Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

I like the 3-way breakdown you have chosen so if its all right, I too will adhere to that model. SO, commerce: I agree that a ban put forth by the UN ought to be accepted regardless. I also agree that in order to pass a ban, a 2/3rds majority has to approve it in both houses of Congress, but in the case of repealing a ban, a simple majority will do. I actually think this is an important differentiation to uphold and makes for an efficient yet democratic system. To limit imports/exports to a country, the sanction would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to that country, and the President. In the event of dissent among the three, it would be the duty of the Ambassador to assemble a committee within 30 days. The committee would consist of a minimum of 4 members of Congress and 4 non-office-holding experts in the field (ie: experts in international relations, economics, that particular country, etc.), with 10 members in total (some flexibility left up to the Ambassador). The committee would, once assembled, have 30 days to review the facts, discuss the issue and come to a conclusion. At the end of the 30 days, the committee would present their proposal and all 13 involved parties would vote. The ruling of the simple majority would go into effect (again, this is only in the case of dissent among the 3) in this case. This way, if 3 of the biggest players in the trade limitation(s) can agree, then their decision goes into effect, problem solved. If it becomes a point of contention, it allows other authorities on the matter to weigh in with the possibility of proposing a compromise. And in the end, the majority rules, yet all voting parties are a) well-informed [hence the 30 days] and b) qualified to make said decision. I agree with the nomination of Ambassadors by the President and their approval by a simple majority in both houses of Congress. I also agree that they shall serve until removal, resignation or death and may only be removed by a 2/3rds majority (barring any misconduct that the US judicial system rules outright illegal of course). We will follow the sanctions of the UN with regard to commerce. The import/export balance would be tackled like a budget. The President would annually draft a proposal that would include the overall balance as well as specific quotas or caps. It would be up to the President as to how specific the draft would be with regard to caps and quotas-- he may leave it open ended or itemize the whole thing. I see this as a matter of economic philosophy, so in this stage the President would have a certain amount of power. The draft would then be put to a vote by both houses of Congress, where it would need only a simple majority to pass in either. If it fails in both houses of Congress, the draft would be put up for revision. Each house would have the opportunity (but not obligation) to put forth their revised version, as would the President. In this case, the next round of voting would determine the version of the import/export balance to be enacted for that year (ie: a choice between up to 3, not a yay/nay vote). This would avoid blatant special interests as well as force all parties to reach an end result that is functional. The Dept. of Commerce would monitor production for exports and rate of imports. As part of their responsibility, they would "pace" imports and exports as to avoid sudden stops or hikes in either. Realistically, this would involve interdepartmental cooperation, but let's assume they have it. In the event of reaching a maximum/minimum as set forth by the approved balance, the Dept. of Commerce would halt the appropriate action. However, this would be a clear blunder on their part, as the whole point of pacing is to avoid such sudden changes. By this system, the balance is renewed/revised on an annual basis and thus problems can be corrected and changes can be accommodated. Trade agreements with specific countries would be up to the Ambassador, but could be put to a vote in Congress (simple majority, both houses) if the President dissents. I agree that multinational agreements must be signed by the President as well as passed by 2/3rds in Congress, particularly since these can have larger impacts for longer periods of time. Hope I didn't miss anything. Onward!