Who makes foreign policy, and how treaties and international organizations work
Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Jackson's concurrence (quoted)
"When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Jackson's concurrence (quoted): "When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain." Jackson's concurrence (quoted): "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter." Case Z1 (made-up): Congress passes a law allowing the President to freeze the assets of any foreign group that attacks US ships. The President freezes the assets of a named group that has attacked US ships.
Esme reads Jackson's three groups and case Z1. Congress authorized freezing assets by law. Where is the President's power?
- At its maximum, so no court may ever review the act
- At its lowest ebb, since the President acts in a field where Congress has legislated
- In the zone of twilight, since the law does not name this particular group
- At its maximum, since Congress authorized the act
War Powers Resolution of 1973 (our words)
Within 48 hours of sending armed forces into hostilities, the President must report to Congress. Within 60 days the forces must be withdrawn unless Congress has declared war, enacted a specific authorization for the force, or extended the period by law; the President may add 30 days to withdraw safely. The Resolution became law over a presidential veto. Section 5(c) adds that the forces shall be removed if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution, which both houses pass but which does not go to the President. INS v. Chadha (1983), in our words: A law let one house of Congress cancel the Attorney General's decision to let a person stay in the country. The Court held, 7 to 2, that this broke Article I, Section 7, because making law takes both houses and presentment to the President.
Luz reads cards W and X. Section 5(c) lets Congress order forces out by concurrent resolution. How does Chadha bear on it?
- Chadha struck down section 5(c) directly, so it has no force today
- Chadha concerned war powers, so it settles the meaning of the Resolution
- Chadha's reasoning casts doubt on it, but no card says a court has ruled on 5(c)
- Chadha concerns single-house vetoes alone, so a concurrent resolution is clearly valid
Executive agreements (our words)
An executive agreement is made by the President with another country without a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Some are made under a law passed by Congress, and some rest on the President's own powers. A law of 1972 requires that Congress be told of them soon after they are made. Article II, Section 2, clause 2 (quoted in part): "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, …"
Milo reads cards E and QT. A student says: "Treaties need two thirds, so every executive agreement is unconstitutional." How should that be judged?
- True, since any agreement with another nation is a treaty by definition, whatever it is called
- The text names treaties; agreements under laws or presidential powers rest on other grounds
- True, but solely when the agreement lasts more than two years and binds the nation
- False, since the Senate has no part in any international agreement, even when told of them
Use this
Whitney v. Robertson (1888), in our words: Courts treat treaties and federal statutes as equal in rank. If a later statute clashes with an earlier treaty, the later law controls inside the United States, though the nation may still owe a duty to the other country. Case T7 (made-up): Congress passes a statute that clashes with a treaty the nation made years earlier.
Noah reads card U and case T7. A statute clashes with an earlier treaty. What follows inside the United States?
- The earlier treaty, since a statute cannot cancel a treaty in any way
- The treaty controls, since Article VI ranks treaties above federal statutes
- The later statute controls in US courts, though a duty to the other country may remain
- Neither, until the Supreme Court first votes to end the treaty and Congress agrees
Use this
Chart O, Three organizations (our words). United Nations: in the General Assembly each member has one vote; the Security Council has 15 members, five of them permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States); on matters that are not procedural it needs nine votes including the concurring votes of the permanent members. NATO: a military alliance formed by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949; Article 5 treats an armed attack on one member in Europe or North America as an attack on all. WTO: set up in 1995 to run trade agreements and settle trade disputes among its members; the United States joined when both houses of Congress approved the agreements in a law. Case C7 (made-up): A Security Council resolution gets 11 yes votes, 2 abstentions and 2 no votes. One of the no votes is from a permanent member.
Pia reads chart O and case C7. Eleven vote yes, two abstain and two vote no, one of them a permanent member. What happens?
