Factions and the Constitution The framers designed the Constitution in such a way as to lessen the influence of political parties in American government, however at the same time, the very essence to the formation of political parties, liberty, was left in the Constitution. Both Madison and Schattschneider cite that while the Constitution does not support factions, it cannot abolish them because of the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the citizens. They both go on to say that liberty is the spark, which causes political parties to develop. In Madison's Federalist 10, it is evident that he was not in favor of the formation of factions. He states, "…The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…" Madison made the point that the dangers of factions can only be limited by controlling its effects.
To check the President’s accountability, Congress has to approve the president’s nomination, which they usually do. Yet, that does not limit Congress from disapproving of a nomination. In 2014, Debo Adegbile was President Obama’s nominee to head the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department. He was well qualified and fit for the position, but once Congress rechecked Adegbile’s history it was shown that he should have originally been rejected because of his past work as a criminal defense attorney. This could have been something that was simply overlooked by the President, or he knew but did not care and did not think Congress would catch it and could have in fact hurt his Presidency if his nominee was approved; luckily Congress (Legislative Branch) was able to recheck his decision (Bianco and Canon 2015, 442).
According to Skowronek’s theory, in order for a president to be considered a truly great president he or she must come along at the right time in history and effectively manage the political landscape in such a way enabling themselves to reject the philosophy that defined the regime that preceded them. Up until this point in time, Obama has undoubtedly failed at achieving this goal. Due to the fact the combined facts that both president Bush excelled at fashioning a political situation to perpetuate the regime he represented and Obama not unabashedly declaring himself as being opposed to what the old guard represented, Obama will not be considered a truly great president when his history is written.
Taney on the other hand, was just the opposite. He seemed intent on agitating the conservatives with his outlandish opinions. One such opinion was delivered in the Charles River Bridge case in which Taney declared that " A state charter of a private business conferred only privileges expressly granted and that any ambiguity must be decided in favor of the state." This outraged conservatives who opposed any modification of the view that state issued charters are inviolable. Taney's action would have been opposed by Rehnquist if he had been alive at that time because he shares the views of conservatives meaning that he favors little or no change in the way that things are done.
One question that we all probably have, “Does the President have any unilateral war powers?”. There is probably more than one answer to this particular question. I believe that the president indeed ... ... middle of paper ... ...are many people who oppose to the idea that the president has war powers or should never have any unilateral powers. As an example, “He argues that the founders never intended to grant exclusive war powers to the president” (Mckenna and Feingold 72). Many people believe that the founders of the constitution beliefs and works are wise enough for dividing the government and giving the president limited powers.
Introduction I will start with explaining Neustadt’s arguments about presidential power in his book. Then further my answer to the extent in which compare other political scholars, Skowronek, Howell and Edwards in response to Neustadt’s points of view about American presidency. The most important phase that Neustadt argues about the presidency and presidents is the persuasion power. He writes that the president cannot simply command “do this, do that”, as we all know “nothing will happen”. Different branches of the government have different constituencies and different interests.
The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government. The Executive Branch was supposed to be much less significant than the Legislative Branch. In fact, James Madison wrote, “Rarely if ever happen that the executive constituted as ours is proposed to be would have firmness enough to resist the legislature,” in his notes during the Constitutional Convention. Partially due this and not wanting to offend George Washington, whom was expected by the founders to be the first president, the founders focused very little on Article II of the Constitution. The largest role the president is supposed to play in the government is making sure that laws are followed.
He has a semi-aggressive on the environment and clean energy, enforcing energy pollution standards and looking for new ways to get private investors to buy in on clean energy for the future. He believes foreign affairs should only be addressed when the US is directly involved or when our safety is at risk. There are only small differences between these two candidates. Both agree on Immigration and the restrictions that should be enforced. Alameel has a more aggressive approach to green energy than Pope does, with their major difference being that Pope wants less Washington in the senate, and Alameel wants to reconcile with the republicans and make the federal agenda work within the state.
However, the fact that he believes that in order for government to work it needs to be huge makes me think of a monarchy right away. I believe the people should have the right to speak up for what they believe in as well as have the right to go against government if and when they feel the laws being imposed by government are not moral. However, if we were to subdue to Hobbes form of government we give up any right whatsoever to disagree with the sovereign. Therefore, Locke’s governmental proposal is a balance between that of Hobbes’s and Mill’s. After all, when a man steps out of the State of Nature it is not to create absolute monarchy, as Hobbes believe but to create o form of civil government.
Presidential Powers The president should have the power to do what's right but not enough to do things that only he things is right. I think that the president should have the power to make thing write and to help those in need. But when the power is abused there should be some limit as to how much power he has. It is a good idea to give the president as much power as he can have to do good. While a President can veto, he can't force Congress to act in a particular way.