During the course of this President Project we discussed the powers of and checks on the American President. This assignment gives you an opportunity to comment on that debate.
1. Review your notes on others' video presentations.
2. Read the two articles linked below that address the powers of the president:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/11/13/is-the-presidency-too-big-a-job.html
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0120/p01s02-uspo.html
3. Based on your notes and your understanding of these two articles what is opinion of the power of the modern American Presidency? Provide evidence to support your assertions.
Please be sure to post using Safari. There have been problems posting in Firefox.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would not argue that we as a country place more interest and importance on our President than any other political figure or official. However, I heavily doubt that this emphasis can be reinterpreted as tyranny, what the two journalists fear of the impeding, nor do I believe that this switch of roles between President and Congress is an accurate description of how proposals are carried out in the government, nor where our faith as citizens lies.
ReplyDeleteProof can be seen in the mere logic of it. The presidential cabinet exists almost for the sole purpose of avoiding the issues that appeared to be discussed in both articles. Hardly any decisions or proposals made by the President are made without a radical amount of input from several qualified officials for a specific topic. In fact, with this is mind it can be argued that it is more beneficial to relay all political affairs to the President and his team.
The one issue I can interpret with this system, which I didn’t find covered in either article is the heavy ideological bias that is avoided when Congress provides the larger role in making decisions, especially if one is concerned with how much being addressed, reflects the opinions of the nation’s people.
-- Sabrina
It does not surprise me that the power of the Presidency has grown to be as large as it is today. People have an easier time identifying with a single elected leader than a whole legislative branch, which generally have the reputation of being corrupt or inefficient, and have the tendency to fall behind someone who they believe is a natural leader. The congress in my life time has always seemed slow and gridlocked and the idea of a super hero president can be very appealing. Over time as the American people's expectations of the president have increased, so has his team of advisors. Now it has come to the point where it is physically impossible for who ever is in the oval office, Democrat or Republican, to meet all of the demands of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe War Powers Act has made hypocrites of each president. I understand Lowry's notion that If each president is going to ignore the Wars Power act, as they have been, then it might as well not exist anymore. And that it exists because the U.S. populations values too much a false fact that the Founders wanted absolutely everything to be confided and agreed upon in an open way. That wouldn't work, especially for fast decision making. In the world of the President freely declaring war, I agree that Congress can still function as a check in a world without the Wars Power Act by wielding "its own powers — most decisively, the appropriation of funds — to limit or end a military action." (Lowry) But the constitution says the Congress has the power to declare war, so I don't understand why it must settle with the indirect management of the beginnings of a war. And then, in disagreement with Anderson, who thinks the War Powers Act "grants the president too much authority, not too little," (Anderson), I think Congress dictating how the war is carried out, beyond its initiation, is an unnecessary allocation of power as demeans the Commander in Chief position of the president. Overall, I think Nixon claiming the War Powers act as unconstitutional or Lowry claiming that it's a "excrescence on the American constitution" is bizarre, seeing as the constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to declare war, and the President power in how the war will be fought. The War Powers Act is a clarification of this, and yes, an outgrowth just as any other act is, but not superfluous seeing as presidents have yet to act in accordance with it. I agree with the two articles that President Obama is in clear violation of the Wars Power Act, but this I don't think this brings light to the act being unconstitutional, outdated, or a misallocation of powers. I think what this debate should truly yield is that we need harder repercussions for those presidents who violate the act.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these articles make a good point. I agree with Dillin that as a nation we put far more emphasis on who the President is than who our Senators and Representatives are, and that this was not the intention. I also agree that the public attention to the President has given the executive branch of government more power than the founders intended, as Dillin sites several times that the founders considered Congress the "heart and soul" of our government.
ReplyDeleteThat said, this rise in executive power begs the question: How much power is too much power to handle? Daniel Stone argues that the Presidency has gotten too big for one person to handle, and has become overwhelming. I don't believe he is entirely correct, but I agree with him on his general concept. Stone argues that there are too many complex issues for one person, the President, to handle. But he fails to mention that before the President ever makes a decision on a complex issue, he has had extensive discussions with experts from his cabinet on his options and their potential pros and cons. So the decision is not entirely on the President's head. But even with the help of experts and cabinet members, the President has an innumerable amount of complex issues to address, and only 24 hours in a day. And each meeting with cabinet experts takes time and energy, on top of the already hectic schedule described by Stone in his article.
