Some presidential advisors have claimed that foreign policy and national defense sometimes require breaking the law. There is the validity to this claim; it required that the president “consult” with Congress in “every possible instance” before involving U.S troops in hostilities and notify Congress within forty-eight hours of committing troops to a foreign intervention. If troops are deployed, they may not stay for more than sixty days without congressional approval (although the president may take up to thirty days more to remove them “safely”).
The reason the foreign policy is different from domestic policy in this regard because the Congress takes too much time to make a decision, and most of the time the situation is so critical which requires immediately action; it can’t be delayed for a day or so. Because of this, the president can take advance of it to break the law without being charged for breaking the law. We use “checks and balances” method to hold foreign policy implementers accountable.
There are several of them, but I only list three of them, which are:
1.The president is commander in chief of the arm forces without the power to declare war. The Congress is the only one who has that power; this way the Congress knows where, what and why the president is doing with our troops.
2.The president has the power to make treaties; however, the senate has the power to break it – in the sense of rejecting those made by the president.
To 3.The president has the power to appoint U.S ambassadors and the heads of executive departments, but the president need the advice and consent of the Senate. This is the way our government structure to give each branch some scrutiny of and control over the other branches. Even though, each of them is watching over each other; the president still has his way to do thing which is not included in his scope.