Question

The president and the Secretary of State negotiate an agreement with North Korea to end its designs on building a nuclear weapon. In exchange, the U.S. will commit $15 billion in humanitarian aid to the North Korean people suffering from mass starvation, and forgive up to $25 billion in loans by the North Korean government to U.S. banks. The president consulted Congress, but did not request a treaty.

a. Identify and explain which formal Constitutional powers apply to this scenario.
b. What informal powers and/or roles of the president apply? Explain.
c. Are the president’s actions constitutional?
d. Do you agree with the president’s decision? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The president has the formal power to negotiate executive agreements and provide humanitarian aid. The president can make use of informal powers to negotiate agreements and set the agenda for foreign policy. The president's actions are constitutional, but whether or not they are supported is subjective.

Step-by-step explanation:

a. The formal Constitutional powers that apply to this scenario are the president's power to negotiate executive agreements with foreign governments and the power to provide humanitarian aid. The president has the authority to negotiate agreements with foreign governments as part of their role in foreign policy. In this scenario, the president negotiated an agreement with North Korea to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, in exchange for humanitarian aid and forgiveness of loans.

b. Informal powers and roles of the president that apply in this scenario include their power to make executive agreements and their role as the agenda-setter for foreign policy. The president can enter into executive agreements, which are pacts made with heads of foreign governments without requiring Senate approval. In this scenario, the president used this informal power to negotiate an agreement with North Korea. The president also sets the agenda for foreign policy and can take unilateral action in some instances.

c. The president's actions in this scenario are constitutional. The Constitution grants the president the power to negotiate agreements and make executive agreements. While treaties require Senate approval, the president can enter into executive agreements without Senate consent. In this scenario, the president consulted Congress but did not need to request a treaty.

d. Whether or not someone agrees with the president's decision is subjective. Some may argue that negotiating an agreement without Senate approval undermines the checks and balances of the Constitution, while others may support the president's use of executive agreements to take swift action in foreign policy matters.

Answer 2

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

The formal Constitutional power that applies to this scenario is that the President of the United States is the Chief Diplomat and the leader of the nation. He has the power to make these kinds of decisions when he considers it necessary for the security of the country.

The informal powers or roles of the president that apply to this scenario is that the President of the United States is able to conduct foreign policy initiatives if he deems correct to get to a prompt solution of a conflict or avoid one.

Yes, the President's actions are constitutional because he is not confronting or breaking any precepts of the US Constitution. The President and the Secretary of State negotiated the agreement with North Korea to end its designs on building a nuclear weapon, and he consulted with the members of Congress to get their advice.

I agree in part, with the president's decision, but I considered necessary the signing of a formal Treaty to follow a protocol and clearly establish the conditions that back the agreements. This way, both countries would have to fulfill the agreement, no matter what happens in the future and despite any presidential changes in the United States or North Korea.

In this case, the treaty should be discussed and approved by the United States Congress.