This can be seen historically in the contrast of two Presidents from times of economic turmoil. President Franklin Roosevelt, during the great depression, saw elderly citizens starving on the streets and created a system in which those currently working paid for the needs of the retired. Simple enough. But today President Obama must deal with a social security system that has fewer workers paying for more retirees with a longer life expectancy and the baby boomer generation just moving into retirement with the economy showing few signs of improvement. Now if one extrapolates that complication across all issues from domestic drilling to the multiple wars in the middle east, one sees how physically and mentally taxing a job the President has.
While Congress is often seen as a gridlocked mess, maybe it is time we gave back at least a little power to the branch that the Founders intended to have power in the first place.
-- Jake Ochroch
Both articles assert that the Presidency has grown beyond its intended boundaries. The original power of the Presidency was extremely limited; he would stand backstage, working to enact legislation. But as Daniel Stone points out the Presidency has gone from relative simplicity to a large bureaucracy, too large for a single person to handle. The attention and powers given to the President and Congress have been reversed. Today the President takes center stage, leaving Congress to bicker in the background. The President wields power without regard to the Congress, as is visible in the declaring and making of war.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the presidency has exceeded its bounds, but John Dillin describes the presidency as imperial, ignoring the fact that Congress has power and wields it. The President’s power and influence are limited. In federal agencies the presidential influence is only directed at the top tier, the Senate exerts its influence there, too. As Commander in Chief the President is supposed to have a declaration of war prior to sending the troops to battle, the President will often threaten to go ahead with an operation without Congressional approval, however Congress controls the appropriation of funds. The President may have a lot of power, but he is not the only one with power to wield.
The President today is much more influential of a figure than he was during the time of the framers, and this is due to the media's influence on the public. As John Dilin stated in his article, the founding fathers would have probably been more concerned about the elections of the House of Representatives and the Congress. We have to keep in mind that communication between the states and different regions was much more difficult. In a world in which many people never traveled beyond a thirty mile radius of their homes, it was difficult to know about many government positions other than the ones closest to you; however that has changed greatly today. People can readily read about the president's actions online, on the TV, or in a newspaper. They are more likely to learn about what Obama is doing over what important Congressional figures are doing because that is the information that is readily available.
ReplyDeleteThis shift in influence is also because the role of the president has truly grown as well. In Dilin's article the president was once secondary to the Congress, but now the roles seem to have reversed themselves, something that would have outraged the framers. The president is expected to do much more than he once was, and this can be credited to the fact that times are changing. Just two hundred years ago there wasn't a need for certain jobs, or for the president to handle certain situations because they simply did not exist. Additionally when the Constitution was written political parties did not exist, and consequently there did not exist a need for a figure head. Now its the exact opposite. One of the president's informal roles has become the role of party leader, and his influence amongst the public has increased because of that. Additionally parties have led to the Congress constantly being trapped in a gridlock, fighting against one another.
Daniel Stone argues that the job of president has grown to become very large, and perhaps is not manageable. I believe Stone's statement has validity. Roosevelt, under very tight conditions, needed six trusted aids. Obama has 469. Paradoxically, I would say Obama has less power. How much of the work does he truly do himself? Having such a large staff means that they must do a certain amount of the work. The modern presidency has become a more powerful representational role. It does not necessarily accomplish more than it once did.
I think the modern presidency is still subject to the checks and balances of power established by the framers. There is simply more that is to be checked and balanced. We can look at a couple of examples to prove this. Bill Clinton's health care bill did not pass because of Congress. The only times that president's were able to make great changes were when the Congress was aligned with their own political party. Roosevelt was able to make his "New Deal" program a reality because of this alignment.
Whatever major changes Obama made were also done when the bulk of the Congress was aligned with his party.
