GET ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
100% UNIQUE SOLUTION WITHIN FEW HOURS
This is a difficult discussion for me to comment on. Most of my life I've been taught not to make assumptions and comments on topics that I am fully educated on. Taking this course and learning about this section specifically has definitely helped me to learn a lot more on a few different topics that prior to learning, I was not familiar with at all. I will say this, if someone at work asked me what was my opinion on this matter I would respond "I don't know enough to confidently comment on the subject".
But, after taking some time and really learning more about this topic during this course my opinion is that I would disagree with that change. It's difficult for me to respond to questions like this without bias because I personally disagree with a large number of things our government does. However, I do feel like the balance between congress and senate is one of the things (when organized properly) that can be utilized for good in our country.
I do feel that our congress (at least should be) is, for the most part, made up of intelligent, well traveled, worldly professionals who, as a collective should be able to make the proper decisions when discussing foreign policy. They should at the very least be able to weigh in and bring ideas to the table as they do with other matters of government. The checks and balances of items starting in congress, getting voted on and moving on to the senate when passed has the ability to be mostly full proof and protected. I feel strongly that if major decisions are only voted on by the president and people that he/she chooses, it could very easily become a type of government in which the people do not have a say. The executive branch is usually made up of people that are not voted into office and thus do not actually hold a strong representation of our democracy.
I will play devils advocate to myself for this last paragraph and say that there is a phrase that comes to mind when discussing this topic of debate. And that is, "too many cooks in the kitchen". When there are too many people discussing the same topic it can very easily become a debate of "which party do you represent" and people will not vote honestly. People in congress might decide to do what is in their best interest as opposed to what is in the peoples and the countries best interest.
I think for this current administration, the executive branch has not lived up to their responsibilities in the basic ways. Whether it pardoning people that (in my opinion) should not have been pardoned, attempting to issues pardons for people that were blatantly guilty of the crimes they were charged for, rejecting multiple proposals for new laws that I felt made a lot of sense and could be very beneficial to contributing change, among many other things.
2. With the ascent in the pervasiveness of non-state on-screen character aggressor gatherings, a significant part of the military's endeavors to suppress the movement of these gatherings would be incomprehensible without complete classification from any individual knowing about the activities. In this manner, the president needs to keep away from a discussion with administrative bodies who have demonstrated inclined to capitulating to media pressure, or whose individuals at times look for the spotlight for themselves instead of securing delicate international strategy data. Nothing happens in Congress without some type of media consideration and action. Numerous people in Congress can't be trusted to keep up the mystery required for the execution of military endeavors abroad. As referenced in our course reading, the Obama choice to assault the compound involved by Osama container Laden in Pakistan was completed without the counsel of Congress, and Congress discovered precisely when every other person scholarly of the occasions (Lowi et al., 2017). With the media's capacity and want to spread the news as fast and beyond what many would consider possible, this activity would have likely bombed notwithstanding mystery and counsel with a chosen few guides separate from Congress. Hence, I accept that the commencement of military activity ought to be through presidential watchfulness with the advisement of a chosen few confided in specialists inside the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency.
Congress invests an excess of energy bottle-necked on the inward arrangement and keeps up a prohibitive bipartisan framework practically drained of adaptability in conviction or position. For instance, authoritative proposition for local vitality gracefully and securing which gain endorsement from Congress for a referral to the suitable board of trustees end up hindered in those advisory groups. In 2015, H.R. 4084, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, was submitted to Congress and in 2016, it was endorsed and alluded to the fitting panel. A long time since submittal and four years since referral, yet no advancement since when vitality ought to be one essential concentration for all inside our country. Our frameworks are unequipped for settling on basic choices for our nation and are in this manner unequipped for concentrating on the issues of different countries without making more strife. On occasion, choices must be made rapidly concerning human rights infringement and global peacekeeping that would emerge past the point of no return whenever left to our bipartisan and regularly gridlocked Congressional leaders. Should Congress demonstrate compelling dynamic effectiveness inside the limits of our national undertakings later on, maybe remote issues could turn into a domain where they have more impact? Until that time, the president ought to keep up center around practicing the intensity of the workplace with an exhortation from a chosen few in international strategy.
