Growth Of Presidential Power Essay

1267 Words3 Pages

An increase in presidential power is only justified due to the natural expansion of the governmental branches and agencies, and also in the amount of people it governs. But the rapid increase of presidential power over the past century has not been justified, as actions taken by the President in undeclared wars and times of economic crises is in no way justifiable by the Constitution and are therefore undemocratic. This is clearly seen in historical Presidential actions taken, and in how much power the Presidential position has gained over the past course of history. The Framers of the Constitution held a limited government position in mind, with the President being a chief citizen rather than a dictator, but his or her this power increases, …show more content…

These powers are indefinite, and have greatly expanded ever since Theodore Roosevelt’s Presidency. The President may mobilize troops, and with this action, may begin undeclared war - all without the checks of Congress. Though Congress is the only body allowed to declare war, the President may marshal forces to other countries that therefore ignites military action or “undeclared war”. Historically, these military powers have been occurring more often and expanding. A large portion of government spending is already being portioned toward the military (~54%), and the addition of the President being able to send troops internationally whenever he or she pleases does not ease the American ideal of a non-militaristic society. Notable occurrences of military actions caused by Presidential action are the invasion of Grenada by Reagan in 1983, the invasion of Panama by Bush in 1989, and the dispatch of troops to the Balkans by Clinton in 1995. These actions were all taken without immediate congressional approval. WWI, WWII, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and the War on Terrorism all continued this expansion of Presidential power that led up to Congress’ passing of the War Powers Resolution. Arguably, this War Powers Act does not work to prohibit the President from having too much power. Noah Feldman, professor at Harvard University, states about the act that “Everyone in …show more content…

John W. Dean, a previous Counsel to the President of the United States, goes as far as to say that previous Presidents may have “acted undemocratically, but only to preserve our democracy”. But historically, Presidents have not been able to preserve America’s democracy in times of crisis. In particular, Executive Orders taken by both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman have cut down on equality and democracy, two large American ideals. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in the February of 1942, during World War 2. This ordered Japanese immigrants and their descendants to relocation camps, and was done out of pressure after racism was strongly put onto them following the bombing of Pearl Harbor during the war. This was a dramatic action taken that caused the loss of many Japanese-Americans’ money, businesses, lives, and trust in American equality and democracy. Another executive order that refutes John Dean’s statement is Executive Order 9835, otherwise known as the Loyalty Order, signed by President Harry Truman in the March of 1947 during the “Red Scare” of the Cold War. This ordered for all federal employees to be analyzed for loyalty to the American government, which is arguably a huge invasion of their privacy, and a big

Open Document