In essence I do believe that the role of President has grown, but I don't necessarily believe that this indicates a growth in power. In fact it may mean the opposite. With so much work to be done, how does it all get done? The president definitely doesn't directly touch upon everything that reaches the white house. A lot of it gets trapped in bureaucracy. Ultimately the Congress has a huge say in what goes on, unless the president chooses to disregard laws such as the War Powers Act and invade Libya without a congressional approval even after sixty days, he is still very limited by the Congress. What the presidency has become more than anything is inefficient, and some change must be made to reverse that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that since FDR's New Deal, the power of the presidency has overstepped its bounds. The balance of power that the Founders sought is now offset. Granted, it is not off-balance by a lot; legislature still has a fair amount of power, but the executive branch has swelled and swelled to tip the balance slightly off. The legislature is intended to make laws which, as its title would suggest, the executive branch must carry out. However, in today's world, this is not usually the case. The president presents a proposal to Congress, which is expected to deliberate over it. The wide variety of views inherent to Congress should lead to legislation that more accurately represents the views and desires of the American people. Merely having one person to do so is a bit unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, at this point, I don't think there is any turning back. The problem with Congress is gridlock--something that the president never has to worry about. Therefore, I think Americans have fallen into the trap of believing faster means better. In other words, the president can propose legislation much quicker than Congress, members of which must debate before coming up with a Bill that represents the compromises of many.
In addition, with the widespread use of media as a means of gathering information and forming opinions, the president's role cannot really be reversed. It is infinitely easier for the media to focus on one single person on which to pin the blame for our nation's ailments, or to praise for our nation's successes. The executive branch remains the sole governmental branch headed by a single body, thereby making it easier for Americans and the media to pinpoint all of our nation's issues on a single scapegoat, rather than a collection of bodies like Congress.
I agree with Stone's suggestion that the president should put more emphasis on his cabinet. I think this would greatly reduce the power of one single person, while still keeping much of the same responsibilities in the executive branch.
Throughout all of this, I think the judiciary remains the forgotten branch.
The modern presidency is not at all as the Framers intended. The scope of the office's responsibilities and the influence of those responsibilities has ballooned in the twentieth century. As John Dillin points out in his article "To the Founders, Congress was king", the presidency was created to be secondary to Congress, the site of the real decision-making. Today, the reverse is true, with Congress expected to debate programs proposed by the president. By overshadowing Congress in this way, the president's power has grown immensely.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see a situation more similar to that of the Founders: where Congress takes center stage in making legislative decisions, and the president is secondary. I feel much more comfortable putting my trust in a large group of people, where issues can be thoroughly debated, than in a single man.
Not only has the president's legislative pull increased, but also have the powers expected of him. As highlighted in Daniel Stone's article "Hail to the Chiefs", the size of the president's staff is exponentially larger than it was nearly a century ago. The president of today is expected to deal with a much broader array of issues than that of former times, and the president has handled this shift by expanding his staff. This creates the risk of losing important issues and decisions within the bureaucratic web, while the president is tasked with making far more minor decisions. I question the necessity of Obama's large staff. If Lincoln was able to mend a broken nation and steer it out of a civil war with a significantly smaller staff, surely Obama can handle today's problem with a reduced staff. Granted, the complications of today's society, such as the influence of the media and the expectations of modern America, make the office of the presidency much more complicated, and thus it is understandable that Obama have a larger staff than a president of over a century ago. Still, reductions are surely possible, allowing the president to focus on important issues without being overwhelmed.
I am of the opinion that the modern American Presidency has become not only too powerful of an office, but too regal of a title. That is in the sense that, for example, when the President travels, he does so with a motorcade so long that it could be mistaken for a lengthy funeral procession. I might add that no other leader in the world, including actual royalty, travels with such a lavish following. The status given to the President is something that would have not only shocked, but also appalled the Founders of our nation.
ReplyDeleteAs John Dillin points out in his article, “To the Founders, Congress was king,” when the Constitution was created, the President was never intended to be such a powerful office, never mind the grandeur. In fact, up until the past hundred years or so the Presidency came second to Congress in governing. The Founders were weary of a powerful tyrant coming to power and thus put most of the power into the legislative branch. Whereas originally, Congress would put forth bills and after debating over them, pass them, today it is usually the President who presents bills to Congress for them to argue over. Today, citizens and politicians alike often expect the President to propose legislation and the President in turn takes his election as a mandate to personally enact whichever policies and enter whichever wars he so chooses.
