Skip to content

C5 FRQ Practice Argumentative Essay

Prompt

  1. In 1994, President Clinton deployed troops to Haiti, without congressional approval, to fight against atrocities perpetrated by Haiti’s former leaders and to oversee a transition to democracy. Use the scenario and your knowledge of U.S. Government and Politics to respond to parts A, B, and C.

    1. Describe a power of the president used in the scenario.
    2. Explain one way in which the War Powers Resolution might affect the scenario.
    3. Explain one reason why it is difficult for Congress to check the power of the president to commit troops despite the War Powers Resolution.

  2. Use the information in the graph and your knowledge of U.S. Government and Politics to respond to parts A, B, and C.

    1. Describe one trend shown in the graph.
    2. Describe two ways in which public approval ratings might impact the president’s success in getting his initiatives passed in Congress.
    3. Describe two factors, other than public approval ratings, that might impact the president’s legislative success.

Response

    1. In this scenario, President Clinton exercised the power of the commander-in-chief, a role designated to the president by the U.S. Constitution. As commander-in-chief, the president has the authority to deploy military forces abroad to protect U.S. interests, respond to emergencies, and engage in actions deemed necessary for national security. This power allows the president to act swiftly in international crises, but it is also subject to checks and balances, particularly the need for congressional approval for long-term military engagements.
    2. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is designed to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits the deployment to 60 days (with a possible 30-day extension) unless Congress authorizes a longer period, declares war, or is unable to meet due to an attack on the United States. In the scenario with Haiti, the War Powers Resolution would require President Clinton to inform Congress of the troop deployment within 48 hours. It would also set a timeline for how long the troops could remain without congressional approval, potentially affecting the duration and scope of the military operation in Haiti.
    3. One significant reason it is difficult for Congress to check the president's power to commit troops, even with the War Powers Resolution in place, is the political and logistical challenges of acting within the time constraints the resolution imposes. Congress may struggle to reach a consensus or act swiftly enough to either authorize a longer deployment or force a withdrawal within the 60-day timeframe, especially in complex international situations or during crises. Additionally, there is often reluctance among lawmakers to appear unsupportive of military actions that are framed as necessary for national security or humanitarian reasons. This reluctance is compounded by the broad interpretation of what constitutes an "emergency" or "national interest," allowing presidents to justify military deployments on a wide range of grounds. Furthermore, the executive branch often argues that certain operations do not fall under the scope of the War Powers Resolution, leading to debates over the resolution's applicability and further complicating congressional efforts to exert oversight.
    1. A common trend in presidential job approval ratings over time is a "honeymoon period" at the beginning of a presidency, where approval ratings are typically higher. This period reflects a phase of optimism and support as the new president takes office. Following this, approval ratings often fluctuate based on various factors such as economic conditions, foreign policy successes or failures, and domestic issues. For many presidents, approval ratings tend to decline over the course of their term, with potential spikes during moments of national unity or successful policy implementation.
      1. Bargaining Power: High public approval ratings can enhance a president's bargaining power with Congress. When a president is popular among the electorate, members of Congress, especially those from the president's party, may be more inclined to support the president's initiatives, fearing that opposing a popular president could have negative repercussions for their own re-election prospects. Conversely, low approval ratings may embolden opposition and even cause members of the president's party to distance themselves if they believe association with an unpopular president could harm their electoral chances.
      2. Political Capital: Public approval is a form of political capital for a president. High approval ratings can be leveraged to push through more ambitious or controversial legislation, as the president can argue that they have the mandate of the people. This can put pressure on Congress to act in alignment with the president's wishes. On the other hand, when approval ratings are low, the president's influence diminishes, and Congress may feel less compelled to prioritize or support the president's legislative agenda.
      1. Party Composition of Congress: The alignment or division of party control between the presidency and Congress significantly affects legislative success. A president is more likely to achieve legislative success when their own party controls one or both houses of Congress, as party loyalty can facilitate the passage of legislation. A divided government, where one party controls the presidency and another controls one or both houses of Congress, often leads to legislative gridlock, making it more challenging for the president to pass initiatives.
      2. Political Skill and Relationships: The president's political skill and ability to cultivate relationships with key lawmakers, including those from the opposing party, can greatly impact legislative success. Presidents who are effective communicators and negotiators, and who invest in building strong relationships with Congressional leaders and rank-and-file members, can often find ways to advance their legislative agendas even under challenging circumstances. This includes the ability to compromise and make concessions when necessary to achieve broader goals.