If there is a collision between the president and congress, can congress restrain the president on foreign pol

Question

The president is the foreign policy leader with political, military and economic role in the international arena, if there is a collision between the president and Congress, can Congress restrain the president in foreign policy making?

Answer 1

The other answer about Texas isn't even a foreign policy issue and there's a lot to be said about that incident but all that has nothing to do with your question. That the world court was involved does not make it foreign policy. It happened in the US so it's domestic.

Short of Impeachment the US Congress can not restrain the President in any significant way on foreign policy making except in theory on war.

Subject to the advice and consent role of the U.S. Senate, the President negotiates treaties with foreign nations, but treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.[4] The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces once they are deployed, however Congress has the sole authority to declare war,[5] and the civilian and military budget is written by the Congress.[6] The United States Secretary of State is the foreign minister of the United States and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress additionally has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_rel...

EDIT Wake up. Who has jurisdiction over Texas prisoners even if they are foreignners and another country tries to use the world court remains a domestic internal US issue. The question here specifically asks about the relation Congress/ President when it comes to foreign policy and my position remains your answer is irrelevant to that question. There is a foreign policy aspect to the issue you raise, namely if and how International treaties bind the US or limit US States in excercising their internal laws but that's also totally outside the scope of the question here.

Answer 2

Yes, this is why we have checks and balances built into the system.  just lately, Bush tried to order the state of Texas to halt the execution of Jose Medellin, Mexican national who participated in a violent gang rape and murder of two young girls ages 14 and 15.  Bush tried to do this because the International Court of Justice demanded that these executions be halted because the state of Texas would be in violation of an international treaty that was signed by America.  The world court has no authority in the United States.  Also, this is a state issue, that the president has no business interfering in.  The Supreme Court judged Bush's actions unconstitutional and put a stop to his demands.  Texas didn't cave into the demands of the world court and  went on to execute this scumbag.  In conclusion, I would say that it is the Supreme Court, not Congress who would restrain the president, were he ever to get out of line.

justgoodfolk

You say, "The other answer about Texas isn't even a foreign policy issue and there's a lot to be said about that incident but all that has nothing to do with your question."

It most certainly was a foreign policy issue.  Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice on behalf of 51 Mexican nationals asserting that, in these cases, the US had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which it is signatory, which requires that local authorities inform foreign nationals being held on criminal charges of their right to consult with their country’s diplomats.

You also say, "That the world court was involved does not make it foreign policy. It happened in the US so it's domestic."

You do understand that Jose was not an American citizen, right?  He was a Mexican.  It would have been a domestic issue had he been a citizen and done these things.