In his article, “Hail to the Chiefs,” Daniel Stone points out that this burden is also not fair to the President. One man cannot be expected to be everywhere all at once and until recently, he wasn’t. A multitude of issues, such as intricacies of the gulf oil cleanup, that could and should be handled on lower levels and should never reach the desk of the President.
Certainly to change the way that the nation perceives the Presidency is a difficult task, but I believe it is one that needs to be done. Obviously the trick is to reduce the official power of the President while retaining a strong leader that Americans can look up to. Reducing the scope of the Presidency would reduce what need there is for the associated extravagancies, reduce the impossible burden on one man’s shoulders, and reduce gridlock by forcing all tasks of government into the bottleneck of one man.
In a blur of recent departmentalization and expansion of the White House, massive media coverage and a deemphasis on Congress, the modern President finds himself spread thin in a role whose salary may just need an upgrade.
ReplyDeleteThe FDR White House may not be as efficient and necessary as it was for the nation when the New Deal was passed. It seems that there are too many people doing two many things, and without communicating. Lincoln with his two personal secretaries would have passed out if he were transported to the Obama White House.
It's worrisome that, as Allan Lichtman said, there isn't much downtime anymore for the 21st-century president to think. He is swarmed by department heads and sources without an efficient filtering system for information, which I believe to be at the root of the problem. When is there time for transparency, when new decisions are made every 2 minutes on matters that should be handled by lower-level staff? When is there time to think about the long-term effects of decisions? A person can only answer so many questions and make so many decisions each day with a clear and open mind.
I think it's a bit unfair that one person receives so much of the burden while there are (theoretically, not taking into account a decrease in importance of voting and electing congressmen) 435 other capable minds in Congress and hundreds, even thousands of lower-level workers and White House affiliates whose jobs it is to make decisions, propose legislation and have the final say in impactive decisions. A president should not be required to be an expert on every issue, nor have as much influence on the popularity of Congress and its decisions. Congress does not deserve 3rd page recognition while the President is celebrated and idolized, or severely despised for lack of progress.
Congressional, as well as judicial checks to presidential power need to be more emphasized and used appropriately, instead of being the cause for political gridlock. The power of Congress to veto means 435 is more important than 1, a statement which summarizes the basis of democracy and opposes an authoritarian and imperial president.
- Adam
The modern President has powers that would make the founding fathers sick to their stomachs. The founding fathers set up our country and our constitution with the sole purpose of taking power away from one man and giving it to the people. For the executive branch to contain hundreds of people all working for the president goes against everything the founding fathers believed in. John Dillan writes that the powers of the executive were meant to be limited to approving bills that congress creates. Dillan believes that the president should not be viewed upon as the most powerful man in the country but more as congresses patsy. The Newsweek article argues that the presidency and the executive branch have grown way too large for its own good. Daniel Stone believes that the president’s agencies actually mess up the branch and give it way too much power.
ReplyDeleteThough Dillan is correct in saying that the modern presidency is not what the founding fathers had in mind, I believe as the years went by, it became necessary for the president to take on more power and responsibility. The president, as our government has changed over the years, has taken on more and more responsibilities. The president’s role is no longer that of an approval giver to congress but that of a leader who helps to guide congress to making decisions. When the nations government became divided in the 70’s it became the presidents responsibility to help lead the system towards making good decisions for the American people. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they had no idea how divided the government would be 230 years into the future. The president has the power he does today because without someone to lead congress little would get done besides bickering and party line division. The President builds up the executive branch with different agencies and hundreds of helpers in an attempt to satisfy the new needs that the founding fathers didn’t prepare for, like green house gas emissions. The modern presidents powers are large and reaching but only because history has made it so.
We know that the founding fathers did not expect the president to be as important, but I don't know if I would say this is enough of a reason for the president to not have these responsibilities. In fact I believe the presidents have been doing a fine job. The amount of support they have allows them to confront all types of issues with a specialized knowledge that the staff provides. With congress's power to veto and pressure the president, I believe the new American President is not overly powerful and still able to lead our country responsibly.
