Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

I hope it's within the realm of this debate for me to clarify my opinions (a rebuttal of your rebuttal, if you will) Checks and balances are less important than.... "separation of power". In the system I set up, everyone has power to do things effectively, but they are more separate. Usually, you're free to do as you wish until you mess up and we kick you out. I think we've seen enough of government inaction under the current system (close to the one you suggest) to know that we need something that will operate quicker. For ambassadors breaking the law, what I was saying is that congress cannot make laws that limit ambassadors power to do any of the things that I gave them power to do. What type of laws would they be found guilty of? (outside of things like murder) The point of the budget not being annual is the President can decide how long it's for. To arbitrarily say a year leads to inefficiency. Many times in government bodies that have to spend money for no reason just to keep in line with the budget. I do view voting on matters that need to be handled quickly as problematic. Maybe you don't keep up on it, but members of congress have a lot more on their hands than then can really handle. They will still vote on stuff, but so many things get brought in front of them nowadays, it's a real issue. Senate is barred because they are 100 people. They represent the states and not the people. I've always equated them with the House of Lords of England, and the House with the House of Commons (as that's what they were based on). Personally, I like the idea of the House of Commons deciding when they will be sending their children to war (as typically, if a senator's child is in the military, it's not in an active role). Also, the whole idea of the Senate vs the House is that the Senate is more detached from the people. They serve 6 year terms and are generally older (and have a higher age requirement). I think we should let the people who are closest to the Citizens (the House) decide what we do in matters of war, because they are the ones fighting it and they are the ones making the sacrifices for it. However, it does need approval of the President. Whether we like it or not, War for our country has been, and will be perpetual. It won't always be against the same enemy. "Where is it stated as a primary concern of our country to promote our "ideals" around the world?!" -- The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. We will forever have a global presence (or at least as long as we are able to). And I did say that the militia thing is outside of this debate, I was just making an off-hand comment. Plus, there are state militias that are organized independently, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "treason" thing. To your argument: "Defense would on the other hand be our overseas offense/defense" - How can we be on the defense overseas? "troops on UN missions could...be pulled by the president" - isn't it very likely then that when the UN is doing something we don't like, we would pull our support. I think this is against the nature of the UN, they are supposed to operate without influence (besides everyone getting a vote... along with Supreme Veto power of the security council... ugh). "Any new bases...must be pre-negotiated by the Ambassador...approved by the President" - This is without the say of the House? Isn't this too much like the current system where the President can start a war without Congress? "I'm the event of the need for a draft, it must pass by 2/3rds in the House" - so you think that the House (w/o Senate) should be responsible for the draft, but not other matters of war? why do you separate them? (I'm asking in the sense of you questioning my separation of the senate from war). "As for nuclear weapons, none shall be used without first passing by 2/3rds in the House" -- again, only the House. But also, don't you think the decision for the use of Nuclear Weapons will be a hasty one (albeit not a light decision)? We can't wait for a vote in the House for such a decision. On to Foreign Aid: (a much simpler topic) Foreign Aid to each country much be independently approved on a individual basis. (Meaning, exactly how much money is given). This can be done at any time, without a definitive schedule. The ambassador to any one country will enter a plea to the house to vote on a bill for Foreign Aid. If it passes, it must be signed by the President. Problems with this might consist of more aid being sent to independent aid programs, such as the Red Cross and also funding the UN. This can be seen as either a good or a bad thing. I think it would remove some of the politics involved, and just get help to the people who need it. Also, it should be entered into the Constitution that we cannot sell,give, barter... anything.. any weapons to Foreign Countries. Period. This has gotten us into trouble far too many times in the past (WWII, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan... the list goes on and on). If we wish to take part in other countries war efforts, we must do so by our own efforts. It must be entered into the Constitution so that there is no discrepancy (such as before WWII in our supplies to England). Each lump sum of Federal Aid in dollars must be approved by the House %50( 1) No weapons can be sold/given to Foreign countries Oh, and lastly, it should be entered into the Constitution that we are never officially Allies with any nation This has never been a good thing for us (or mostly anyone for that matter). Much better to remain neutral. Allies, in the way I'm using it, means a "you attack them, we attack you policy" This type of action should be saved for the UN. I save the right to address any new topics that you bring up in your final argument (like, something I forgot, but you remembered.... I get to address your argument and counter with my own in the conclusion, but I will separate it) That concludes arguments for my Foreign Policy framework