I thought this editorial had the right idea in saying that the founders intended for congress to control in a non-theoretical sense when the country goes to war. Congress should retain that right and power because war is too big a commitment for one man to make without discussion. If the executive and legislative branches went by the book and acted by these rules, the only issues that I foresee are those of inaction. Like the author said, it is difficult to move a large body (like congress). If the president can take military action at his discretion, the country will be able to do much more in the way of quick, sneaky strikes, but also may become entangled in situations unfavorable to the general population. This too could happen if the congress were deciding when to engage in war, but it less likely because of the extensive conversation that goes into the declaration. Obama striking Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad, Pakistan was an example of this working out well; Kennedy leading through the Bay of Pigs was an example of an attack not being fully baked or well thought out. This editorial is not really arguing a point other than the fact that President Obama has violated the War Powers act. I think it is true that he has violated this act, and I think that this act is worthy of adherence. While the President ought to be able to call for one-time surprise attacks, military altercations lasting longer than 60 days should be approves with the larger Legislative body. It makes sense to ignore this act, as president, when the country is in imminent danger, but not when trying to engage in a real, sizable military conflict.
(Itai Barsade) Anderson’s response deviates from the widespread view that it is the President’s job to manage and wage war, while Congress holds the power of the purse. While this interpretation is correct, the War Powers Act passed in the 1970’s states that if the conflict were any longer than 60 days, then Congress ought to have a serious say in the direction and continued involvement of the conflict. Anderson argues that it was the Founders’ intention to have Congress act as an integral part of war making and that the current War Powers Act does not enforce that original intent as much as it should of. This deviates from the common view that the War Powers Act actually de-claws the President too much. What Anderson does not consider is the fundamental constitutionality of the War Powers Act. The Wars Power Act is not enforced because people disagree with it, but rather because it its unenforceable due to its reliance on the concept of a “legislative veto” – something that was deemed unconstitutional in the 1980’s. As such, the War Powers Act as a balancing force to give Congress more power is an inherently illegitimate endeavor. Anderson does have a point in that the President should not have a cart blanche in waging war whenever he deems it necessary. Congress should have an integral say in what is going on. I, however, think that the power of the purse is enough of a way to control warmongering. Congress having the ability to choose what and when to fight from the start of a conflict is dangerous, as things tend to move slowly when Congress is involved. Should a conflict arise, and Congress have an integral say in if to go in, it runs a risk of getting involved too late and possibly causing grave consequences. The current system, in its idea is correct. Giving President 60 days to act without questions is reasonable, but during those 60 days he should also be waging a war to win over Congress. If Congress is not convinced of the efficacy of whatever actions are in place, they should have the power to call the troops back home in a reasonable way. That keeps protracted conflicts from occurring and checks the president from war mongering. An issue with this view is that Presidents do not like having their power checked and have historically ignored attempts to check their ability to wage war. Examples come from every president from Nixon has ignored the War Powers Act and waged war on their own terms. They do not ignore it because of its unconstitutionality, but rather because it attempts to check them. The argument against its constitutionality is merely a tool for them to mask their fear at losing power. Should this view come into effect, it would require a much stronger referendum that is both legitimate and compelling to all parties involved.
I agree with the general ideas of the articles and think the modern American Presidency has become too expansive in its responsibilities and duties. As Dillin states, Congress desired much more focus to be on Congress, the intended legislators and large decision makers of American government. Now, instead of an ‘errand boy’, the Presidential office manages countless people, agencies, and organizations, all of which take up valuable time. Although I think checks and balances make the president far from a tyrant, the power of his office is only growing to include more and more things. For example 9/11 brought about the creation of things such as the Department of Homeland Security, which adds a great number of staff and management duties. Recent party clashes, however, show that the president still faces harsh opposition when attempting to get certain laws or legislation passed. Just the idea that he would propose a law though when it doesn’t state it in the constitution shows how his power has grown. Obama’s healthcare bill, for example is a prime example of how a president is trying to reshape an enormous part of American healthcare, from the White House. The president’s power as Commander in Chief also highlight the power of the president, but I think this power is justified. In order to respond quickly to foreign threats and to protect American citizens, the president might not have time to make his plans public and gain their approval. The War Powers Act attempts to change this in a way which I think is a fair compromise, but Presidents have pretty much ignored it, which I think gives the president too much power. Overall, I think the president’s decision making ability is acceptable, but that there are too many decisions to be made for one man or woman.
The modern American Presidency is a job that has transformed from simply the ruler of the executive branch to the one person in control of too much and too many people to possibly handle. It’s too overwhelming in modern times; there are many “pitfalls of an overly packed agenda” that people don’t seem to realize (thedailybeast.com). The president is extremely powerful, and too powerful at that. He’s not just seen as the American President but as arguably the most important/powerful person in the world. In modern times, he has too much to deal with; too much is “expected from the president” that he can “barely breathe,” leading to the hiring of almost 500 staff members to aide in everything from mail to education policies (thedailybeast.com). To top it all off, the president is too busy and powerful for the framers’ intentions as well. When the constitution was created, Congress was supposed to be the main ruling entity while the president would be the “errand boy” (CSMonitor.com). The framers are surely turning in their graves now as the roles have become not only reversed, giving the president immense power and Congress considerably less, but the president is not the errand boy anymore- rather he has his own errand boys (469 of them). The president now is in charge of everything from solving the debt crisis to executing war to consoling the country in the time of an attack, as Bush showed after the Twin Tower attacks on 9/11. The power of the president is just too immense- too immense for the president to handle and too powerful for what the framers of the constitution intended.
Article 2 of our constitution establishes the Executive Branch, however the modern american presidency has become too expansive. Since 1936 (Franklin Roosevelt), the presidency has indeed become imperial; the president has become the most powerful/recognized person in the country. Constitutionally, the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces and has many rights including approving legislation. Slowly, the presidency has slipped into becoming the first branch of government. The president did not used to have hundreds of assistants and trappings of power like he does today, and this leads to expansion of his power. It has become nearly impossible for the president to meet the full demands of the modern presidency. The first article written by Daniel Stone argues that the modern presidency has become too "bloated," and I agree with this notion. The number of things that are expected of the president have grown exponentially since FDR and there are too many commitments for one man to fulfill. President Reagan exemplifies the modern presidency's expanded powers through his actions to trade arms for hostages with Iran and use proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. The Founding Fathers would question the constitutionality of such an action. As the presidents responsibilities increase, the notion is that the president should have more people to help manage the work. This makes the presidency more hectic and complex, and the president gains power over more people. Additionally, news media has given the presidency more imperial power by advertising the president's faults, mistakes and failures, as well as his successes. When the founders created the Constitution, they imagined the president would be an "errand boy" for congress. They believed Congress should have the most power because one man could not handle it all. With the shift from congress toward presidential power, our modern presidency has become imperial, and the president has too much power and too many responsibilities for one person.
I find it to be undeniable that the responsibilities of the president have grown far larger than any one man can manage. It makes sense that the founding fathers would place such emphasis on the Congress. They did not want a monarch in charge of decisions that would effect the whole country. They wanted these decisions to be made collaboratively with men representing different states and opinions. And although governing may have been less demanding in those early days before the critical social media and worries of high tech wars and dangers, the founding fathers knew that governing the United States would be too big a job for one man. That is why they had the president for their "errand boy" and figure head. It is the lack of time in particular that worries me about the presidency. Stone says that Obama holds President Lincoln as a role model for leading the country through rough times of upheaval. But "Lincoln had time to think" says Stone, he had time to sit and think out situations without the distractions of foreign policy and the media. As Chief Diplomat, the President must not only manage his own country, but also manage relations with other countries, organizing treaties and social agreements with allies and enemies. It makes sense for the president to have this power because he is the face of the nation and when dealing with other nations, it should be done between the leaders. However, It is simply too much for one man in this modern day to keep track of.