The inquiry fixates on World War II as when presidents practiced a more prominent level of self-governance in dynamic in regards to international strategy. Most likely, the choice to use a weapon of mass demolition, for example, the nuclear bombs has been met with serious examination and investigation. To acknowledge why the nuclear bombs were likely vital, it must be comprehended the degree of human monstrosities which were delivered by the Japanese military, a military which youthful Japanese kids were instilled into preceding their youngsters by and large. The Rape of Nanking occurred preceding the assault on American military positions, for example, Pearl Harbor yet was no uncertainty characteristic of the ruthlessness which an attacking Japanese power would show should they have been permitted to proceed with their settler objectives during World War II. The Japanese military soldiers showed unbridled disdain for their adversary in China and did demonstrations of outrageous mercilessness on officers and regular folks the same. The occasion has been contrasted with the most exceedingly awful acts against mankind by numerous students of history, including Iris Chang who expressed, "Yet if the facts demonstrate that even in such loathsomeness stories there are degrees of heartlessness, at that point scarcely any barbarities in world history contrast in power and scale with the Rape of Nanking during World War II" (Chang, 1997, p.3). Chang additionally depicted stories of unlimited quantities of Chinese being utilized for "knife practice" or being "doused with gas and consumed alive" (p.4). Assessments of more than 350,000 regular citizens dying in unbearable conditions because of Japanese warriors in under a half year have been referred to by specialists (Chang, 1997, p.4). The war in the Pacific had been seething among Japan and China years before America was goaded into the contention. The Rape of Nanking is just a single case of Japanese barbarity in the Pacific, however one which underlines an unfeeling power which must be stopped with an extraordinary model, for example, the nuclear bombings following quite a while of dangerous fighting. The president had arrived at when the inability to act could have implied a more noteworthy number of lives lost; American, Japanese, and globally, than the setbacks the nuclear bombs exacted. While the objectives and level of fatal power utilized can unquestionably be bantered as superfluous, the requirement for outrageous activity was clear and the president made a call that finished World War II.
Choices must be made concerning the encroachment of acknowledged essential human rights, and they should be made rapidly and regularly furtively to maintain a strategic distance from the acceleration of outrages and disappointment of any global endeavors. The president is chosen as our most confided in pioneer and ought to be decided in an extraordinary arrangement by the choices made using the supported adaptability in global issues dynamic conceded the workplace.
The executive branch has continued to increase in power from the very beginning, and this has been most notable in war. Originally, the president needed Congress’ approval when taking various actions against other countries, especially in the military. But, as time has passed, the president has found various ways to circumvent Congress to achieve their goals. Some of these methods include hiring private contractors, executive agreements, and the ability to start wars without a declaration from congress. I don’t approve of this. The ability to simply negate one of the checks and balances that the government has established for itself seems like an overreach of power on behalf of the executive branch. Also, the use of private contractors by the president to not only avoid a policy established by Congress but to not even be held accountable for their actions seems like a blatant overreach of power. Not only can private contractors be abused in this way, but the president can also order troops into other countries without congressional approval. I believe that as a member of the government, the president’s military actions should be overseen and be held accountable to the government. Congress has a few ways to counter these tactics, such as voting to refuse to fund military excursions, but if the president’s party were in the majority in either house, then it’s unlikely that they’ll vote against the president.
I think that the president has been claiming so much power because they are the most “energetic” position, meaning that they are a single person who can
largely act on their own. A large organization like Congress would need to vote on things like hiring military contractors, and the Congressional equivalent of the executive agreement is the treaty, which is harder to pass. The executive branch, on the other hand, though faced with some obstacles, has a far easier time accomplishing the same things. And with Congress allowing many of these things to happen, such as allowing presidents to start wars without their approval first, the executive branch is largely not held accountable for what they do.
I welcome any criticism from my point of view, and if there is anything , I should clarify please let me know.
IN 150 WORDS RESPOND TO THE TWO DICUSSION BORAD.
100% UNIQUE SOLUTION WITHIN FEW HOURS