Different Aspects Weakening the Presidency The presidency is commonly misperceived as a position of absolute power. On the contrary, presidential scholars Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, and Gary Rose, The American Presidency Under Siege, argue the presidency is better characterized in terms of weaknesses. Their identification of contributing factors to weakened presidency differ in degree, execution, and form. Neustadt and Rose focus on two separate areas affecting the presidency and its effectiveness, each taking into account different aspects of the presidency while ignoring others. Neustadt's view of a model president is one who is active, yet conservative of his power.
It is never the less a constitutionally limited presidency. The powers of the executive, vested in the president, are set ou... ... middle of paper ... ...ould barely recognise the American presidency today. Yet its effectiveness is still influenced by the constitutional devices, which they employed to prevent an over-powerful executive. The president is the victim of a deep paradox within the American political psyche - a craving for clear leadership but a distrust of those who exercise power. The changing role of the USA also presents the president with another paradox - while it is now the worlds only super power it is no longer the worlds economic colossus: Japan, Europe and in the future China are major rivals.
The Senate may withhold approval of presidential nominees, as it did with John Tower, President George Bush's choice for secretary of defense. Despite a large White House staff, the president has difficulty keeping abreast of all activities of the vast executive branch. The bureaus, encouraged by interest groups and congressional committees, often resist and delay the fulfillment of the president's orders. Presidential power to remove personnel is circumscribed by Supreme Court decisions, and civil-service laws protect the tenure of most federal employees. Because the presidency is the foremost prize of American politics, the president is also normally the nation's principal political leader and regarded as the leader of his political party.
The post decision checks I have described are "often blunt instruments that might not achieve their proponents aims" (Wilson American Government p308 5th edition 2000). Combined with the predecision informal restraints that the court finds itself in they do however form a framework for Supreme Court action. There are certain decisions that are not the field of the judiciary, the court can only step so far outside the views of public moral consensus opinion and only for so long, the court has to act within the constitution itself. But the court so described is still one with enormous scope to govern on an enormous range of Issues. In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.
Finally, the recent course of federalism has been to give powers back to the states. Federalism was needed in the Constitution to make sure that the national government did not gain too much power. After the revolution, many people feared a monarchy or any form of government in which the central ruling body had too much power. The framers wanted the states to have much more power than the national government, and allowed the national government power only in areas that concerned the nation as a whole. Areas such as war, negotiation, and foreign commerce were some of the only circumstances in which the national government had absolute power.
However, in the end, it was the Federalists who won, and the Constitution was ratified. Looking back in hindsight, it is easy to see that both groups were right. The Constitution created a government that has, for the most part, protected the rights and freedom of its people, but there have also been moments in American history where the fears of the Anti-Federalists were realized and corruption was found in the government. Admiration is felt for both of these groups, because their debates over that fledgling government gave rise to a strong Constitution and a strong representative republic.
The president can not dissolve an assembly as one can in a parliamentary system. Also in a presidential system there is the judicial branch, which is the court system. The judicial branch is important because it helps uphold the constitution. One of the last advantages of a presidential system is that there is more stability because a president is elected to a fixed term, where as in a parliamentary system a prime minister can be ousted at any time. A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points.
Juan Linz – The Perils of Presidentialism Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
The Electoral College is one of the only things that don’t follow this rule and it needs to change. It needs to change because it does not necessarily mean that the more popular president will get the job. For example Al Gore got the popular vote, but George Bush won the election. If it was majority rules then Al Gore would have become president and the country may be a lot different than it is today. Al Gore deserved to win but since Bush won the more meaningful states he got the job even though America wanted Gore.