I personally believe that within government, the president is not as powerful as he once was. With the White House turning into a literal bureaucracy, the President has to manage an overwhelming amount of issues that do not always get to him. Many of the issues are sent up the ranks and do not always reach him. With issues overwhelmingly expanded from the 19th century, the President cannot get to every issue. Although politically, the president has grown in power. The Founding Fathers intended the president to be Congress’ “errand boy”. They believed Congress would set up programs and Congress would be the heart and soul of the country. Yet since FDR’s presidency, it is the president that sets up Programs for Congress to enact, many of which are passed due to public views and party influence, and it is the president who gets all the headlines in newspapers and on T.V. People look to the president as the leader in modern times and believe he will steer us in the right direction, not Congress. In that respect, the President has great power politically that was probably not intended by the Founding Fathers. For example, as Chief Legislator, President Obama enacted the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Possibly the biggest piece of legislation during his term, many members of Congress felt compelled to vote for it, even though they opposed it, because they did not want to lose support from the public who supported it or their party that supported it. It is in this way that the president hold power over Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the president to be no more than Congress’s “errand boy,” but overtime the role of the president has grown significantly, and I believe that it is nearly impossible to successfully preform the duties of the modern American president. The presidents themselves agree with this, as many have tried to cut failing agencies, which would save billions of dollars and give them a little less responsibility. Obama himself admitted that “The responsibilities of this office are so enormous, and so many people are depending on what we do, and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place.” If the president can admit that he is has a ton of responsibilities that may hinder his job performance, change should be made.
John Dillin of The Christian Science Monitor makes an interesting point about what the Framers wanted: “They assumed that Congress, drawn from all parts of the country, would initiate bills, set budgets, approve wars, provide national leadership, and if necessary, impeach and toss out a wayward president. After all, who would give supreme powers to one man, or woman?” It doesn’t make sense to give supreme powers to just one person, no matter how wonderful they are. The duties of the president have become so great that no one could preform them all to the best of their ability. And they shouldn’t be expected to, either, which is why we have a legislative branch. Congress was always supposed to be the chief leader of the government, but severe party clashes have created issues, undermining the Framers’ original system. Checks and balances were always the backbone that kept the president from being tyrannical, but now strong political parties are reducing their effectiveness.
However, the president’s role as Chief Diplomat is a good example of how checks and balances can still work. The president can appoint ambassadors, but must have the "advice and consent" of the majority of the Senate. Additionally, although the president has the power to make treaties with other nations, he needs the support of 2/3 of the Senate. An interesting example of this is when the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles despite President Wilson’s wishes.
The duty of the president has gotten unbearably expansive, and despite whatever their job performance may be, their responsibilities are much too great for one person to control.
I agree with the overall ideas of the articles. The president has too much to do and is in charge of too many things ranging from people and organizations to proposing bills and keeping America safe. The role of the president has expanded drastically over the years and has turned into a position that the founding fathers did not want. The president was meant to carry out the laws created and proposed by Congress. Now he or she proposes bills, enters wars, and leads the nation. The president proposes things like health care plans (ex: "Obama-care") and tax cuts. When a crisis occurs the public looks towards the president for guidance and action, not the Congress. In the past, usually a president's overall approval rating has skyrocketed when he has entered war or taken action. After 9/11, President George W. Bush's approval rating rose. The same occurred when the US invaded Grenada under President Ronald Reagan. The public believed they had a president who was working to protect them and they believed they needed the president, not the Congress, to look after them and take control and protect them from terrorism attacks, communism, and more. As Commander in Chief the president has supreme authority over the nation's armed forces. That gives the president a lot of power. However, the War Powers Act is a check to ensure that president does not have an overwhelming amount of control. Yes, most presidents have ignored this act but when America is threatened (especially unexpectedly), the quick action taken by the president can be reassuring to the public and make them feel safer. When Reagan invaded Grenada he did not receive explicit approval from Congress like he was supposed to. However, that invasion helped diminish Soviet control in that area. However, it is not always beneficial to the country. Receiving approval from Congress can be a good way to split up the power of the government and ensure that the president does not gain too much power. Therefore, presidents should compromise and abide by the War Powers Act or another drawn up and passed document. I believe there are too many decisions and things for one person to be in charge of. The president should be more than an "errand boy" for the Congress but he or she does not need to be as insignificant as the founders originally planned.
I think that this argument about an "Imperial Presidency" is, in the words of VP Joe Biden, a bunch of malarkey. Granted, the powers, staff, and importance of the presidency may've grown over the years but, on the other hand, so has America. As a country, we're confronting a whole host of issues that the Founding Fathers couldn't have been able to imagine in their wildest dreams. Benjamin Franklin had an opinion on gay marriage? Of course not! Thomas Jefferson would've been able to handle affairs in the Middle East, or foresee the increase in government-paid social services such as healthcare and medicaid? I don't think so! Let's face it. This is the 21st century and, although it's important to constantly and critically look at our past and the Constitution in order to determine where our nation should head politically, it's equally important to look at the world that's shaped itself in the years since the tail-end of the 1700's. We've had a Civil War, a Depression, two World Wars, and a decades-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. In my opinion, dealing with those scenarios certainly required the type of leadership that Lincoln, FDR, or Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to employ had they shared the limited powers of presidents like James Madison or John Adams. The Constitution's Second Article, in regards to the duties and powers of the president, states that our country's executive branch "Shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." In my opinion, as long as our president obeys constitutional law which, due to the Framers, is purposely meant to be interpretive, then Obama (or whoever) should be allowed to expand their staff and their responsibilities in accordance with United States legislation. In fact, one could argue that this legal flexibility is what's helped our country adapt to national and international issues with a certain amount of grace and ease. For example, Theodore Roosevelt found this flexibility helpful during his presidency, when his "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine allowed him to intervene in conflicts between European Nations and Latin American countries. Before I wrap things up, I think it's best that I mention an argument that opposes mine. Some people believe that Congress deserves (and rightfully should have) more of the powers and responsibilities that are handled by America's president. But seriously, folks. Congress is not only incredibly divisive (just look at the House of Representatives), but members of Congress often refuse to take political initiatives at the expense of their careers, simply because they often care more about their future than their country's future. With that in mind, I'd rather have one individual, and that individual's staff and departments, try to handle problems that they're arguably but legally allowed to handle. That's just me, though. -Matthew Kaufman
As the article points out, the President's role has increased to the point where it is almost more important than Congress. This goes against the original intention of the Founders that Congress would wield most of the power. We can look at the expanding role of the President as Chief Magistrate as a great example of how the powers of the President are expanding. The original intention of the pardon power was to allow Presidents to pardon rebels to quell a rebellion, as Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. Now, however, Presidents use the power to pardon regular people or people who have served them at some point, such as Scooter Libby being pardoned by George W. Bush. By looking at the expanding powers of the President, we can see that the President is becoming more and more of an imperial presidency.
(G. Warrington) In terms of the duties and responsibilities of the President, I too believe that they have become much too expansive for the likes of one presidential figure. As illustrated in the article "Hail to the Chief", Stone highlights the differences between Pres. Obama and his distant predecessors FDR and Abe Lincoln and the drastic differences between the spectrum of problems that had to be addressed then and problems that must be addressed now. With primarily the New Deal on his plate, as described in the Article, FDR had a sole purpose during his presidency: to establish a "New Deal" that would jump start the nation again, while Lincoln's was primarily the Civil War and fusing the North and South back together again. As for Obama his "plate" is completely full and overflowing with problems that would be more suitable for 2-3 people rather than one, and given the nature of government established by the Constitution (checks and balances), the president is not nearly a overpowering, but could use a little more leeway. As Chief Diplomat the president is granted the abilities to appoint ambassadors, utilize the War Powers Act, and create treaties, all suited with their own checks in exchange for granted powers to the Congress. I see this as fair, for the president is granted a sufficient amount of powers but not nearly enough to be considered tyrannous, except for in some cases the War Powers Act and its constitutionality. Nonetheless I feel that the balance of powers between the President and Congress is politically correct and sufficient in sustaining a "well-oiled" country, but could be further enhanced by a further delegation of powers beyond the presidency to more efficiently address the higher influx of societal problems as time goes on.
I have to agree with both of the articles in that the Presidency is too big, and too impossible. It does not matter how much political experience someone has, or how smart they are. There are simply too many jobs to do and too many pressures to handle. The President used to be able to have control and manage his work. Now, there are seemingly countless agencies and advisors and jobs. There is just too much expected of one single man. The President is no longer the “errand boy” that the founders had predicted. With party clashes, as the article states, it is really difficult to be a leader and to work with everyone. I do think that the President is not as corrupt as part of the article suggests, but it is just hard to do a lot of the good things that a president may want which makes them look bad. The President’s power as Commander and Chief shows a lot about the power of the Modern American Presidency. With this power, I do think that the president should have the power to act when threatened and to send our troops. I do like some of the checks on this. Each President in the Whitehouse has made strides to find new ways to get power and it has added up. The current president can do a lot of things that were never thought possible. He does have a lot of power. However, there are always strict checks and balances. There is an extremely powerful president who can send troops. But the Housed are always there to stop the train if they do not like where it is headed. I think that there is too much power, but we can not yet all it an “imperial presidency”.
