Power can easily be abused, as history has attested to. Prominent historical figures and groups such as Henry VII, Al Qaeda, and Hitler have declared hostility and the campaign of terror waged by these organizations have helped to constitute a new paradigm of war by abusing their power. This hunger for power and for control has had its detrimental consequences. However, those who used their power in a more responsible manner, when given a position of authority, were able to accomplish what many view as honorable actions. The use of power is exemplified in two texts, notably a New York Times article and a quote from Alexander Hamilton. In the article titled ‘Too Much Power for the President’, the authors believe the government has been given too much power over decisions that affect the lives of innocent citizens on American soil whereas Alexander Hamilton believes the upper class government should be …show more content…
If they are inclined to account for the majority their decision will affect, they are more obliged to consider all perspectives of the situation. “On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed who was actually making the final decision on the biggest killings and drone strikes: President Obama himself.” (Paragraph 4) The idea of the president having the legal authority to go to an extent so far as to order assassinations against foreigners and American citizens who are suspected of terrorism is outside the framework of the American value system. “Order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield — depriving Americans of their due-process rights,” (Paragraph 5) The supreme law of the land explicitly states the power of a judge, jury, and executioner is not given to the president because that is not the president’s duty as a member of the executive branch. This ostensibly illustrates the Obama administration has taken it too far by assassinating
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
What is power to a human? As time has gone by, there have been many forms of control and influence in the world. Many strive to achieve total rule over a society or group of individuals. Yet the question still presents itself to the average man. Why does man desire power so greatly even though there is visible trouble that follows? Shelley’s Frankenstein, Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”, and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, whether through the situation or the character themselves, depict the evils and hardships due to an imbalance and poor management of power.
Hamilton uses fears of past despotism in monarchies and encroachments in representative bodies to persuade people to see that this essential law of good behavior “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 100)
The Evolution of the Power of the Presidency The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed. George Washington was the first President of the United States of America and realizing this he acted carefully and deliberately, aware of the need to build an executive structure that could accommodate future presidents.
Power can be defined as the ability to influence or outright control the behavior of people. A variety of different things can drive power, including both knowledge and experience. Power in most cases is needed to establish authority. In today’s country, the United States government has a lot of power. It has so much power that even American citizens are beginning to complain about it. Having all this power and authority has allowed the government to make decisions quicker. However, by making decisions faster, some mistakes can be made and innocent people can be convicted. This point is directly exemplified when using two New Yorker articles, “Surviving Solitary” and ‘A Shot to The Heart.” Both articles consist of results produced quite
All people have power, some people are just more powerful than others. Having power is the ability to create change. Examples of power being used wrongly is during the French revolution, and the residential school crisis. During the French revolution, two examples were shown of people abusing their power. King Louie XVI raised taxes so that he could buy things that he and his wife Marie Antoinette wanted, and took away rights from the third estate. In the residential schools crisis, the teachers, priests and nuns had power over the students and abused the students in different ways. Superior people take away the rights from those who are below them, but they end up corrupt.
From the inception of the Constitution, there has always been a power struggle between the President and Congress. In the beginning, Madison and the Jeffersonians were placed in a gridlock with Hamilton and his school of political philosophy. Andrew Jackson fought to extend the powers of the President, then Congress spent 50 years fighting to repeal the powers of the Executive. Abraham Lincoln refined Jacksonian presidential politics, then Congress impeached his successor, Andrew Johnson, for fear of another quasi -- tyrannical President. Even today, a Congress, whose majority is of the same party as the President, fights 24 hours a day to check the power of President George W. Bush. But why, and how? Inherent Power Struggles Within the Constitution: Article I, Section I -- "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" VS. Article II, Section I -- "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America" Article II, Section II -- "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States" - The Founders' ambiguous and contradicting language sets the stage for a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches - Being that the Founders were political masterminds, they realized that unique circumstances would demand some deviations from the restraints that the Constitution places on both the Executive and the Legislature - Founders anticipated that during times of crisis', the nation would need ...
In conclusion, Moore provides many facts that tend to show that President George W. Bush utilizes the Power Elite Theory. We feel that Bush is proven guilty in many ways of exemplifying the Power Elite Theory. We think he feels that the power that goes along with the elite class is of great importance, and that he uses this power in ways that seem unfair to the public eye. An example of this is the “convenient” involvement’s that the Carlyle Group and the Halliburton Corporation have in the war in Iraq. Overall, Moore shows in the film how easily a greater power, when abused, can take advantage of the United States’ citizens.
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.
Power- power is the complete domination of others, and since all men want to dominate those around them, power is valued as one of the most important possessions. Power is highly sought after, thus the correct decisions must be made to obtain it, and this is clearly proven by Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". Power is obtained much easier than it is kept. "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!" The conspirators celebrate the death of Caesar, because they believe that they make the right decision in killing him, and so far they have, but the decision to spare Mark Antony is one that will haunt them in the end. Power is not always beneficial, it can be a very dangerous possession. "You shall not stir out of your house today." Calphurnia makes the decision to persuade Caesar to stay home, and not go to the Senate meeting. When one has power, there are those who want it, like Brutus and the other conspirators. Calphurnia makes the right decision, yet Caesar makes the wrong one by deciding ...
As one of the many uses of power, it is prominent and obvious that it is used with the aim of hurting or punishing an individual or a group of beings. With this particular intention, power has been evident to cause devastation in many. One evident example of such abuse of power is seen in Joy Kogawa’s Obasan. Upon the horrific Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, a temporary stamp was engraved on the faces of Japanese Canadians as a threat to the country. Based on a very prejudice basis, Japanese Canadians, mostly in Western Canada, were sent to work camps in which they were deprived of many rights. From this event in the novel, it is clear that injustice was served to the unworthy. The misuse of political power and make unjust decisions was evident in Kogawa’s Obasan. Another such example of the abuse of power is seen in Mistry’s A Fine Balance. In the novel, the power of the police force and the power of military were used in order to deprive many poor from their homes and ignorantly dump them into fruitless work camps. Just the same, use of political power is also dominant in the governments of North America and has been spotted to affect masses. For example, the decision of the U.S. government to introduce a bill, SOPA, has been obviously s...
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
One of the most famous phrases that Americans say in relation to the people’s power (or the over power of government) is, “We the people…” The people need to have power over the government so that they should not become insignificant. The government should, in turn, make laws that are helpful to the people and improve their quality of life. An example of a government that is all-powerful in their country is North Korea. They are essentially ruled by a single leader, Kim Jong Un, who has a very militaristic idea for their country, as they continue to work on and test nuclear bombs, although they are restricted from it by the countries of the world. When government becomes too controlling, the lives of the people are no longer controlled by the
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.