ReplyDeleteThe American Presidency as we know it today is far different from its state in the earlier parts of our history, mainly in that the President has truly become mighty and powerful. Back when our Founding Fathers and their contemporaries served as Presidents, their power was not so abundant. While Presidents would work to a degree with congressional leaders to get their bills passed, they would not go around the country campaigning for legislation and would not generally veto something unless they felt it to be unconstitutional. This got John Quincy Adams in trouble with the “Tariff of Abominations”, as he signed a series of tariffs that neither he nor congress really agreed with but were designed to bring him down. As Dillin discusses, Congress was designed to be the people’s representatives in Washington, and it was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to have the President serve as the voice of the people. Daniel Stone also makes good points, talking about how being President has simply become too much. There are too many different departments and factions for the President to handle. Overall, the position of President has become too powerful and is not a reasonable job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both articles that the role of the president has grown larger than the founding fathers intended. While the president needs to be somewhat powerful, one man cannot be the singular representative of the most powerful nation on earth. As the framers intended, Congress should be the branch of government with the most power, and for good reason. There is no debate or compromise for the president, which exists in Congress. While it may take a good deal of time to get things accomplished in Congress, the laws and bills they pass usually have the best points of each party’s philosophy in them and are a fair and accurate representation of the American people. The framers did not intend the president to be able to commit to acts like the military president in Libya without the consent and approval of Congress. Obviously, the position of president has become much too powerful and changes are needed.
ReplyDeleteBen Magalaner
In the modern presidency, it doesn’t seem that the president is necessarily abusing their power to the point of it being ridiculous especially based on the constitution. Instead I think more of the problem is that people such as media and the public are making the president appear to be overly powerful. In Daniel Stone’s article “Hail to the Chief”, it would make sense that yes, the president should have all this staff to help him whenever it deems to be necessary, but at the same time, the president job doesn’t feel that large to the point that the need all that help to do their job, with the Congress making the main decisions.
ReplyDeleteWith the media, it definitely feels that they create the president to be very high and mighty. Such as broadcasting every little detail about them, it misleads the public to think that the president does every little thing in the government.
With the article by John Dillin, it just shocking how little praise or attention how congress rarely gets any recognition since they basically run the show in Capitol Hill. Such as George W. Bush getting sworn in a second time as the senate was getting sworn in, this was very little publicized. It makes sense that founders wanted the president to be the “caddy” while they make the decisions. As a result it seems that the president is getting too much attention, while it should be the congress instead.
It seems that the power of the presidency today is comparable to the power decades ago. A president’s success at introducing his own legislation is and has always been largely dependent on the party make-up of Congress and on the national climate. FDR benefitted from a Democratic Congress in creating his New Deal, and Lincoln and Bush used national emergencies to employ the full extent of their executive powers. Other presidents, like Obama and Reagan in his second term, fought divided Congresses and were perceived as weaker during those periods of inaction.
ReplyDeleteThe presidency has changed, however, in the scale of the bureaucratic responsibilities of the job. Stone describes the various advisors to the president, listing an “ethics advisor” and directors of media. In the current climate of constant scrutiny and negative political advertisements, presidents have the added responsibility of staying politically correct and exactly on message. This is an especially important concern for Obama in an election year.
If presidents do have an added power today, it is the power to more easily spread their message to the American people than their congressional counterparts. This is the flip side of the scrutiny: everything the president says will be available online and thoroughly analyzed. It is much easier for the president to make their policies publicly accessible, and to assign blame if the policies fail to pass. This was clear earlier this year, when President Obama announced his jobs plan. The plan was published on all of the major news websites, while the comments and alternative plans of members of Congress were buried within the discussion of Obama’s plan.
Will Tobias
The role of the president has definitely deviated from the Founder’s intentions for it. They intended, as John Dillin explains, for Congress to be the heart of legislation, where potential laws were discussed, reviewed, and sent to the President for approval. Now, it is more often then not the President proposing legislation, and Congress who must ultimately approve the proposal for it to pass. The President, not Congress, is the central role of government.
ReplyDeleteModern media plays a part in this. It is much easier to capture and focus what one person says on a myriad of issues than what 535 Congressmen say, each about the same number of issues. It is also easier, in such a big and populous nation, for the public to access what that one person is saying; consequentially he or she is viewed as the sole proprietor of legislation. It is also easier to look to one person for blame or praise; if the war in Iraq is going poorly, it’s George Bush’s fault, if the economy is booming, it’s Bill Clinton’s doing.