As the leader of the free role, the president of the United States has considerably more power than the Founders intended to give him. Far from the 'Errand Boy' the Framers envisioned, the President often takes advantage of his own ability to propose laws to Congress-as in the case of Obama's health care. In general the President's power seems to lie in people's perceptions of him. People inside and outside the United States look to the President's opinion for insight to the way the world will move and the country looks to him for inspiration and hope in times of despair. The President's power has expanded greatly through the many agencies he heads as well as our continued interference around the world. The President's symbolic role as leader and visionary is crucial. We need someone to look to in times of a crisis. Someone from whom to gain inspiration. As the sole person who represents all fifty states, he unites the entire country. In practice, however, it is impractical for one person to run the entire country and, effectively, the entire free world. The President's responsibilities have grown too extensive for him to manage. As Stone pointed out, previous presidents had time to think and strategize. With too many projects cluttering his thinking, the President has no time to focus on any one aspect of his job and must delegate his responsibilities, or merely accept his workers develop for him. Because our government's structure creates inherent checks and balances, we do not have an entirely Imperial Presidency in a literal sense. The President's ability to dominate public perception and influence the United States citizens, however, gives him tremendous power. Technically there is literally the President can do without the aid of Congress, but as we have seen through our entrance into Vietnam, the President can find ways to get around this. In practice we do have an Imperial President.
I agree with this article. War is too major a decision for one person to have the power to make the decision. The founding fathers made that a congressional right for a reason. However, it is difficult for a body as large as congress to make decisions. The president possessing the power to declare war would make things run a lot smoother. However, this might upset the popular vote .I It’s easier to blame one person when something goes wrong than the entire Congress. Obama’s team taking out Bin Laden was a positive example of this, Eisenhower entering Korea was an example of this failing. According to the article, Obama violate War Powers Act, which I agree with. Obama should only be able to make emergency calls, not long-term military decisions.
For good or bad, the modern American president has enormous power. Individual presidents have had greater and lesser impact in the development of this power. Abraham Lincoln gathered great presidential authority in guiding the country through the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt strengthened the presidency in his trust-busting conflicts with business and foreign interventions. Woodrow Wilson guided the country through World War I, but his power was checked when the Senate voted down what in many ways was his League of Nations. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration began to gather power for the presidency in a process that would continue through the Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the rise of the military industrial complex. Truman was the man who decided to drop not one but two atom bombs to end WWII. Even Lyndon Johnson continued the trend of concentration of power in the presidency until his pursuit of the Vietnam War split the country into pro and anti-war camps. The damage done to the presidency by the consequences of the Vietnam War were continued under Richard Nixon, who then damaged the presidency in a different and perhaps more dramatic way by the lies and deceits that came to light in the Watergate Affair, which ultimately led to his resignation from office. This was the low point of the “imperial” presidency.
I believe that because the responsibilities of the American president (particularly the modern president) are so great, the power granted to the office has been necessary to enable presidents to act. At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and relying on a potentially gridlocked Congress could prevent timely action. There are already a number of checks on the president provided in the Constitution, so the additional power possessed by the president is important to prevent a stagnant government. A president who is able to make executive orders and send troops abroad without prior declaration of war is important to protect American vital interests. That being said, it is not easy to give this incredible presidential power to a president of the opposing party or who reflects a different political/social philosophy from one’s own. Though it is potentially nerve-wracking to give power to someone you disagree with, I still believe that the president should have the amount of power he does now.
Though I understand the articles’ points about the president appearing to have acquired more power than was necessarily intended by the Framers, I believe that this amount of power is necessary today in order to create and pass legislation and have an active role in foreign policy. Because of this, I find it hard to fault the ever-expanding executive branch because its job is to protect American interests and people at home and abroad.
In accordance with both the Dillin and the Stone articles, it seems to me that the modern President has been granted far too many responsibilities than should be held by a single politician. It made sense for FDR to become a large part of the government in his time; the economy was in ruin and the nation had to be led through World War two. Of course the position of the president had to be elevated for the country to be united under one man's speeches and ideals. However, the fact that the precedent of a large president has been carried over regardless of the state of the union is a mistake. In peacetime, Congress should have more responsibilities and the president act as more of a figurehead than anything. The president's countless responsibilities have arisen largely because of historical tradition, not of actual necessity. Even with the breadth of his power, the President's depth of power is in check. Presidents must face Congress before passing their laws, and even within Congress there are constantly disputes between the two parties. Overall the extent to which the President can affect the nation remains largely unchanged, in part because of the number of responsibilities he now has. One man alone simply does not have the capacity to manage everything, as a president is now expected to do.
I think that the modern presidency has grown too much for its own good. The president not only has too many responsibilities, but citizens expect too much out of this one person in government. The president is no different as a human being than anyone else and people forget that a lot. The men, so far, in office have been viewed up on a pedestal like they are some sort of higher being. That is just not true and not fair. The ridiculous expectations are the cause of so many empty promises by candidates because every citizen expects the president to fix every last problem they have. The public expects him to not only take on all these challenges, but also complete them with proficiency. In reality, no one president could ever solve so many big issues at once and it is time that we stop imagining he or she can. A very common goal for the president is reducing the size of the executive branch, as stated in the article. “Even though the White House has grown with each successive inhabitant (many of whom, it’s worth noting, vowed to reduce its size).” This shows that in modern days, it is so hard to keep the West Wing minimal and strictly business. This is of course, worsened by the media. The scrutiny that every president goes through is simply unnecessary. “Administration staffers and historians seem to agree on one point: the news media, often transfixed on tension and triviality, aren’t helping.” Furthermore, one of the main roles of the president is to be the Chief Diplomat. Diplomacy is an international business that requires great time and effort. The president simply does not have enough time to handle all of the country’s external and internal issues at the same. It seems reasonable to appoint a different member of the executive branch to this position, maybe even the vice president or the secretary of state. However it is done, the president can still definitely make his opinion heard on every issue, but not necessarily be the main one to fix it. Otherwise, nothing will ever get accomplished and the criticism will just keep getting stronger.
The founders did not intend the executive branch to swell to its modern size. No wonder modern Presidents feel overwhelmed when they enter the White House. The power of the President has not increased to the extent of tyranny, however, the President is held accountable for every governmental action by the media and the public. Why should the President be involved in every sector of American life? Since FDR, federal departments and positions have increased exponentially straying from the simply executing the laws of the United States. The agenda of the President becomes the agenda of the country. That being said, it is easier to build the federal government than to tear down the unnecessary departments. I don't know if it is even possible to restrain the power of the President because the public sees he or she as the center of power. The expanded powers of the President are not a result of power hungry men but of an increasingly needy public.
I agree that with the Presidential title comes many attachments—that they are expected to do so much that there literally is not enough time to do it all. If the Founders could see how we regard the Presidency today, they would be shocked to see how we expect him to have a say in everything from the housing crisis to peace negotiations to job reforms. As Dillin states, “The nation's Founders expected Congress, not the president, to be where the real action was, Berkin says. The president was supposed to be, well, more like an ‘errand boy’ for Congress.” I believe that because we expect so much of the President he cannot realistically fulfill our expectations, leading us to quickly blame the President for inaction. Dillin says that “They assumed that Congress, drawn from all parts of the country, would initiate bills, set budgets, approve wars, provide national leadership, and if necessary, impeach and toss out a wayward president”. However, today we associate all of these things—the bills, budgets, approval of wars, and national leadership—with the President. It is clear that in comparison to the foundation the Founders created hundreds of years ago for our nation, Congress was supposed to be the true source of power in the nation. As Dillin states, “the presidency was clearly secondary.” But today we hold the President as the first and foremost source of power. Yet with this power comes great tension, the President must prove to the American public that he is helping our country progress, putting great pressure and tension on the President to pass certain forms of legislation. This tension often creates conflicts between the President and those who try to stand in his way of progress. This past year has shown how the parties have battled while trying to get certain laws or legislation bills passed—take “Obamacare” for example, a widely disputed piece of legislation in regards to if it is actually grounded in the Constitution or not. Yet the very fact that Obama has the right to create healthcare for everyone has shown how the President’s power has grown. Today, the President enjoys many responsibilities. While I believe that the President has a right to these responsibilities, like the Commander in Chief of the army for example, I also believe that we focus and attribute too much to the President. The idea that Presidents can get by with anything—from when Bush secretly passed executive orders saying that anyone could be an enemy of war to even the idea that the President can just ignore the War Powers Act, and get away with it—shows that there is just too much attached to the position of the President.
