Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

For starters, on your opinion with regards to sanctions, I feel that it is wrapped in too much of the bureaucracy that currently dulls the system. The importance of my system was accountability and efficiency. Adding in extra people and having layers of voting only seeks to bludgeon these aspects of the system that I believe the people so desperately despise. In your setup, if you have dissent among the three people (POTUS, SECSTATE, and ambassador) you have 2 months of waiting time, followed by a vote. Two months is a much longer time than anything that would be involved in my system. If the ambassador screwed the pooch, he could be ousted the next day and replaced in a week, followed by a new ambassador who's policy would come into effect immediately. All of this especially if the ambassador (who is appointed for life) is of the opposing party to the POTUS/SECSTATE. I also disagree that the US judicial system can rule that anything the ambassadors do as illegal. Unless you're talking about extra-political things (such as... they murdered someone). But anything they do in the political capacity is barred only by removal from office by the congress. Again, I think they're too much bureaucracy in your budget plan. It should be on the weight of one accountable man. If it needs to be approved, then that takes the weight off his shoulders. He can do what he wants (such as Obama does) because if Congress doesn't go along, then they are the bad guy; not the President. Therefore, it should lay solely on the shoulders of the President. You made me realize though, in calling it an annual basis, that it really shouldn't be (as that system leads to waste). It should be a continual thing. It can be set by a rate that the President decides, be it daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. Or simply, a running tab that at any one moment we can't go past "this". I think just arbitrarily saying "annually" is wasteful. Again, the trade agreements applies the same as sanctions. Any type of vote is wasteful. Onto my arguments... WAR At No Time will the Senate be involved in ANY matters of War, or the budget with regards to it. The military budget every year should be done much as how it is, President proposes, the House of Representatives makes it. Once the budget is decided, the President can allocate that money however he sees fits (most likely according to his Secretary of Defense [who, from this day forward would again be called the Secretary of War]). He would be given a separate budget for allocation to Homeland defense. This would be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (now called Defense) that has such organizations under it as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, National Guard... things that are actually used for Defense. The Department of War would consist of the Navy, Army, and Air Force (and connecting departments such as the Marines, SEALS, NDWC... etc). These groups would be actively promoting US ideals around the globe. As stated, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of War (DoW) would be funded separately. Both proposed by the President and made by the House of Representatives, 50%(+1). In addition, a VA budget will be proposed separately. The Department of VA will be run at the discretion of the President. Now that the funding is out of the way, implementation. Soldiers may be "lent" to the United Nations to be used for security detail from both the DoW and DoD at sole discretion of the President. However, once they have been committed, they may not be revoked until that commitment has been met. The President can, beforehand, make this commitment as long or as short as he wants. In any capacity the UN sees fit, they can use these soldiers that we lend to them. Any base that is established in a foreign country (without a declaration of war) must be approved by the House of Representatives. (That is, approved for that area, once that area (being a region of country) has a base, more can be made in the region of that same country). Once approval for a base has been made, the President is free to operate by Executive Orders however he sees fit with regards to military actions within that country. Only the House of Representative can declare war, signed by the President. In that declaration of war, it must be explicit on what countries FOBs (forward operating base) will be allowed. The FOBs must be removed once a peace settlement has been made (within a time period set by the House at the onset of the war), unless the House makes a separate demand that they remain. Only the President can sign a peace treaty absolving a Declaration of War. In regards to the DoD and DoW, the United Nations will be heard, but not followed. In other words, unilateral action is allowed in any and all circumstances. The power to raise troops. Selective service will apply only to the Department of Defense. It must be put into the constitution that branches of the Department of Defense cannot be used outside of the United States (or "in an offensive manner") A draft will be voted upon by the House of Representative, signed by the President. In any of the cases with respect to war, if the President refuses to sign, it cannot be over-voted. It is dead until he signs it. In regards to the use of Nuclear Weapons. This must be voted on by the President, the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader of the House. All three must agree, or we don't nuke. (This can be limited by an international peace agreement signed... but we'll get to that later) I think I covered everything... oh, personally.. I think it should be in the budget for the DoD (or at least allow states to budget this for themselves) to set up militias in every state, but that isn't really part of Foreign policy... just something I'd like to see get done. If I forgot anything, I'll try to cover it in my third argument.... cheers!