Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages of electoral college
Checks and balances questions
Does the electoral college work essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages of electoral college
The fact that presidents do not keep their campaign promises is a recurring trend and theme occurring in our American nation. Rather than achieving their goals and promises for this country, they leave the public waiting for the campaign promises to be established. The public opinion is significant when it comes to these ideas. Due to the Congress and courts countless promises can not be concluded. This is an exceptional and valuable point, being that it restricts the president from having excessive powers. There is a system in place known as checks and balances, where each branch has a job to review and examine the additional branches. This strategy is both essential and important in keeping all the branches in the government in check. Everyone
... law. No one should supersede their roles or take advantage of it, as President Bush did when he went behind the backs of Congress and proceeded with his unconstitutional tactics. Warren G. Harding, 29th President of the U.S, once said “America’s present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration.” This is what America needs, a stable and able president and government to provide us with safety and protect our freedoms.
...nd executive branches have yet to realize that neither reshuffling power nor changing rules is the answer. It is pointless to take a process that needs to be restructured and add new layers to it. Despite the many changes, its use as a political tool has remained. It is an instrument of control and subject to the politics of the President and Congress.
The backbone of American politics is derived from the concept of democracy, where the people govern themselves, understanding this concept is vital to the policy making process. The president and congress should have equal jurisdiction in policymaking, Constitutional checks and balances were created by the founders to keep one branch from gaining unequal power over the other. Under very specific circumstances, such as , powers of each branch may be altered. The constitution can be interpreted in many ways and each interpretation has sparked debate over whether the president or congress has more influence over policy making.
To quell the ambition, human nature of the Legislative Branch, the president has the power of the veto. This aspect that the president can shoot down any legislation that has passed, is a tremendous embodiment of how to president, the executive branch, checks the legislative branches “ambition.” This struggle of interest between two of the three branches, keeps the human nature in check. Moreover, the election of the president, judiciary, and legislative representatives, is just another balance of power between the three branches. Madison talks about how the three branches are to be as separate as possible. By dividing them up by their interests, ambition or human nature, they keep one another from running roughshod over other peoples’ liberties and
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.
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.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
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...
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,
The United States government is designed with checks and balances to ensure that no one branch can become more powerful than another. Though this may be the case, it is still possible that one branch of the our government can still be more powerful than the others. The equality of power in our government has constantly changed over the course of the life of the United States. Although these changes have occurred, we still have not made all of the branches equal and the inequality has been due to meet the demands of the time. For example, in 1938 our country was facing a depression and nothing was getting done. So, Roosevelt took it upon himself to give the Executive branch more power, to then in turn, help the country creep back out of the hole it had dug itself. After the country didn’t need the reform bills and the size of the government that Roosevelt had put it, things were then downsized and put into a more stable equilibrium. Though there were attempts to make everything equal, the Legislative Branch now holds the majority of the power, and is the most powerful branch that our government has.
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.
The United States consists of three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Of these branches, the executive branch, led by the president, and the legislative branch, led by the Congress, work together to carry out policy-making through a system of checks and balances. No branch can exert more power than the other, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution. Therefore, the president and Congress must share a mutual relationship to lead the nation. However, how can one recognize when one branch bypasses the other? From 2008 to 2016, President Barack Obama has been widely criticized to have exercised excessive power that bypassed Congress. As a result, this led to the 2016 court case, House v. Burwell where Congress filed a lawsuit
As far as foreign policymaking goes, the main goal of the Government is to “speak with one voice” (p. 336) so that our nation will be seen as a united and unwavering force. This notion was put into law in 1799 by the Logan Act, which prohibited unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign Governments. Even with such laws in place, having one central foreign policymaking body is easier said than done. The system of checks and balances provides much stability to our national government, but it can also create a struggle between who has what power and who has the final say in matters regarding this issue. There are many individuals, departments, and agencies that retain some influence in the arena of foreign policymaking but for many reasons that will be further discussed, The President is the dominant force and ultimate decision-making resides in his hands, and his alone.
In my opinion and based on my readings of our textbook The American Promise: A History of the United States by James Roark, the most pressing issue the young republic faced after the new congress took power under the new constitution in 1789, and George Washington became president was searching for stability. In the young republic 's search for stability they needed to cover many bases politically, socially, and culturally.
Being the head of the Executive Branch, the president is still accountable for actions that he has taken, or from Congress’ doings in legislation. But most importantly, approval is an important mechanism within the Executive Branch from the Legislative. The President is able to appoint people for positions from ambassadors to Supreme Court Justices. But being able to appoint someone to a position does not mean that they totally get the position. To check the President’s accountability, Congress has to approve the president’s nomination, which they usually do. Yet, that does not limit Congress from disapproving of a nomination. In 2014, Debo Adegbile was President Obama’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department. He was well qualified and fit for the position, but once Congress rechecked Adegbile’s history it was shown that he should have originally been rejected because of his past work as a criminal defense attorney. This could have been something that was simply overlooked by the President, or he knew but did not care and did not think Congress would catch it and could have in fact hurt his Presidency if his nominee was approved; luckily Congress (Legislative Branch) was able to recheck his decision (Bianco and Canon 2015, 442). Accountability with the President and his rights to veto laws are known to have policy