The Founders originally thought of the President as nothing more then an “errand boy” for congress, and for the real power to be in the hands of congress. The President has much more power then originally anticipated by congress. I think this isn’t necessarily a bad thing and the President is not a tyrant. There are too many checks on the President to allow for one to become a tyrant. As Commander in Chief, the President should be able to react right away to any threats on the U.S.. The War Power’s Act makes sense, because then war has to be confirmed my Congress. The President gets 60 days to prove that his wage of war is the right choice, and if it actually is, and everything is going well, then congress will agree. This is a good check on the President’s power as Commander in Chief, making him not an imperial president in this aspect. However, a lot of Presidents violate this act such as President Obama when sending fighter jets to Libya. As for the President proposing laws (such as President Obama’s health care) it shows how the power of the President has grown, but it doesn’t make the President an imperial President because Congress checks any piece of legislative that the President proposes. The Executive branch has grown into having hundreds of cabinet members such as Secretary of Education and Secretary of Housing. This once again shows how the role of the executive branch has grown, but it doesn’t make the President and imperial President. The President appoints these cabinet members, but they are confirmed by congress. It is good that the President doesn’t have to deal with all these responsibilities himself.
The president of the United States is considered the most powerful person in the world. His supreme power over the world is due to America’s superiority for the past 100 years, but his power over America itself is not what it should be. This job is clearly not what the founding fathers had designed and clearly has too much responsibility. First intended by founders to be an “errand boy,” the president has become the star of the government, and what people believe is the leading force in all government activities. One of the largest responsibilities of the president today is to appear before Congress and propose a program or bill, which Congress would then discuss. As Carol Berkin says, this is the opposite of what the founders had intended, and there is no where in the Constitution that says this is a job of the President. Congress is supposed to pass the laws and the President is to execute them and make sure they are carried out. The president’s largest powers are to pardon anyone he wants and to withhold and executive documents he wants. The President’s original duties are to manage the army and, his most skewed responsibility, to carry out the law and whatever way needed. It is through this that the Presidency has become much larger than it should be. Agencies and Departments, with the Secretaries of the Cabinet leading them, have been made to deal with all different aspects of the executive branch. As pointed out in “To The Founders, Congress was King,” the Executive branch has increases exponentially since the days of Abraham Lincoln. Not only does the President had over 400 people working the White House, he has thousands and thousands of employees working in the Departments. With 15 department leaders reporting back to him, compared to Lincoln’s 7 (The Daily Beast), President Obama constantly has something on his plate to worry about.
Imperial President “has the president grown to the point of an imperial president, to the point of the king”
The power of the presidency has grown tremendously over the past 236 years since the ratification of the presidency. The founders feared a monarchy, and so they created a government that was predominately run by the Legislative Branch. The current roles of the president have expanded so much from the original supplemental position to Congress. - 1) The president’s power has grown so far from Article II o A lot more than the founders intended o Power of the president has greatly increased since FDR • FDR was received 6 new employees while Obama has 496 employees - 2) Congress has a lot more power than the founders indented o More laws for the president to enforce • On the day Obama signed health care, he had an economic meeting, a meeting with BB Netanyahu, and met with the Senate leaders about a nuclear agreement - 3) World has changed o We look for the president as a leader for support • Bush • 9/11 – rallied the nation o Patriot Act 4) A lot is expected of the president and the president is extremely busy
4) Each role as greatly expanded its formal powers into its informal powers - Chief Executive o Truman and the Steel Mills • Truman seized the steel mills o Formal: make sure laws are formally executed and make appointments o Informal: Executive orders, impoundment of funds, ways to organize government, cabinets - Chief Legislative o LBJ’s relationship with Congress let him influence the passage of laws o Formal: veto, pocket veto, State of the Union, assemble Congress o Informal: threaten to veto, decide how the State of the Union is run, suggest a budget, power to persuade - Chief Diplomat o Reagan’s foreign policy… inquired peace through strength… put Congress at a distance when dealing with the Soviets o Formal: Make treaties and receive ambassadors o Informal: facilitate peace, diplomatic pressure to form coalitions, maintaining alliances, and Executive Agreements - Commander in Chief o Obama and the War Powers Act (Libya) • Obama did not ask for permission from Congress within sixty days of starting a military operation, and he kept the troops in Libya o Formal: “Act as commander in chief” o Informal: Everything else is informal: Send troops into battle, conduct war, military operations
As pointed out in Dilin's article, the Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have as much power as he now possesses. This is clearly represented in the fact that the nation does not pay extremely close attention to the senators or the congressmen. The nation's focus on the president is not completely unjustified. As reported in Stone's article, inside sources within the White House admit that the job of the president has become very stressful and busy. The president no longer has "time to think."
Though it is arguable that the role of the president increasing could lead to too much power in the hands of one, but it seems to me that the president is supported by such a wide range of influences and other powers that there is not much to fear. In the textbook, it is noted that power comes from both politics and the public opinion. The president may have more power than the founding fathers intended, but we also have a much more involved party system than they could have expected. It could be dangerous for the most powerful man or woman in our nation to rule with less sleep than the average person, but besides that their power is controlled so much by public opinion and by their parties that the role of president is not threatening to our democracy as Dilin suggests.
The scope of the President's powers perpetually broadens. This does not mean, however, that he grows more powerful. In his role as Commander in Chief, the President's informal powers effectively leave the entire military at his disposal. Despite the War Powers Act, Presidents are typically able to use military actions whenever and wherever they please, with little accountability to Congress, which doesn't dare contradict the President in times of war. This is also the same reason why the President has unlimited spending power during wars: even though Congress has the power of the purse, few congressmen would risk their public image to speak against war spending, for fear of being seen as failing to support the troops. Militarily, the Presidency is imperial, as the President has near-unlimited military power. In most other areas of policy, however, the President isn't nearly as strong. The founders feared that a large Executive Branch with broad powers, less beholden to Congress, would become tyrannical. Strangely, the opposite has occurred. As the powers of the office of the Presidency have grown, so too have the responsibilities. As more staffers are hired to process all of the important functions of the White House, the branch becomes mired in the bureaucratic muck, slowing it down and making it more inefficient. So much must be done that individual issues rarely become important enough to gain serious backing from the President. Once ideas manage to even leave the White House, it is often difficult to get these ideas passed by the oft-divided houses of Congress. For non-military activities, the President isn't at all imperial, as no emperor would ever have to deal with the maddening inefficiencies of Congress and the White House staff.
I believe that the presidency, although an extremely daunting job, is one that is crucial to not only the country, but also the world. Through our country’s system of primaries and elections, we make sure that the best person for the job is elected. Someone who is not equipped to handle this position simply would never be elected, and if they are not doing a good job, the government’s system of checks and balances can render a president useless. In this modern day in age, the president is responsible for many more programs, agencies, and foreign affairs, in comparison to our nation’s earlier presidents. The president no longer can be the “errand boy” for congress: he must follow his duties as chief magistrate, chief executive, chief legislator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, and voice of the people As chief magistrate, a right given to the president in article 1, section II in the constitution, he has the duty to relieve a higher percentage of imprisoned people than those in the past. While George Washington pardoned only 16 people, Clinton pardoned 459. While this may seem like Clinton was pardoning too many people, the harsh comparison comes from the amount in people incarcerated compared to those in the past. While the general US population grew by 2.8% since 1920, the number of inmates increased more than 20 times, therefore the presidents role as chief magistrate has grown immensely With the president’s role as chief executive, he must rule over the entire executive branch, grant reprieves and pardons, issue Executive Orders, and coordinate the efforts of over 150 departments and agencies. Although he has a great and talented staff to help guide him, there needs to be one man as the “boss”, who ultimately has the final say. The job of chief legislature is additionally very crucial to be held by the president- without this position, congress would not be checked by the executive branch.