Another important thing to consider is that the Founder’s had no intention to create or take into account parties. The president now, in addition to his other responsibilities, acts as the voice of his party. Because parties exist, he cannot be, as intend, an “errand boy” (Dillin) to Congress unless falling into the category of a parliamentary democracy, another thing the Founder’s had not intended. I think in order to be true to the Founder’s intentions, either media and public perception of the President must change, or political parties must be dissolved. In today’s world, it is near impossible for either of these measures will occur.
Overall, the job of the Presidency has grown, with it responsibility has grown, and with that the potential for both success and failure has grown. The President effectively now has the jobs of both the President and Congress. Though having aides relieves some of the more mundane responsibilities, the President now has that many more people reporting to him, all of whom represent yet another viewpoint or faction. To effectively lighten the President’s burden, Congress should have more of a role in creating legislation, as intended by the Founders.
I agree with the sentiments of both articles- the job of the president has grown far to fast and gangly for one person to reasonably manage. Despite what the country may believe, the President of the United States is just a single person, and presidential aides complaints of "less time to catch your breath during the day... There’s only so much bandwidth in the organization," (Joe Hagin) are well founded; the country can't run smoothly if it's leader is so overwhelmed he/she can't get anything done. It was not the Founding Father's intention to give this much responsibility to one person- rather, they held in greater value the decisions of the House of Representatives, Senate, and most of all Congress; all a collection of people from all different view points, and not under nearly as much scrutilization as the President. Congress is meant to be the focus of the nation's lawmaking. The U.S.A's issues are so many, they require far more manpower than any single President can provide.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both articles, in that the presidency has become far more complex and powerful than was originally intended. Dillin argues that the Founding Fathers intended for Congress to be the most influential branch, and this is understandable considering the Revolutionary War against tyranny. However, this is no longer the attitude we hold towards the government. The President is the most prominent figure in government and drives action in all three branches of government. He proposes legislature and Congress' actions are considered in light of how they relate to the President's proposals. Congress largely seems to be subservient to the President. This excessive power undermines the basic principles that the Founding Fathers based our government on.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the excess of power, there is clearly an excess of responsibility. Perhaps because of the increase in power, the President must handle far more complex and extensive issues than in the past. The idea that one of the most powerful offices in the government causes the most pressure and allows very little time to think is unsettling. Decreasing the power of the presidency would not only reassign powers according to original principles, but it would also decrease stress and pressure, allowing the President to handle his proper responsibilities more effectively. Overall, the Presidency has grown too imperial and too broad and should be limited.
In the modern presidency, it is clear that the President holds more power than any other figure. Dillin says that the founding fathers intended for the legislative branch to act as the most influential, creating laws that the President simply signs off. After all, Congress is the largest body representing the every demographic of our population. However, the President is the most prominent figure and can even informally pitch legislation for Congress, which seems like a reversal of roles. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for the President to combine the presidential powers as well as the powers of Congress. Also in agreement, Stone argues that the role of President is too large for a single man. Congress should have a larger role, yet they only receive a fraction of the scrutiny directed toward the President. The public also perceives the President as a leader who can basically do anything he wants to solve any issue. With international issues growing increasingly complex, I agree with both articles that some responsibility must be taken away from the presidency. Recent Presidents have aged tremendously in office as a result of the magnitude of their role. The role of the President has increased to the point where he cannot address every problem, ultimately inhibiting our country's ability to unite behind a leader.
ReplyDeleteThough the presidency has grown immensely since our nation's birth, it is for the better. John Dillin argues that the founding fathers intended the president to be a mere "errand boy" for Congress. This vision has been turned on its head, but is that necessarily a bad thing? When the constitution was created, the idea that the federal government could regulate areas of our country like education, health care, and the environment was unheard of. So how can we expect our government, almost 250 years later, to conform to the founders' expectations? The bias in these articles lies in the fact that they don't discuss what the president has used his immense power to do for our country and the world. True, FDR might have felt "overwhelmed," but it was because he was helping the nation out of the worst recession it had ever seen, providing financial security for millions, and bringing justice overseas. Though the president micromanages almost every area of our country, he does it for improvement's sake. The Department of Education strives to give more Americans a better education. Obama met with Netanyahu in an effort to stop violence and save lives in the Middle East. In short, the president does wield much power and a strenuous job, but he does it, overwhelmingly, to better the lives of others.
