Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

I shall try to respond to the above, present my view on foreign aid, and also introduce nothing new. Separation of power is implicit in the structure of our political system. Checks and balances keep any one of those (or even one segment) from abusing the power they have. I think you credit much of the current government "inaction" to inherent problems within the system. I however propose that it is instead a symptom of "sour-grapes" politics. By that I mean that regardless of the system (and yes, ours does allow for more of this to happen), if a politician digs in his heals and refuses to do his job, then things move slower. Frankly, I think this should be illegal or at least grounds for dismissal, since in any other job where you refuse to do your work you will be swiftly fired. However, I do not think that removing checks and balances is the proper solution. Yes, it circumvents the problem but it does not solve it! Personally, I would rather invest time in truly solving the problem. Quickly on budgets-- few politicians are chastised for budget surpluses. It means you completed the task in a cost-effective manner. To give the President power to set budgets of indefinite length could lead to inordinately long budget periods, which will later mean special measures being taken just to revise said budget. Better to plan for it and hey, if your budget is the same the next year, great! It won't take as long. I do keep up, thank you. And while you may see Congress as having "more on their hands than [they] can really handle," I return to my point about stubbornness and inefficiency in Congress. The problem is absolutely NOT with how much they are asked to accomplish. They work less, vote less, and pass fewer bills. Yet they are closer, financially, personally, and professionally with lobbyists than ever before. They no longer work for those who got them there (ie: constituents), but rather those who flip the bills at fancy dinners and have pockets so deep its hard to find your way out. The problem is how little they are willing to work and how rarely they are willing to work together. And again, I think this attitude ought be greeted with a "Do it or get out" stance (a nicer version of another phrase about.. the bathroom.. that is often used) from their constituents. There is no reason to pander to those who, for reasons that are either selfish, corrupt or stubborn, make the whole system slow down to the point of painful inefficiency. Congress SHALL do their job. Of that I am convinced. I see your point about Senate/the House. It was more of a genuine question. Though don't be fooled-- any member of Congress is quite unlikely to have a child serving in the military. It happens, but they are still a privileged group. Though I hate to take a slight detour from the argument at hand, I feel it is all together necessary, since you brought it up-- First, the Monroe Doctrine a) is almost 200 years old, not exactly "recent" by any standards; b) was issued with regard to colonies in the Americas and aimed specifically at Europe. Again, unless you are suggesting we go back to squabbling with Europe over the oppressed and resource-drained colonies we used to collect like Pokemon cards, then perhaps reconsider; and c) even at that, it still took a stance against meddling in European affairs or those of their colonies. It was mostly to ensure that we did not lose control over our slice of America. Thus, I conclude that the Monroe Doctrine does NOT support or justify our current or future presence around the world simply for the purpose of promoting our "ideals." Second, the Roosevelt Corollary a) is over 100 years old and credited to a President who is seldom hailed for his imperialist foreign policy; b) ALSO about Europe and their American colonies (by no means the whole world); c) most importantly, it really did very little good for the US and only functioned to screw over South and/or Central America, as evidenced by Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, etc. Thus the Roosevelt Corollary is also irrelevant, ineffective and outdated. In conclusion of that side note, you still have not given any valid reason for our presence and pushiness overseas. Thus, I go back to my original argument-- it is neither our purpose nor our duty. Like I said, the state militias are outside of this discussion, as set by the parameters. A chat for another time, but I maintain it is duplicitous, redundant, and undermines the entire current system in favor of, what I imagine you fancy as a more Anti-Federalist and/or anarchist manifestation of our government. About war: The way I see it, something like taking out Osama bin Ladin is defense. And that definitely happened overseas. Perhaps it is a simple categorical difference of opinion? I meant for troops to be pulled only in circumstance that were dire and called for such, but an important safety measure all the same. It is not about not supporting the UN, but rather only having a certain number of resources and in the event we incur loses elsewhere (because it is quite possible we would be involved in multiple conflicts in multiple locales) being able to reallocate quickly and easily. A new base does not by any means indicate war. Most bases do not lead to any conflict at all. Unless I missed something. As for a draft, I think that involving both houses of Congress could likely mean that a draft is rarely, if ever, passable. Given that there may indeed be a time when we need one, I think that the larger house, which represents the people rather than the states (much like you were saying) is a sufficient body to make said decision, in conjunction with the President. Also, thus the 2/3rds rather than simple majority. I defer to my previous argument for the House with regard to nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that neither a draft nor a nuclear attack is necessary, though in the event either were, I would like for the government to function in a way that makes either possible, though regulated. I should hope the decision is not a hasty one! That is the entire point of the vote. As I am sure you know, emergency sessions exist for a reason. Such a huge decision OUGHT be considered, if not only for a short while. Further, it is something that more than a handful of people needs to approve. As I'm sure you realize, the repercussions are potentially enormous. Now foreign aid: I think we are actually, for the most part, in agreement. Aid should be independent from country to country. The amount, schedule and timing are each to be set on an individual basis. Aid may also be allocated to the UN, Red Cross, or other independent aid programs.. all depends on circumstance as I see it. A simple majority in either house, with the signature of the President, will do. One additional exception that I would make is for natural disasters. Aid could be dispersed to multiple countries under a single bill if they were all victims of the same natural disaster and thus needed the same resources in the same time period, etc. I agree no arms or weapons ought be sold, lent, bartered, or otherwise exchanged with other countries. Period. I think an amendment would be sufficient to ensure this. And yes, it has almost never gone well in the past. As part of this, more resources ought be allocated to cut down on black market arms trading, but that probably goes without saying. I also support neutrality. I think it has proven to work much better than alliances in the past. We'd do well to learn from it. And yes, the UN is different. I do not believe I introduced anything new, but rather responded to and extrapolated on our previous discussions only, as per your request. So, I believe that closes the debate? Happy deliberation and may the best (wo)man win.