I thought this editorial had the right idea in saying that the founders intended for congress to control in a non-theoretical sense when the country goes to war. Congress should retain that right and power because war is too big a commitment for one man to make without discussion. If the executive and legislative branches went by the book and acted by these rules, the only issues that I foresee are those of inaction. Like the author said, it is difficult to move a large body (like congress). If the president can take military action at his discretion, the country will be able to do much more in the way of quick, sneaky strikes, but also may become entangled in situations unfavorable to the general population. This too could happen if the congress were deciding when to engage in war, but it less likely because of the extensive conversation that goes into the declaration. Obama striking Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad, Pakistan was an example of this working out well; Kennedy leading through the Bay of Pigs was an example of an attack not being fully baked or well thought out.
ReplyDeleteThis editorial is not really arguing a point other than the fact that President Obama has violated the War Powers act. I think it is true that he has violated this act, and I think that this act is worthy of adherence. While the President ought to be able to call for one-time surprise attacks, military altercations lasting longer than 60 days should be approves with the larger Legislative body. It makes sense to ignore this act, as president, when the country is in imminent danger, but not when trying to engage in a real, sizable military conflict.
(Itai Barsade)
ReplyDeleteAnderson’s response deviates from the widespread view that it is the President’s job to manage and wage war, while Congress holds the power of the purse. While this interpretation is correct, the War Powers Act passed in the 1970’s states that if the conflict were any longer than 60 days, then Congress ought to have a serious say in the direction and continued involvement of the conflict.
Anderson argues that it was the Founders’ intention to have Congress act as an integral part of war making and that the current War Powers Act does not enforce that original intent as much as it should of. This deviates from the common view that the War Powers Act actually de-claws the President too much.
What Anderson does not consider is the fundamental constitutionality of the War Powers Act. The Wars Power Act is not enforced because people disagree with it, but rather because it its unenforceable due to its reliance on the concept of a “legislative veto” – something that was deemed unconstitutional in the 1980’s. As such, the War Powers Act as a balancing force to give Congress more power is an inherently illegitimate endeavor.
Anderson does have a point in that the President should not have a cart blanche in waging war whenever he deems it necessary. Congress should have an integral say in what is going on. I, however, think that the power of the purse is enough of a way to control warmongering. Congress having the ability to choose what and when to fight from the start of a conflict is dangerous, as things tend to move slowly when Congress is involved. Should a conflict arise, and Congress have an integral say in if to go in, it runs a risk of getting involved too late and possibly causing grave consequences. The current system, in its idea is correct. Giving President 60 days to act without questions is reasonable, but during those 60 days he should also be waging a war to win over Congress. If Congress is not convinced of the efficacy of whatever actions are in place, they should have the power to call the troops back home in a reasonable way. That keeps protracted conflicts from occurring and checks the president from war mongering.
An issue with this view is that Presidents do not like having their power checked and have historically ignored attempts to check their ability to wage war. Examples come from every president from Nixon has ignored the War Powers Act and waged war on their own terms. They do not ignore it because of its unconstitutionality, but rather because it attempts to check them. The argument against its constitutionality is merely a tool for them to mask their fear at losing power. Should this view come into effect, it would require a much stronger referendum that is both legitimate and compelling to all parties involved.
I agree with the general ideas of the articles and think the modern American Presidency has become too expansive in its responsibilities and duties. As Dillin states, Congress desired much more focus to be on Congress, the intended legislators and large decision makers of American government. Now, instead of an ‘errand boy’, the Presidential office manages countless people, agencies, and organizations, all of which take up valuable time. Although I think checks and balances make the president far from a tyrant, the power of his office is only growing to include more and more things. For example 9/11 brought about the creation of things such as the Department of Homeland Security, which adds a great number of staff and management duties.
ReplyDeleteRecent party clashes, however, show that the president still faces harsh opposition when attempting to get certain laws or legislation passed. Just the idea that he would propose a law though when it doesn’t state it in the constitution shows how his power has grown. Obama’s healthcare bill, for example is a prime example of how a president is trying to reshape an enormous part of American healthcare, from the White House.
The president’s power as Commander in Chief also highlight the power of the president, but I think this power is justified. In order to respond quickly to foreign threats and to protect American citizens, the president might not have time to make his plans public and gain their approval. The War Powers Act attempts to change this in a way which I think is a fair compromise, but Presidents have pretty much ignored it, which I think gives the president too much power. Overall, I think the president’s decision making ability is acceptable, but that there are too many decisions to be made for one man or woman.
The modern American Presidency is a job that has transformed from simply the ruler of the executive branch to the one person in control of too much and too many people to possibly handle. It’s too overwhelming in modern times; there are many “pitfalls of an overly packed agenda” that people don’t seem to realize (thedailybeast.com). The president is extremely powerful, and too powerful at that. He’s not just seen as the American President but as arguably the most important/powerful person in the world. In modern times, he has too much to deal with; too much is “expected from the president” that he can “barely breathe,” leading to the hiring of almost 500 staff members to aide in everything from mail to education policies (thedailybeast.com).
ReplyDeleteTo top it all off, the president is too busy and powerful for the framers’ intentions as well. When the constitution was created, Congress was supposed to be the main ruling entity while the president would be the “errand boy” (CSMonitor.com). The framers are surely turning in their graves now as the roles have become not only reversed, giving the president immense power and Congress considerably less, but the president is not the errand boy anymore- rather he has his own errand boys (469 of them). The president now is in charge of everything from solving the debt crisis to executing war to consoling the country in the time of an attack, as Bush showed after the Twin Tower attacks on 9/11. The power of the president is just too immense- too immense for the president to handle and too powerful for what the framers of the constitution intended.
Article 2 of our constitution establishes the Executive Branch, however the modern american presidency has become too expansive. Since 1936 (Franklin Roosevelt), the presidency has indeed become imperial; the president has become the most powerful/recognized person in the country. Constitutionally, the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces and has many rights including approving legislation. Slowly, the presidency has slipped into becoming the first branch of government. The president did not used to have hundreds of assistants and trappings of power like he does today, and this leads to expansion of his power. It has become nearly impossible for the president to meet the full demands of the modern presidency.
ReplyDeleteThe first article written by Daniel Stone argues that the modern presidency has become too "bloated," and I agree with this notion. The number of things that are expected of the president have grown exponentially since FDR and there are too many commitments for one man to fulfill. President Reagan exemplifies the modern presidency's expanded powers through his actions to trade arms for hostages with Iran and use proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. The Founding Fathers would question the constitutionality of such an action.
As the presidents responsibilities increase, the notion is that the president should have more people to help manage the work. This makes the presidency more hectic and complex, and the president gains power over more people. Additionally, news media has given the presidency more imperial power by advertising the president's faults, mistakes and failures, as well as his successes. When the founders created the Constitution, they imagined the president would be an "errand boy" for congress. They believed Congress should have the most power because one man could not handle it all. With the shift from congress toward presidential power, our modern presidency has become imperial, and the president has too much power and too many responsibilities for one person.
I find it to be undeniable that the responsibilities of the president have grown far larger than any one man can manage. It makes sense that the founding fathers would place such emphasis on the Congress. They did not want a monarch in charge of decisions that would effect the whole country. They wanted these decisions to be made collaboratively with men representing different states and opinions. And although governing may have been less demanding in those early days before the critical social media and worries of high tech wars and dangers, the founding fathers knew that governing the United States would be too big a job for one man. That is why they had the president for their "errand boy" and figure head.
ReplyDeleteIt is the lack of time in particular that worries me about the presidency. Stone says that Obama holds President Lincoln as a role model for leading the country through rough times of upheaval. But "Lincoln had time to think" says Stone, he had time to sit and think out situations without the distractions of foreign policy and the media.
As Chief Diplomat, the President must not only manage his own country, but also manage relations with other countries, organizing treaties and social agreements with allies and enemies. It makes sense for the president to have this power because he is the face of the nation and when dealing with other nations, it should be done between the leaders. However, It is simply too much for one man in this modern day to keep track of.
I personally believe that within government, the president is not as powerful as he once was. With the White House turning into a literal bureaucracy, the President has to manage an overwhelming amount of issues that do not always get to him. Many of the issues are sent up the ranks and do not always reach him. With issues overwhelmingly expanded from the 19th century, the President cannot get to every issue. Although politically, the president has grown in power. The Founding Fathers intended the president to be Congress’ “errand boy”. They believed Congress would set up programs and Congress would be the heart and soul of the country. Yet since FDR’s presidency, it is the president that sets up Programs for Congress to enact, many of which are passed due to public views and party influence, and it is the president who gets all the headlines in newspapers and on T.V. People look to the president as the leader in modern times and believe he will steer us in the right direction, not Congress. In that respect, the President has great power politically that was probably not intended by the Founding Fathers. For example, as Chief Legislator, President Obama enacted the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Possibly the biggest piece of legislation during his term, many members of Congress felt compelled to vote for it, even though they opposed it, because they did not want to lose support from the public who supported it or their party that supported it. It is in this way that the president hold power over Congress.
