Furthermore, the Senate is required to ratify Presidential treaties which requires a two thirds majority, something that is fairly difficult. Without ratification, the treaty cannot be incorporated into US law. During the twentieth century, the Senate rejected seven treaties, one of which was in 1999, when the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Yet, successive presidents have circumvented this by signing executive agreements with the heads of foreign governments; these do not require the consent of the Senate. Subsequently, it can be claimed that while there are checks in place, they are not entirely successful.
On the other hand, the power of the purse plays a critical role in Congress' ability to regulate Presidential power. It enables it to vote on the money a President is allowed to spend on policies, thus limiting a President's actions. One of the most prominent examples is the , which eliminated all military funding for the government of and thereby ended the . This illustrates how Presidential influence does not go unchecked.
There is another successful restraint of the President's power - he does not sit within the Legislature and consequently does not have the power to make any laws. All laws originate in the Congress. President can approve them or veto them but the Congress can override the President's veto if it has enough votes. Congress can also adjourn his ‘emergency sessions’ without passing the legislation he wants. These are both examples of effective limitations on the President’s power over legislation.
Furthermore, the judiciary perform an effective check over presidential actions in the form of judicial review. There have been many significant cases ranging from the Pentagon Papers (effectively ending Nixon’s presidency) to declaring the line item veto to be invalid. In recent years the Supreme Court has extended its role by over-ruling the President’s decision to hold detainees indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay and use military tribunals to try them. As a result, it is wrong to claim that there are no effective checks on Presidential power.
The Senate has a clear set of Constitutional tools specifically designed to restrict Presidential dominance. The most well known of these would be the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court and other federal appointments, with Reagan's appointment of Robert Bork to the bench of the Supreme Court blocked by the Senate in 1987. It may be argued that most appointments go through without being blocked and that, in practice, this power is not significant. Yet it must be noted that a key reason why most appointments go ahead is because the president is normally careful to nominate figures who are unlikely to prove controversial to Senators. For that reason, the Senate's confirmation of Presidential appointments effectively acts as a check on the President's power.
Although there are effective checks on presidential power, some are undermined by a number of loopholes which the President benefits from, especially in regard to foreign affairs. However, there is a wide consensus that the President faces more checks on his authority within domestic affairs, such as judicial reviews and Congress' power of the purse. Therefore, the allegation that there are no effective checks on Presidential power is false.
by
pelican347 (student)
