Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

Rebuttals are part of the same round (you make your rebuttal, then start your own argument in the same round) This certainly does not call for total opposition. We might even compromise at the end. It is just each of us proposing our desired framework. We can only use real systems as reference. Using Star Wars or Hunger Games is not allowed. Wholesale revamping is not on the table, the only thing that is allowed to be changed is in regard to Foreign Policy. I should have stated in my opening argument, my three rounds will be broken down. The first will be in regards to commerce, the second to war, and the third to foreign aid. In addition, I'll throw in treaties somewhere for things besides commerce (i.e. border disputes) and also anything else I forget before the closing arguments. Most likely will be the third, since foreign aid won't be too expansive. Onto the arguments, My first argument will be in regard to commerce. First off, total economic separation between ourselves and a foreign state will be decided internally solely by Congress (or must be accepted if demanded by the UN). It would require a 2/3rd majority in both to impose a ban, but only a 50%(+1) to remove one. This would be like in the case with Cuba, that can only be imposed or lifted by Congress. In this way, the weight of this heavy burden (and it's responsibility) would not be on one man. It would have to be the collective thought of the majority that some country would need to be banned or welcomed. Secondly, any limiting sanctions in imports/exports to a country will be decided by the Ambassador to that country. (The President can indirectly influence this decision) The Ambassador must be nominated by the President, and approved by 50%(+1) Congress (both house and senate). They shall serve until they are removed, resign or death. He can only be impeached (removed) by 2/3rds Congress (either house or senate). In this way, sanctions can be a more fluid action. They can happen more often, and lifted easier. However, should it be the collective feeling that a particular ambassador is performing poorly in these actions, he can be removed. It is much easier to remove an ambassador than it is to remove a President. It is tough to impeach a President because of his sanction (or lack thereof) on one country, but easier for an ambassador. All sanctions declared by the UN will be supported. We must adhere to their requirements for international commerce. Thirdly, the President alone can set an import/export balance for the country. However, once the balance is set, he does not decide which field the limitations are in. Upon reaching the limit, all imports are immediately halted until the balance is back to the President's pre-determined boundaries. The actions to monitor the internal production will be regarded as an internal affair and regulated by the Department of Commerce. Effectively, this leaves it up to the President should he desire to make us isolationists. In this way, we will most likely limit our economic import/export trade imbalance, as the responsibility is solely on one man. He must be true in his decision. As it is impartial to any foreign state, he must be sure in his actions. This gives him ultimate control, but also ultimate responsibility for the entire trade deficit of the United States. Fourthly, trade agreements will be done solely by ambassadors to specific countries. Multi-country deals (such as NAFTA) will be signed by the President and require 2/3rds Congressional approval (both house and senate). This is much the same as the sanctions part. The multi-country deals is similar to the current system, albeit requiring 2/3rds instead of just 50%(+1) as it currently is because I think a think like a multi-country trade agreement should have more backing than just 50%(+1) of the current people. I think that just about covers all of commerce, if I forgot any part, I'll throw it in later.