ReplyDeleteThe Framers of the Constitution envisioned the president to be no more than Congress’s “errand boy,” but overtime the role of the president has grown significantly, and I believe that it is nearly impossible to successfully preform the duties of the modern American president. The presidents themselves agree with this, as many have tried to cut failing agencies, which would save billions of dollars and give them a little less responsibility. Obama himself admitted that “The responsibilities of this office are so enormous, and so many people are depending on what we do, and in the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place.” If the president can admit that he is has a ton of responsibilities that may hinder his job performance, change should be made.
ReplyDeleteJohn Dillin of The Christian Science Monitor makes an interesting point about what the Framers wanted: “They assumed that Congress, drawn from all parts of the country, would initiate bills, set budgets, approve wars, provide national leadership, and if necessary, impeach and toss out a wayward president. After all, who would give supreme powers to one man, or woman?” It doesn’t make sense to give supreme powers to just one person, no matter how wonderful they are. The duties of the president have become so great that no one could preform them all to the best of their ability. And they shouldn’t be expected to, either, which is why we have a legislative branch. Congress was always supposed to be the chief leader of the government, but severe party clashes have created issues, undermining the Framers’ original system. Checks and balances were always the backbone that kept the president from being tyrannical, but now strong political parties are reducing their effectiveness.
However, the president’s role as Chief Diplomat is a good example of how checks and balances can still work. The president can appoint ambassadors, but must have the "advice and consent" of the majority of the Senate. Additionally, although the president has the power to make treaties with other nations, he needs the support of 2/3 of the Senate. An interesting example of this is when the Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles despite President Wilson’s wishes.
The duty of the president has gotten unbearably expansive, and despite whatever their job performance may be, their responsibilities are much too great for one person to control.
I agree with the overall ideas of the articles. The president has too much to do and is in charge of too many things ranging from people and organizations to proposing bills and keeping America safe. The role of the president has expanded drastically over the years and has turned into a position that the founding fathers did not want. The president was meant to carry out the laws created and proposed by Congress. Now he or she proposes bills, enters wars, and leads the nation. The president proposes things like health care plans (ex: "Obama-care") and tax cuts. When a crisis occurs the public looks towards the president for guidance and action, not the Congress. In the past, usually a president's overall approval rating has skyrocketed when he has entered war or taken action. After 9/11, President George W. Bush's approval rating rose. The same occurred when the US invaded Grenada under President Ronald Reagan. The public believed they had a president who was working to protect them and they believed they needed the president, not the Congress, to look after them and take control and protect them from terrorism attacks, communism, and more.
ReplyDeleteAs Commander in Chief the president has supreme authority over the nation's armed forces. That gives the president a lot of power. However, the War Powers Act is a check to ensure that president does not have an overwhelming amount of control. Yes, most presidents have ignored this act but when America is threatened (especially unexpectedly), the quick action taken by the president can be reassuring to the public and make them feel safer. When Reagan invaded Grenada he did not receive explicit approval from Congress like he was supposed to. However, that invasion helped diminish Soviet control in that area. However, it is not always beneficial to the country. Receiving approval from Congress can be a good way to split up the power of the government and ensure that the president does not gain too much power. Therefore, presidents should compromise and abide by the War Powers Act or another drawn up and passed document.
I believe there are too many decisions and things for one person to be in charge of. The president should be more than an "errand boy" for the Congress but he or she does not need to be as insignificant as the founders originally planned.
I think that this argument about an "Imperial Presidency" is, in the words of VP Joe Biden, a bunch of malarkey. Granted, the powers, staff, and importance of the presidency may've grown over the years but, on the other hand, so has America. As a country, we're confronting a whole host of issues that the Founding Fathers couldn't have been able to imagine in their wildest dreams. Benjamin Franklin had an opinion on gay marriage? Of course not! Thomas Jefferson would've been able to handle affairs in the Middle East, or foresee the increase in government-paid social services such as healthcare and medicaid? I don't think so! Let's face it. This is the 21st century and, although it's important to constantly and critically look at our past and the Constitution in order to determine where our nation should head politically, it's equally important to look at the world that's shaped itself in the years since the tail-end of the 1700's. We've had a Civil War, a Depression, two World Wars, and a decades-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. In my opinion, dealing with those scenarios certainly required the type of leadership that Lincoln, FDR, or Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been able to employ had they shared the limited powers of presidents like James Madison or John Adams.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution's Second Article, in regards to the duties and powers of the president, states that our country's executive branch "Shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." In my opinion, as long as our president obeys constitutional law which, due to the Framers, is purposely meant to be interpretive, then Obama (or whoever) should be allowed to expand their staff and their responsibilities in accordance with United States legislation. In fact, one could argue that this legal flexibility is what's helped our country adapt to national and international issues with a certain amount of grace and ease. For example, Theodore Roosevelt found this flexibility helpful during his presidency, when his "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine allowed him to intervene in conflicts between European Nations and Latin American countries.
Before I wrap things up, I think it's best that I mention an argument that opposes mine. Some people believe that Congress deserves (and rightfully should have) more of the powers and responsibilities that are handled by America's president. But seriously, folks. Congress is not only incredibly divisive (just look at the House of Representatives), but members of Congress often refuse to take political initiatives at the expense of their careers, simply because they often care more about their future than their country's future. With that in mind, I'd rather have one individual, and that individual's staff and departments, try to handle problems that they're arguably but legally allowed to handle. That's just me, though. -Matthew Kaufman
As the article points out, the President's role has increased to the point where it is almost more important than Congress. This goes against the original intention of the Founders that Congress would wield most of the power. We can look at the expanding role of the President as Chief Magistrate as a great example of how the powers of the President are expanding. The original intention of the pardon power was to allow Presidents to pardon rebels to quell a rebellion, as Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. Now, however, Presidents use the power to pardon regular people or people who have served them at some point, such as Scooter Libby being pardoned by George W. Bush. By looking at the expanding powers of the President, we can see that the President is becoming more and more of an imperial presidency.
ReplyDelete(G. Warrington)
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the duties and responsibilities of the President, I too believe that they have become much too expansive for the likes of one presidential figure. As illustrated in the article "Hail to the Chief", Stone highlights the differences between Pres. Obama and his distant predecessors FDR and Abe Lincoln and the drastic differences between the spectrum of problems that had to be addressed then and problems that must be addressed now. With primarily the New Deal on his plate, as described in the Article, FDR had a sole purpose during his presidency: to establish a "New Deal" that would jump start the nation again, while Lincoln's was primarily the Civil War and fusing the North and South back together again. As for Obama his "plate" is completely full and overflowing with problems that would be more suitable for 2-3 people rather than one, and given the nature of government established by the Constitution (checks and balances), the president is not nearly a overpowering, but could use a little more leeway.
As Chief Diplomat the president is granted the abilities to appoint ambassadors, utilize the War Powers Act, and create treaties, all suited with their own checks in exchange for granted powers to the Congress. I see this as fair, for the president is granted a sufficient amount of powers but not nearly enough to be considered tyrannous, except for in some cases the War Powers Act and its constitutionality.
Nonetheless I feel that the balance of powers between the President and Congress is politically correct and sufficient in sustaining a "well-oiled" country, but could be further enhanced by a further delegation of powers beyond the presidency to more efficiently address the higher influx of societal problems as time goes on.
I have to agree with both of the articles in that the Presidency is too big, and too impossible. It does not matter how much political experience someone has, or how smart they are. There are simply too many jobs to do and too many pressures to handle. The President used to be able to have control and manage his work. Now, there are seemingly countless agencies and advisors and jobs. There is just too much expected of one single man. The President is no longer the “errand boy” that the founders had predicted. With party clashes, as the article states, it is really difficult to be a leader and to work with everyone. I do think that the President is not as corrupt as part of the article suggests, but it is just hard to do a lot of the good things that a president may want which makes them look bad. The President’s power as Commander and Chief shows a lot about the power of the Modern American Presidency. With this power, I do think that the president should have the power to act when threatened and to send our troops. I do like some of the checks on this. Each President in the Whitehouse has made strides to find new ways to get power and it has added up. The current president can do a lot of things that were never thought possible. He does have a lot of power. However, there are always strict checks and balances. There is an extremely powerful president who can send troops. But the Housed are always there to stop the train if they do not like where it is headed. I think that there is too much power, but we can not yet all it an “imperial presidency”.