- It fails; a no vote from a permanent member blocks the resolution
- It passes, since two no votes cannot block a resolution with eleven yes votes
- It passes, since eleven yes votes are more than the nine required
- It fails, since it needs twelve votes, which is two thirds of fifteen
North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5 (quoted in part; omissions marked)
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all …, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Tala reads the NATO card. An armed attack hits a member in Europe. Does Article 5 order every member to send troops?
- Yes, but solely after the UN Security Council has voted to approve the response
- Yes; the Article lists armed force as the response each member must give
- No; each member takes the action it deems necessary, which may include armed force
- No; the Article binds a member solely if the attack happens on that member's territory
Two approval paths (our words)
Path 1 is a treaty, which needs two thirds of the senators present. Path 2 is a law passed by a majority of each house and signed by the President, as the WTO agreements were. Senators could block a treaty with just over one third of the votes; a law can pass with majorities in both houses.
Zee reads card P2. What does the choice between the two approval paths change about who holds power?
- There is no difference, since both paths need two thirds of the Senate
- The law path gives the President more power over the agreement, since the President signs the law
- The treaty path leaves out the Senate, so senators lose their power to block
- A law needs majorities in both houses, so one third of senators cannot block it alone
Convention card (our words)
In August 1787 delegates changed a draft that gave Congress the power to "make war" so that it said "declare war". Madison and Gerry moved the change, leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks. Reading X (invented for this sheet): The Constitution gives Congress the power to start wars; the President's command begins only after Congress has acted. Reading Y (invented for this sheet): The framers split the power: Congress declares formal war, while the President may use force on his own to repel attacks and protect the nation, within limits Congress can set.
Ari reads cards CV, RX and RY. What does the 1787 change from "make war" to "declare war" support?
- It supports Y on sudden attacks, but not that the President may begin any war
- It supports neither reading, since the words changed but the meaning stayed the same
- It supports X completely, since the framers left the President no power over force
- It supports X on sudden attacks and Y on formal declarations of war
Korea, 1950 (our words)
In June 1950 President Truman ordered US forces to help South Korea after a UN Security Council resolution. Congress had not declared war. Congress later voted money for the effort. War Powers Resolution of 1973 (our words): Within 48 hours of sending armed forces into hostilities, the President must report to Congress. Within 60 days the forces must be withdrawn unless Congress has declared war, enacted a specific authorization for the force, or extended the period by law; the President may add 30 days to withdraw safely. The Resolution became law over a presidential veto. Section 5(c) adds that the forces shall be removed if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution, which both houses pass but which does not go to the President. Reading X (invented for this sheet): The Constitution gives Congress the power to start wars; the President's command begins only after Congress has acted. Reading Y (invented for this sheet): The framers split the power: Congress declares formal war, while the President may use force on his own to repel attacks and protect the nation, within limits Congress can set.
Bo reads cards K, W, RX and RY. Which claim do Korea and the 1973 Resolution best support?
- Presidents used force without declarations; Congress later set reports and a time limit
- Congress gave up its war power in 1973 by letting the President act for 60 days
- Congress agreed with Korea at once, since it later voted money to pay for the effort
- Presidents did not need Congress's approval for any use of force at any time
Use this
Chart O, Three organizations (our words). United Nations: in the General Assembly each member has one vote; the Security Council has 15 members, five of them permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States); on matters that are not procedural it needs nine votes including the concurring votes of the permanent members. NATO: a military alliance formed by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949; Article 5 treats an armed attack on one member in Europe or North America as an attack on all. WTO: set up in 1995 to run trade agreements and settle trade disputes among its members; the United States joined when both houses of Congress approved the agreements in a law. North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5 (quoted in part; omissions marked): "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all …, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Esme reads chart O and the NATO card. Which statement compares who can block or decide action in the UN Security Council and in NATO?
- In the Council a permanent member can block; under Article 5 each member decides its own response
- In both, a majority of members decides what action the members must take
- In both, the US Senate decides by a treaty vote what action is taken
- In the Council each member decides its own response; under Article 5 a permanent member can block