ReplyDeleteThe modern president certainly has more power than president 200 years ago, so does the entire federal government. This is due to a variety of factors, social welfare programs placed under the auspices of the federal government, the expansion of federal government during times of crises, both military and and economic. But despite the history leading to an imperial presidency, which is honestly what America is dealing with today, the question remains is vesting this much more in one individual a good for America? I believe yes, that with greater power the president can do more good for the public, and dangerous excesses of power can be quickly tempered by Congress, the Supreme Court and even by the American public (popular opinion is vital to the power of any elected official). So yes, the president has more power, but he uses it fight American enemies, ensure financial security and healthcare for the poor and elderly, and regulate business to ensure consumer protection.
ReplyDeleteZander Miller
Presidential Power is much different that it was envisioned during the founding generation or even existed 75 years. The question becomes: Is that a problem? Obviously the scope of presidential power has grown to extraordinary heights, but so too has the world around the presidency grown now requiring much more attention to diverse issues. The Presidency in some ways has much more power but it is also limited by the constant oversight of the media, and unending scrutiny from the populace present today. In essence, the President has lost Freedom but gained power. I do not believe this newfound power is necessarily bad because it is constantly constrained by the very up-to-the-minute polling of public opinion. For example, Obama used great presidential power to involve our forces in Libya, but because of the political constraint on his ability to get us involved he made sure to use his authority conservatively and “lead from behind”. Though the power granted to a President may seem imperial compared to the weak office our founders sought to create, it is most definitely not imperial because of the ever increasing informal checks on his power so that he does not have to ability to do whatever he wants, as the word “imperial” implies.
ReplyDeletePresidential power is certainly different than what the founders expected it to be, but that doesn't mean it's imperialistic. Although the role of the government has increased greatly in the government, it doesn't mean the power of the president is much greater - there is just more information to process. However, while there are tremendous details to each issue, one could surely base their office run on ideas (as presidents before have done, such as Nixon) and leave small details to staff that can be trusted. There may be more information, and perhaps greater power - but the presidency is not imperial yet, as the president and Congress may be inundated to the point that it is often gridlocked by opposing views.
ReplyDeleteSamriddhi
The power of the modern American president depends on how much leeway the public gives him. The fact we place so much value in the president position generates a loyalty that allows him to get away with, for example, violated the War Powers Act or other general misconduct, as seen in the Lewinsky scandal. I think, in modern times, the majority of the public pays little attention to Congress and usually views them distastefully as the root of gridlock. The Founders wanted Congress to be the focus of public attention, dispersing their loyalty among the members, as opposed to fetishizing one person. I think in times of crisis, its perfectly appropriate for the president to take the absolute lead, but in most times, Congress should hold some of the powers, such as declaring war, now given to the president because of how the public sees the government's structure. Also, Congress' ability to defund is only partial because of timing and public opinions, so not only are some of their powers reallocated, but the remaining ones are of less value than intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument that the President now holds too much power, and also that the position receives far too much attention and worship.
ReplyDeleteThe media has had a large role in this development. Because it is so difficult for the media to report on the tedious workings of congress and the rarely significant judicial branch, the focus rests on the president. The Presidential elections are an example of the huge amount of attention position receives, which is in part due to the fact that the President is elected nationally as opposed to locally. Whereas the President was originally meant to be elected by a small amount of insiders, the media has latched on to the process and created a fantastic spectacle of it.
Along with the power of the media, the formation of a standing army has played a large role in the rise of the President. In the early years of the country, not only did the U.S. not have a solidified military but also had virtually no intention to be involved with the conflicts of other nations. In this setting, the power to control the motions and strategy of the armed forces had a lot less weight. In the modern world, President has almost exclusive control over U.S. foreign policy and is not as strongly checked as may be necessary.
Along with the power the President holds in controlling the military, the informal role of chief legislator has expanded greatly. Where the President was originally meant to be an “errand boy” for congress, as Dillin says, the role has expanded to a catalyst and a figurehead of legislation. This could be a product of the media’s increased coverage though. Greater public interest in the character and qualifications of the candidates may have lead to more confidant and active Presidents who believe it is their job to lead the country with their own actions.
-Matt Cooper