ReplyDeleteAs the leader of the free role, the president of the United States has considerably more power than the Founders intended to give him. Far from the 'Errand Boy' the Framers envisioned, the President often takes advantage of his own ability to propose laws to Congress-as in the case of Obama's health care. In general the President's power seems to lie in people's perceptions of him. People inside and outside the United States look to the President's opinion for insight to the way the world will move and the country looks to him for inspiration and hope in times of despair.
ReplyDeleteThe President's power has expanded greatly through the many agencies he heads as well as our continued interference around the world.
The President's symbolic role as leader and visionary is crucial. We need someone to look to in times of a crisis. Someone from whom to gain inspiration. As the sole person who represents all fifty states, he unites the entire country.
In practice, however, it is impractical for one person to run the entire country and, effectively, the entire free world. The President's responsibilities have grown too extensive for him to manage. As Stone pointed out, previous presidents had time to think and strategize. With too many projects cluttering his thinking, the President has no time to focus on any one aspect of his job and must delegate his responsibilities, or merely accept his workers develop for him.
Because our government's structure creates inherent checks and balances, we do not have an entirely Imperial Presidency in a literal sense. The President's ability to dominate public perception and influence the United States citizens, however, gives him tremendous power. Technically there is literally the President can do without the aid of Congress, but as we have seen through our entrance into Vietnam, the President can find ways to get around this. In practice we do have an Imperial President.
I agree with this article. War is too major a decision for one person to have the power to make the decision. The founding fathers made that a congressional right for a reason. However, it is difficult for a body as large as congress to make decisions. The president possessing the power to declare war would make things run a lot smoother. However, this might upset the popular vote .I It’s easier to blame one person when something goes wrong than the entire Congress. Obama’s team taking out Bin Laden was a positive example of this, Eisenhower entering Korea was an example of this failing. According to the article, Obama violate War Powers Act, which I agree with. Obama should only be able to make emergency calls, not long-term military decisions.
ReplyDeleteFor good or bad, the modern American president has enormous power. Individual presidents have had greater and lesser impact in the development of this power. Abraham Lincoln gathered great presidential authority in guiding the country through the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt strengthened the presidency in his trust-busting conflicts with business and foreign interventions. Woodrow Wilson guided the country through World War I, but his power was checked when the Senate voted down what in many ways was his League of Nations. During the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s administration began to gather power for the presidency in a process that would continue through the Second World War, the Cold War, the Korean War, and the rise of the military industrial complex. Truman was the man who decided to drop not one but two atom bombs to end WWII. Even Lyndon Johnson continued the trend of concentration of power in the presidency until his pursuit of the Vietnam War split the country into pro and anti-war camps. The damage done to the presidency by the consequences of the Vietnam War were continued under Richard Nixon, who then damaged the presidency in a different and perhaps more dramatic way by the lies and deceits that came to light in the Watergate Affair, which ultimately led to his resignation from office. This was the low point of the “imperial” presidency.
ReplyDeleteI believe that because the responsibilities of the American president (particularly the modern president) are so great, the power granted to the office has been necessary to enable presidents to act. At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and relying on a potentially gridlocked Congress could prevent timely action. There are already a number of checks on the president provided in the Constitution, so the additional power possessed by the president is important to prevent a stagnant government. A president who is able to make executive orders and send troops abroad without prior declaration of war is important to protect American vital interests. That being said, it is not easy to give this incredible presidential power to a president of the opposing party or who reflects a different political/social philosophy from one’s own. Though it is potentially nerve-wracking to give power to someone you disagree with, I still believe that the president should have the amount of power he does now.
Though I understand the articles’ points about the president appearing to have acquired more power than was necessarily intended by the Framers, I believe that this amount of power is necessary today in order to create and pass legislation and have an active role in foreign policy. Because of this, I find it hard to fault the ever-expanding executive branch because its job is to protect American interests and people at home and abroad.
In accordance with both the Dillin and the Stone articles, it seems to me that the modern President has been granted far too many responsibilities than should be held by a single politician. It made sense for FDR to become a large part of the government in his time; the economy was in ruin and the nation had to be led through World War two. Of course the position of the president had to be elevated for the country to be united under one man's speeches and ideals. However, the fact that the precedent of a large president has been carried over regardless of the state of the union is a mistake. In peacetime, Congress should have more responsibilities and the president act as more of a figurehead than anything. The president's countless responsibilities have arisen largely because of historical tradition, not of actual necessity.
ReplyDeleteEven with the breadth of his power, the President's depth of power is in check. Presidents must face Congress before passing their laws, and even within Congress there are constantly disputes between the two parties. Overall the extent to which the President can affect the nation remains largely unchanged, in part because of the number of responsibilities he now has. One man alone simply does not have the capacity to manage everything, as a president is now expected to do.
I think that the modern presidency has grown too much for its own good. The president not only has too many responsibilities, but citizens expect too much out of this one person in government. The president is no different as a human being than anyone else and people forget that a lot. The men, so far, in office have been viewed up on a pedestal like they are some sort of higher being. That is just not true and not fair. The ridiculous expectations are the cause of so many empty promises by candidates because every citizen expects the president to fix every last problem they have. The public expects him to not only take on all these challenges, but also complete them with proficiency. In reality, no one president could ever solve so many big issues at once and it is time that we stop imagining he or she can.
ReplyDeleteA very common goal for the president is reducing the size of the executive branch, as stated in the article. “Even though the White House has grown with each successive inhabitant (many of whom, it’s worth noting, vowed to reduce its size).” This shows that in modern days, it is so hard to keep the West Wing minimal and strictly business. This is of course, worsened by the media. The scrutiny that every president goes through is simply unnecessary. “Administration staffers and historians seem to agree on one point: the news media, often transfixed on tension and triviality, aren’t helping.” Furthermore, one of the main roles of the president is to be the Chief Diplomat. Diplomacy is an international business that requires great time and effort. The president simply does not have enough time to handle all of the country’s external and internal issues at the same. It seems reasonable to appoint a different member of the executive branch to this position, maybe even the vice president or the secretary of state. However it is done, the president can still definitely make his opinion heard on every issue, but not necessarily be the main one to fix it. Otherwise, nothing will ever get accomplished and the criticism will just keep getting stronger.
The founders did not intend the executive branch to swell to its modern size. No wonder modern Presidents feel overwhelmed when they enter the White House. The power of the President has not increased to the extent of tyranny, however, the President is held accountable for every governmental action by the media and the public.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the President be involved in every sector of American life? Since FDR, federal departments and positions have increased exponentially straying from the simply executing the laws of the United States. The agenda of the President becomes the agenda of the country. That being said, it is easier to build the federal government than to tear down the unnecessary departments. I don't know if it is even possible to restrain the power of the President because the public sees he or she as the center of power. The expanded powers of the President are not a result of power hungry men but of an increasingly needy public.
I agree that with the Presidential title comes many attachments—that they are expected to do so much that there literally is not enough time to do it all. If the Founders could see how we regard the Presidency today, they would be shocked to see how we expect him to have a say in everything from the housing crisis to peace negotiations to job reforms. As Dillin states, “The nation's Founders expected Congress, not the president, to be where the real action was, Berkin says. The president was supposed to be, well, more like an ‘errand boy’ for Congress.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that because we expect so much of the President he cannot realistically fulfill our expectations, leading us to quickly blame the President for inaction. Dillin says that “They assumed that Congress, drawn from all parts of the country, would initiate bills, set budgets, approve wars, provide national leadership, and if necessary, impeach and toss out a wayward president”. However, today we associate all of these things—the bills, budgets, approval of wars, and national leadership—with the President. It is clear that in comparison to the foundation the Founders created hundreds of years ago for our nation, Congress was supposed to be the true source of power in the nation. As Dillin states, “the presidency was clearly secondary.” But today we hold the President as the first and foremost source of power.
Yet with this power comes great tension, the President must prove to the American public that he is helping our country progress, putting great pressure and tension on the President to pass certain forms of legislation. This tension often creates conflicts between the President and those who try to stand in his way of progress. This past year has shown how the parties have battled while trying to get certain laws or legislation bills passed—take “Obamacare” for example, a widely disputed piece of legislation in regards to if it is actually grounded in the Constitution or not. Yet the very fact that Obama has the right to create healthcare for everyone has shown how the President’s power has grown.
