  |
|
|
|
The National Security Act of 1947How its Passage Cemented Presidential Power
Despite attempting to reign in presidential power, Congress not only has history against it but also its own passage of the National Security Act of 1947.
In the field of International Relations the philosophy of Realism has long been the prism through which state actions are seen. From the beginning, placing nations' governments centrally in foreign affairs was only natural, as the King/Emperor/Emir was the government. Then, only if Caesar agreed to terms did Rome agree to terms; now, only if Kim Jong-Il agrees to terms does North Korea agree to terms. They were as many nations still are: authoritarian. An authoritarian system is a: political system with limited, not responsible, political pluralism…and in which a leader or occasionally small group exercises power within formerly ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones. (1) In creating the Constitution, the “Founding Fathers” resisted such centralization by placing foreign affairs under “Article I: Section 8”, “Article II: Sections 2 & 3”, and “Article III: Section 2". The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, respectively, were given equal interests in US actions towards other nations as well as other nations’ actions towards the US. Yet, as early as George Washington and his near-mythical administration of Revolutionary figures, the political weight of the presidency shrank the relative political size of the other 2 branches. Placing such political power in the hands of the presidency would have looked quite familiar to other “traditional” nation-states. That is:
If any doubt existed as to the influence the presidency had on US foreign policy, it was all but extinguished by the massive overhaul of US Intelligence by virtue of the National Security Act of 1947 (NSA-47). Until this Act, Intelligence was seen as a wartime function of the US military needing to know the size, distance, and composition of other armies. A reason for this: “Progress, to the United States, seemed built into the natural order of things; peace was perceived to be the normal state of international affairs, expressing the harmony of nature, while war was perceived to be an abnormality, an aberration caused by evil men pursuing evil designs;” “Totally alien to the American experience was the truth, understood instinctively by Europeans…given its most forceful expression by Clausewitz: war and politics are a seamless web,” (2). This view was still held by many even after World War I, when , in 1929, then Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson said, “Gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail.” Whether or not current presidential power exceeds the framers’ intent is a political question, beyond the scope of this article. These determinations are systemic: that is, “a country’s intelligence community is a reflection of the political system it serves," (3). Attempts by Congress to check the influence of the President on foreign policy—most notably the War Powers Act—not withstanding, NSA-47 created a web of influence unparalleled by either of the other 2 branches. The irony is, of course, Congress passed it. 1) Totalitarian & Authoritarian Regimes; Paul J Linz 2) Pgs. 272, 273. “United States National Security Policy: Retrospect & Prospect”, James E Dornan, Jr. 3) "IWP605: Intelligence & Policy". Guest lecturer, John Dziak. 9/19/2007
The copyright of the article The National Security Act of 1947 in US State Policy is owned by Kevin M Bache. Permission to republish The National Security Act of 1947 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
