The U.S. Constitution meticulously outlines the framework for foreign relations and the allocation of funds for international purposes. Yet, a significant portion of U.S. foreign aid is distributed without the ratification of treaties by the Senate. This practice raises profound constitutional questions and challenges the foundational principles established by the framers of the Constitution.
Constitutional Foundations and Framers' Intent
The Constitution vests the power to make treaties and allocate funds in distinct branches of government to ensure a balance of power and adherence to the rule of law. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to appropriate funds. These provisions underscore the necessity of Senate confirmation for significant foreign commitments.
James Madison, often regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," emphasized the importance of this balance. In Federalist No. 58, Madison argued that the power of the purse was a crucial check on executive power, ensuring that no funds could be expended without legislative approval. This principle was designed to prevent unilateral executive actions that could entangle the nation in foreign affairs without proper oversight.
Historical Context and Modern Practices
Throughout American history, there has been a clear delineation between treaty-based foreign commitments and other forms of international assistance. Treaties, such as those that established alliances or trade agreements, underwent rigorous scrutiny and required Senate ratification. However, in the modern era, a significant portion of foreign aid is dispensed through executive agreements and congressional appropriations that bypass the treaty process.
In fiscal year 2020, the U.S. allocated approximately $51.05 billion in economic and military assistance to foreign countries. Much of this aid, managed by agencies like USAID, is disbursed without Senate-confirmed treaties. While these funds are often intended for humanitarian relief, development assistance, or security cooperation, their allocation without Senate oversight challenges constitutional principles.
The Constitutional Argument
The primary constitutional argument against foreign aid without Senate-confirmed treaties rests on the separation of powers and the explicit roles assigned to the legislative and executive branches. The framers intended the Senate to have a significant role in foreign commitments to prevent unilateral executive action. By bypassing this process, the executive branch undermines the checks and balances essential to a functioning republic.
Thomas Jefferson, in his strict interpretation of the Constitution, argued that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government was reserved to the states or the people. Jefferson’s perspective reinforces the idea that foreign aid, which involves significant national commitments, should adhere strictly to constitutional processes.
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Proponents of the current foreign aid framework argue that the exigencies of modern international relations necessitate flexible and rapid responses that the treaty process cannot accommodate. They assert that congressional appropriations and executive agreements provide sufficient oversight and accountability.
However, this argument fails to address the constitutional requirement for Senate participation in significant foreign commitments. The speed and flexibility argument does not justify circumventing the constitutional mandate. The framers, aware of the need for efficiency, still embedded the treaty process in the Constitution to safeguard against unchecked executive power.
Conclusion
The allocation of foreign aid without Senate-confirmed treaties is a departure from the constitutional principles established by the framers. This practice undermines the separation of powers and the essential role of the Senate in overseeing foreign commitments. To adhere to the original intent of the Constitution, all significant foreign aid should be subject to Senate confirmation through the treaty process.
In championing a return to constitutional fidelity, we reaffirm the importance of checks and balances and the rule of law in American governance. Every penny sent abroad without proper constitutional adherence is a step away from the principles that have sustained the Republic for over two centuries.
Call to Action
The need to restore constitutional governance is more pressing than ever. As citizens committed to preserving the Republic, we must advocate for adherence to the original intent of the Constitution in all matters of foreign aid and beyond. Join the movement at ConventionOfStates.com to push for reforms that return power to the people and ensure that our government remains true to the foundational principles laid out by the framers. Together, we can secure a future that honors the Constitution and the freedoms it was designed to protect.
---
**Note:** This article is a condensed version of the original, which was published at LibertyLighthouse.Substack.com.