Today, the President enjoys many responsibilities. While I believe that the President has a right to these responsibilities, like the Commander in Chief of the army for example, I also believe that we focus and attribute too much to the President. The idea that Presidents can get by with anything—from when Bush secretly passed executive orders saying that anyone could be an enemy of war to even the idea that the President can just ignore the War Powers Act, and get away with it—shows that there is just too much attached to the position of the President.
The Founders originally thought of the President as nothing more then an “errand boy” for congress, and for the real power to be in the hands of congress. The President has much more power then originally anticipated by congress. I think this isn’t necessarily a bad thing and the President is not a tyrant. There are too many checks on the President to allow for one to become a tyrant.
ReplyDeleteAs Commander in Chief, the President should be able to react right away to any threats on the U.S.. The War Power’s Act makes sense, because then war has to be confirmed my Congress. The President gets 60 days to prove that his wage of war is the right choice, and if it actually is, and everything is going well, then congress will agree. This is a good check on the President’s power as Commander in Chief, making him not an imperial president in this aspect. However, a lot of Presidents violate this act such as President Obama when sending fighter jets to Libya.
As for the President proposing laws (such as President Obama’s health care) it shows how the power of the President has grown, but it doesn’t make the President an imperial President because Congress checks any piece of legislative that the President proposes.
The Executive branch has grown into having hundreds of cabinet members such as Secretary of Education and Secretary of Housing. This once again shows how the role of the executive branch has grown, but it doesn’t make the President and imperial President. The President appoints these cabinet members, but they are confirmed by congress. It is good that the President doesn’t have to deal with all these responsibilities himself.
The president of the United States is considered the most powerful person in the world. His supreme power over the world is due to America’s superiority for the past 100 years, but his power over America itself is not what it should be. This job is clearly not what the founding fathers had designed and clearly has too much responsibility.
ReplyDeleteFirst intended by founders to be an “errand boy,” the president has become the star of the government, and what people believe is the leading force in all government activities. One of the largest responsibilities of the president today is to appear before Congress and propose a program or bill, which Congress would then discuss. As Carol Berkin says, this is the opposite of what the founders had intended, and there is no where in the Constitution that says this is a job of the President. Congress is supposed to pass the laws and the President is to execute them and make sure they are carried out. The president’s largest powers are to pardon anyone he wants and to withhold and executive documents he wants. The President’s original duties are to manage the army and, his most skewed responsibility, to carry out the law and whatever way needed. It is through this that the Presidency has become much larger than it should be.
Agencies and Departments, with the Secretaries of the Cabinet leading them, have been made to deal with all different aspects of the executive branch. As pointed out in “To The Founders, Congress was King,” the Executive branch has increases exponentially since the days of Abraham Lincoln. Not only does the President had over 400 people working the White House, he has thousands and thousands of employees working in the Departments. With 15 department leaders reporting back to him, compared to Lincoln’s 7 (The Daily Beast), President Obama constantly has something on his plate to worry about.
Imperial President
ReplyDelete“has the president grown to the point of an imperial president, to the point of the king”
The power of the presidency has grown tremendously over the past 236 years since the ratification of the presidency. The founders feared a monarchy, and so they created a government that was predominately run by the Legislative Branch. The current roles of the president have expanded so much from the original supplemental position to Congress.
- 1) The president’s power has grown so far from Article II
o A lot more than the founders intended
o Power of the president has greatly increased since FDR
• FDR was received 6 new employees while Obama has 496 employees
- 2) Congress has a lot more power than the founders indented
o More laws for the president to enforce
• On the day Obama signed health care, he had an economic meeting, a meeting with BB Netanyahu, and met with the Senate leaders about a nuclear agreement
- 3) World has changed
o We look for the president as a leader for support
• Bush
• 9/11 – rallied the nation
o Patriot Act
4) A lot is expected of the president and the president is extremely busy
4) Each role as greatly expanded its formal powers into its informal powers
- Chief Executive
o Truman and the Steel Mills
• Truman seized the steel mills
o Formal: make sure laws are formally executed and make appointments
o Informal: Executive orders, impoundment of funds, ways to organize government, cabinets
- Chief Legislative
o LBJ’s relationship with Congress let him influence the passage of laws
o Formal: veto, pocket veto, State of the Union, assemble Congress
o Informal: threaten to veto, decide how the State of the Union is run, suggest a budget, power to persuade
- Chief Diplomat
o Reagan’s foreign policy… inquired peace through strength… put Congress at a distance when dealing with the Soviets
o Formal: Make treaties and receive ambassadors
o Informal: facilitate peace, diplomatic pressure to form coalitions, maintaining alliances, and Executive Agreements
- Commander in Chief
o Obama and the War Powers Act (Libya)
• Obama did not ask for permission from Congress within sixty days of starting a military operation, and he kept the troops in Libya
o Formal: “Act as commander in chief”
o Informal: Everything else is informal: Send troops into battle, conduct war, military operations
As pointed out in Dilin's article, the Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have as much power as he now possesses. This is clearly represented in the fact that the nation does not pay extremely close attention to the senators or the congressmen. The nation's focus on the president is not completely unjustified. As reported in Stone's article, inside sources within the White House admit that the job of the president has become very stressful and busy. The president no longer has "time to think."
ReplyDeleteThough it is arguable that the role of the president increasing could lead to too much power in the hands of one, but it seems to me that the president is supported by such a wide range of influences and other powers that there is not much to fear. In the textbook, it is noted that power comes from both politics and the public opinion. The president may have more power than the founding fathers intended, but we also have a much more involved party system than they could have expected. It could be dangerous for the most powerful man or woman in our nation to rule with less sleep than the average person, but besides that their power is controlled so much by public opinion and by their parties that the role of president is not threatening to our democracy as Dilin suggests.
The scope of the President's powers perpetually broadens. This does not mean, however, that he grows more powerful. In his role as Commander in Chief, the President's informal powers effectively leave the entire military at his disposal. Despite the War Powers Act, Presidents are typically able to use military actions whenever and wherever they please, with little accountability to Congress, which doesn't dare contradict the President in times of war. This is also the same reason why the President has unlimited spending power during wars: even though Congress has the power of the purse, few congressmen would risk their public image to speak against war spending, for fear of being seen as failing to support the troops. Militarily, the Presidency is imperial, as the President has near-unlimited military power.
ReplyDeleteIn most other areas of policy, however, the President isn't nearly as strong. The founders feared that a large Executive Branch with broad powers, less beholden to Congress, would become tyrannical. Strangely, the opposite has occurred. As the powers of the office of the Presidency have grown, so too have the responsibilities. As more staffers are hired to process all of the important functions of the White House, the branch becomes mired in the bureaucratic muck, slowing it down and making it more inefficient. So much must be done that individual issues rarely become important enough to gain serious backing from the President. Once ideas manage to even leave the White House, it is often difficult to get these ideas passed by the oft-divided houses of Congress. For non-military activities, the President isn't at all imperial, as no emperor would ever have to deal with the maddening inefficiencies of Congress and the White House staff.
I believe that the presidency, although an extremely daunting job, is one that is crucial to not only the country, but also the world. Through our country’s system of primaries and elections, we make sure that the best person for the job is elected. Someone who is not equipped to handle this position simply would never be elected, and if they are not doing a good job, the government’s system of checks and balances can render a president useless. In this modern day in age, the president is responsible for many more programs, agencies, and foreign affairs, in comparison to our nation’s earlier presidents. The president no longer can be the “errand boy” for congress: he must follow his duties as chief magistrate, chief executive, chief legislator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, and voice of the people
ReplyDeleteAs chief magistrate, a right given to the president in article 1, section II in the constitution, he has the duty to relieve a higher percentage of imprisoned people than those in the past. While George Washington pardoned only 16 people, Clinton pardoned 459. While this may seem like Clinton was pardoning too many people, the harsh comparison comes from the amount in people incarcerated compared to those in the past. While the general US population grew by 2.8% since 1920, the number of inmates increased more than 20 times, therefore the presidents role as chief magistrate has grown immensely
With the president’s role as chief executive, he must rule over the entire executive branch, grant reprieves and pardons, issue Executive Orders, and coordinate the efforts of over 150 departments and agencies. Although he has a great and talented staff to help guide him, there needs to be one man as the “boss”, who ultimately has the final say. The job of chief legislature is additionally very crucial to be held by the president- without this position, congress would not be checked by the executive branch.