More handpicked essays just for you.
Evolution of the united states presidency
The evolution of the power of presidency
The evolution of the power of presidency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evolution of the united states presidency
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives. One of the biggest examples used in the article for expansion of presidential power is George W. Bush. After 9/11 occurred, the overwhelming emergency brought Bush to do what ever he could to secure the country and make the American …show more content…
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons, …show more content…
With his executive orders, Obama has put in restrictions and requirements of agencies that have been seen as excessive, says Nestle from New York University. These regulations include lowering emissions, preventing domestic violence, trying to create jobs for veterans, etc (Lyons, 223). Dan Epstein from Cause of Action says these orders have only served to create politicization of these federal agencies which are meant to be independent, especially of the executive branch. This has given the Obama administration more authority over the agencies and in turn, left the public’s say out of it (Lyons,
R: “I do believe there is room for small adjustments to the presidents’ power. On the other hand, I believe there are many limits on the Executive power, and putting too many limits may impede on the presidents’ role.”
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
An Imperial Presidency Writers of the constitution intended for congress to be the most powerful branch of government. They invested in the president: the powers of the monarch, but subjected him to the democratic principles of accountability which was ensured by a complex system of parliamentary and judicial checks and balances. For over a century the US got along fine with a relatively weak president whose major role was simply to carry out the laws and policies made by congress, however, there has been erosion in this system. Presidential power only started to grow after the 19th century when the US set out on its path to empire.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
In perhaps one of the most iconic films featuring the United States Senate, the naïve Washington outsider, Jefferson Smith, finds himself pitted against political graft and special interests from his first day as U.S. Senator. Out of options and fully opposed, Mr. Smith is forced to utilize the filibuster until complete exhaustion in order to convince unsympathetic Senators of his principle, as well the standards that the Senate should operate under. This classic film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, highlights many aspects of the Senate, most especially the merit of the filibuster in aiding in the protection of the little guy, the minority. Yet the filibuster throughout American history has evolved from this early notion of minority protection into a political gambit used by Senators to actually oppose debate. “The practice has gotten out of hand, leaving bills gridlocked in an oft-feuding Senate and stalling important votes for purely partisan gain” (TimeRe). The need for reform, constitutional reform, is evident by evaluating the essence of the problem itself. The problem, best understood in context to the filibuster’s historical development and the structural differences between the two chambers of congress, accentuates the need for reform, not abolishment of this extra-constitutional development. The filibuster has merit, but by introducing a constitutional amendment to make this senatorial policy more efficient and privy to democracy, the consequences prove to be overwhelming positive. As will be articulated below, a shifting cloture rule, as well as debate limitations will provide the ideal solution to what has become a growing, debilitating problem.
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
I will start with explaining Neustadt’s arguments about presidential power in his book. Then further my answer to the extent in which compare other political scholars, Skowronek, Howell and Edwards in response to Neustadt’s points of view about American presidency.
The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be addressed by the government, when it comes to the presidency, one person, although checked by various other divisions of the same government, has the power and responsibility to literally, as history has proven, change the world. The American people, "like all people everywhere, want to have our (political) cake and eat it too. We want a lot of leadership, but we are notoriously lousy followers" (Genovese). In other words the expectations the public has of the executive office are ever-changing since we demand that our leaders keep up with the evolving world around us and them. Throughout the past seventy eventful years alone, the American people's views, perceptions and demands of the Executive Office of American government have evolved simultaneously with the political and social events of that same time period.
The President of the United States is commonly referred to as the most powerful man in the world. The President is the head of the country which boasts the world’s largest economy, commander and chief of the most powerful military in the world, and has command authority over the largest active nuclear arsenal in the world. However, his power is not unlimited. Throughout the history of the United States, some presidents have attempted to go beyond the powers granted to them. Most of these attempts have ended in scandal. Regardless of whether these actions were for the good of the nation or for personal gain, laws must be obeyed. Otherwise the United States would become the same tyrannical government our forefathers fought to escape from.
Roll call votes, number of bills signed and the numbers of presidential vetoes present an interesting method of measuring success. They are quantitative in nature and present a statistical relationship . As Dr. Whitlock put it: “There is a reason Americans prefer football over soccer – we love score. “ Although focus on success is frequent and relatively easy to measure, some scholars including (Collier 1959) have argued that it fails to capture the full picture surrounding the passage of a piece of legislation. For example, as (Collier 1959) remarked, the passage of a piece of legislation signed by the president may be different than the original bill introduced in the Congress. Yet, the president can still claim political victory after the bill passes. In addition, during divided government, when party control is divided between the branches, success in terms of outcomes measures may fail to capture the full picture of which player was really preventing the objective of the
Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to completion, laws that are enforced have significant impacts on the everyday lives of the American people—such as laws concerning abortion rights. In the United States, the government and Congress have significantly affected the rights of women with regard to abortions through laws that either restrict or guarantee their legality and availability, while the government’s capacity to do so is affected by the principle of federalism along with that of the separation of powers.
The public opinion affects the presidential power because the public's opinion creates pressure towards to the President to do what the people want to be done; if in the public's opinion, they dislike what the President has been doing, then it restricts the president's powers because the people would be closely watching what the President is doing, but if the public likes what the President is doing so far, then the President's power increases since the people would give the President more "leeway" to do more of the Controversial things in government.
The changes that formed the modern presidency shaped a presidency that uses power aggressively and significantly. The modern presidency
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...
The effectiveness of our democracy lies in our protection of the separation of powers. Over time, power has slowly shifted to the executive branch. In 1933, presidential emergency powers were considered, “There were real calls…for Franklin Roosevelt to seize dictatorial powers in order to deal with the Great Depression.” (1) In this state, total power was offered to one man. Roosevelt declined the offer but still violated Constitutional laws. Clearly, our democratic system was too slow of a process and was ineffective in getting things done. But, in government, when something is done once, it becomes more acceptable. Power was given