Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

What you call bureaucracy, I call checks and balances. This concept is actually fundamental to our government, and thus I will assume you know the concept unless you indicate otherwise. ï¿½Further, while accountability is perhaps easier to keep track of when one man is given so much power, that does not incline that person to make better decisions persay. ï¿½In my view, accountability is about taking responsibility for actions rather than watering down the system just for the sake of simplicity. Further, I do not in any way see taking time to make educated decisions a "waste of time" and I should hope I need not remind you that quantity of decisions ought not take precident over quality of rulings. As for Ambassadors, if they break a law, they lose their position. Simple. And that is actually the exact function of the judicial system-- to make legal rulings. Not sure the point of confusion.ï¿½ About the budget, don't quite see how annual revision is wasteful. I'd argue it's actually quite prudent. Things change constantly but what's more important is trends over time. Adjustments are absolutely necessarily, but also must be scheduled as to a) ensure they happen and b) guarantee they are regular. And you ought to keep in mind that the president does not necessarily have time to babysit the trade balance on a weekly/monthly basis.ï¿½ As a "bottom line" of sorts-- if you view voting as wasteful then you're working with the wrong systematic/conceptual framework. It is essential in a democracy. Period. On to your ideas about war: I do not understand why the Senate is barred from all matters relating to war. Further, though I do not think the names of departments makes a huge difference, yours reveals a lot about your general philosophy. It seems you see war as something constant, whereas I see it as an occasional (not to mention unfortunate) occurrence. You say the military will "promote US ideals around the globe" and here is where a problem arises. Where is it stated as a primary concern of our country to promote our "ideals" around the world?! (hint: no where) Further who decides what exactly these ideals are?? The military is not a diplomatic unit, nor is it a vehicle of imperialistic international meddling. This is frankly a huge leap from the founding intentions of our nation and shows the certain air of superiority that tends to make the rest of the world think less of us. Additionally, giving the president free reign once a foreign base is established is, like your commerce plans, taking a big risk by giving one person a great deal of power with few or no checks or balances. Finally, I thought we needed to stay within the confines of our current system. State militias are, as per our current system, treasonous. It is a total redundancy to have both state and federal military and/or paramilitary forces. It does not make sense fiscally and encourages the fissure of the country along state lines. We can discuss this more at a more appropriate time, but that idea has no place in the framework of this discussion. What I'd do: The President proposes the military budget. The House must pass it by simple majority. Specific allocations ought to be decided along side heads of Defense and Homeland Security (I would keep these approximate departments, though wouldn't be opposed to appropriately renaming one or both). However, they'd function more as advisors. Defense would include Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, all specialized units (SEALs, Rangers, etc.) while Homeland would encompass Coast Guard, National Guard, Border Patrol, and so on. And yes, VA would be entirely separate (after all, it's actually a different department so no reason to over-reach). Homeland would function as a domestic defense system. Defense would on the other hand be our overseas offense/defense (by my view this depends on circumstance) as well as our singular national military.ï¿½ The UN may "borrow" troops, and this would be the decision of the president. However, troops on UN missions could, with reason, be pulled by the president back to domestic and/or foreign posts. If there were political or economic repercussions, the president would have to deal as such. Any new bases in foreign posts must be pre-negotiated by the Ambassador to that nation and approved by the President under the advisement of top relevant military officials. ï¿½Once approved, the base operates under the President of course, but also reports immediately to a small group of ranking military officials. These people are chosen by the President and hold their posts until the base closes, they resign/retire/die or they are removed (whichever happens first). ï¿½These officials act as liaisons and though they report to the President, are expected to operate their base as independently and efficiently as possible. To declare war, the House or Senate must pass the declaration by a 2/3rds vote and the President must sign it. Only a president can sign a peace treaty, and that effectively ends said war. The US will respect the UN, but ultimately functions independently.ï¿½ To raise troops: Selective service applies to branches in both Homeland and Defense. Homeland shall not operate outside of the US and likewise, Defense shall not occupy domestically. I'm the event of the need for a draft, ï¿½it must pass by 2/3rds in the House and be signed by the President. Without the president's approval, no draft may go into effect. As for nuclear weapons, none shall be used without first passing by 2/3rds in the House AND receiving signed approval by the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. ï¿½These checks and balances are absolutely necessary, particularly when the stakes are so high.ï¿½ I think that wraps up my thoughts on this segment of the debate. I too shall add anything I have overlooked later on.ï¿½