Power of the American President
The Founding fathers of America believed in a separation of powers, a
system of checks and balances and a federal system of government. That
way power would be diffused and decentralised and tyranny would be
avoided. Implicit in the constitution is the principle of checks and
balances. This refers to the belief that the founding fathers had that
no one branch of the constitutional and government system would
dominate the rest. Thus President and congress often have to approve
the appointments and actions of each other, with the supreme court in
the background protecting the integrity of the constitution. There the
president is not all powerful.
After Watergate, presidents continue to find it a struggle to assert
their authority. Regan's authority was compromised by the "Iran gate"
affair; Bush faced criticism for the inadequacy of his domestic policy
agenda: and Clinton suffered the defeat of his main policy proposals.
All of them were frustrated by congresses unwillingness to conform to
the president's agenda, highlighting again a weakness.
In the British system of parliamentary government, a PM with an
overall majority is more or less assured of getting his/her policies
approved but the US system deliberately make it hard for the executive
to get policies through the system, this avoids tyranny but it
frustrates proposals of change - e.g. Clintons health bill.
Although the president of the United states is often regarded as the
most powerful head of state in the world. 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. With the collapse of
soviet communism even the president's role as leader of the western
democracies is no longer so clear-cut. In Mervin apt description
"Presidents are "Gulliver figures", giants in theory but in practice
tied by a multitude of restrictions.
Skowornek writes, “these presidents each set out to retrieve from a far distant, even mythic, past fundamental values that they claim had been lost in the indulgences of the received order, In this way, the order-shattering and order-affirming impulses of the presidency in politics became mutually reinforcing.” (Skowornek, 37, book). These presidents are in the best position not because they are exceptional at their job but because the time they came into office offered them the elasticity and authority to make new orders and be welcomed by the public because he is taking the country out of its troubles and challenges.
Of the most powerful people in the world, the President of the United States of America hits the top of the list. Even though the policy agendas that presidents set as they take office often go unfulfilled, the office of President is still one of the most envied spots to have. But why could this be? It is because the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and with the President as the leader, he is said to have the most power in the world ("Top Ten Most Powerful Countries in the World"). With power comes responsibility and with this position he must govern a country while abiding by the rules.
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
Can you imagine president controlling your life? The constitution use three different forms to make a group or a person from getting too much power on his hands. The are three types of power that each contusion have in order to keep power equal. One of them is Legislative Branch Congress “Can approve Presidential nominations”(Document C). It’s a example how governments try to keep power equal.
Congress and The Presidency Congress as a whole makes laws. When Bills are addressed they must meet the approval of both the House and the Senate in order to become a Law, and then the President can always veto it. Congress also deals with matters of public concern be it something that needs to be investigated or something that needs to be put before the public to raise awareness. Congress is made up of two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. Each is granted different powers and responsibilities.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
The principle of separation of powers is laid out in Articles I, II, and III, in effort to avoid tyranny. It is a part of a system called check and balances. The check and balances play the roles of the three branches of government. This system was made so that no one branch will over power the other. The three branches come together and help one another by being independent of the other. The legislative branch consists of the Congress, the judicial branch consists of the courts, and the executive branch consists of the president. For an example, when a bill is in progress and the chief executive (president or governor) does not approve of it, he can reject legislation and return it to the legislature with reasons for the rejection. This is a process called veto power.
Presidents of the United States take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In times of crisis, however, presidents are tempted to circumvent the spirit of the Constitution in the name of political expediency. The president of the United States of America is frequently under pressure, which could be for something as simple as dealing with his wife (especially if she's running for the US Senate), but usually the problem is more extensive. Then, the whole nation is affected, and the problem becomes a national crisis. A widespread panic is possible. The president must propose a plan to aid his nation while keeping the public under control. Lincoln. Roosevelt and Truman proposed bills to stop or prevent the national crises that plagued the country.
California, and Utah’s, application to become states set off a decade of bitter struggle. Adding more states ensured the debate over slavery could not be avoided. Every attempt, by Congress and the courts, to settle disputes over slavery only added increased the actions each side took in an effort to protect their position. Throughout the decade tensions rapidly increased, as the North and south struggled for power.
Some people may not believe that fate truthfully exist in the world. Part of the population doubts that there are things that is meant or supposed to happen thinking that they will always have a way to get around troubling predication, knowing that thing won’t just turn out that one certain way. They are certain of whatever happens in their life is due to the decision they made from their free will. Others, though, believe their life is an inevitable and all events that happen is predestined and planed out for them like a map of life. Or what Shakespeare calls fate. In Shakespeare’s play, fate plays a role like an exceptional crucial force in Romeo and Juliet. Fate leads the two young lovers to come across each other. The moment Juliet and
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
The President has many duties and responsibilities, some of which many may be unaware. The President has these powers so that they can try to make our country a better, safer place to live. However, they also have limits to these powers so we do not turn into a dictatorship. Some of these powers are stated in the Constitution known as expressed powers, the others are implied powers obtained throughout history.
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 the Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament, creating a more cohesive form of government.