these sanctions without congressional approval. Despite voicing constitutional objections to the legislation, President Trump signed the bill into law.

The Contemporary Presidency: A Lasting Legacy? Presidents, National Monuments, and the Antiquities Act

The Antiquities Act became law in 1906 at the urging of President Theodore Roosevelt. The law allows presidents to declare national monuments, and thus preserve public land, without congressional approval. While the use of the Act has varied over time, in recent Democratic administrations this legislation has become a major component of environmental policy making. This study examines the use of the Antiquities Act by presidents in order to understand this Act as a policy device and what its development says about environmental policy in modern times. The article also discusses recent efforts to redefine this presidential power.