The power of the Executive branch has expanded over time to become the most authoritative division of government. In contrast to the Constitution 's fundamental designer, James Madison, who predicted the Legislative branch would dominate due to it’s power in making laws and regulating taxes/spending, the executive powers have proven to be superior and ever broadening. From the birth of the Republic, the President has sought to protect his rights and seek beyond his restriction of power. Setting the precedent as early as 1795, George Washington refused to relay documents relating to the Jay Treaty to the House of Representatives and saw his actions as a justified act of “executive prerogative.” Moreover, weaving throughout the Nineteenth century, presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln conceived and added functions, such as the extensive use of the veto and the president’s direct and active role as Commander in Chief to their executive tool-belt. The Constitution communicates very little details regarding the President’s use of the power of veto and the role as Commander in Chief, but it was these presidents which established the major authority of the executive branch in these areas. During the birth of the new nation, the Founding Fathers sought to construct a system of checks and balances which were catalyzed by the common fear of tyrannical government and based upon the ideologies of the Enlightenment. In 1787, while the infant nation was wobbling on the weak footings of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention was adjourned and disputes around power and representation mustered new plans for the future. Although the Convention intended to revise and rework the Articles, James Madison, alongside... ... middle of paper ... ...appoint Justices to the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote approval by the House, has been turned upside down. Mitch McConnell, a senior US senator, has prevented Obama’s liberal appointee, Merrick Garland, from even being considered. The refusal to hear from or possibly even consider Obama’s nominee is a bold move by the Legislative branch to gain back lost power from the executive branch. In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison writes, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next glace oblige it to control itself.” It is the Constitution 's founders who tried to inhibit the abuse of power, but the executive branch has continually stepped over its boundaries, and now the Legislative branch is following in the presidential footsteps.
Consistent to eighteenth-century ethos left the Constitution-makers with great faith in universals. They believed in an inexorable view of a self-interested man. Feeling that all me were naturally inclined to be bad they sought a compromising system of checks and balances for government. This was bolstered by the scientific work by Newton, ?in which metaphors sprang as naturally to mens minds as did biological metaphors in the Darwinian atmosphere of the late nineteenth century.? Therefore Madison and others thought to squelch the possibly dangerous majority by setting up a large number and variety of local interests, so that the people will ?be unable to concert and carry into effect their scheme of oppression.? And thus, chief powers went to the propertied.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
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.
September 17, 1787, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; during the heat of summer, in a stuffy assembly room of Independence Hall, a group of delegates gathered. After four months of closed-door quorums, a four page, hand written document was signed by thirty-nine attendees of the Constitutional Convention. This document, has come to be considered, by many, the framework to the greatest form of government every known; the Constitution of the United States. One of the first of its kind, the Constitution laid out the frame work for the government we know today. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people; constructed of three branches; each branch charged with their own responsibilities. Article one established the Congress or Legislative branch, which would be charged with legislative powers. Article two created the Executive branch, providing chief executive powers to a president, who would act in the capacity of Commander in Chief of the Country’s military forces. The President of the United States also acts as head of state to foreign nations and may establish treaties and foreign policies. Additionally, the President and the departments within the Executive branch were established as the arm of government that is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress. Thirdly, under Article three of the Constitution, the Judicial branch was established, and consequently afforded the duty of interpreting the laws, determining the constitutionality of the laws, and apply it to individual cases. The separation of powers is paramount to the system of checks and balances among the three branches; however, although separate they must support the functions of the others. Because of this, the Legislative an...
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
... This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval. The most important expansion of the power of the presidency happened during the Jackson administration. When Jackson used the veto power of the president to influence legislation as a matter of policy and not constitutionality, he arguably altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
James Madison was no stranger to opposition. In publishing an essay referred to today as Federalist Essay No. 10, Madison participated in a persuasive attempt to ratify the Constitution, a document he drafted and for which he is credited as its “Father”. Along with John Jay, who became the United States’ first Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Alexander Hamilton, who became the first Secretary of the Treasury, Madison articulates in his writing the necessity of the Constitution as a remedy for the extant ills of an infant nation recently freed from the grasp of distant monarchical rule. This young nation faltered under the first endeavor of organized government, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were designed during a period of emerging
Some people have always wondered whether the making of Constitution of the United States was, in fact, supposed to happen at the Constitutional Convention or if it was even supposed to be drawn up in the way it was. In this essay, I will summarize to different views on what went on at the Constitutional Convention and how the Constitution of the United States come about. I want to emphasize that none of these views or theories discussed in this essay are my own. The convention that is referred to was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It began In May of 1787.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
During his entire life, James Madison, who is one of the founding fathers, contributed many dedications to the States, especially when creating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As the fourth president of the U.S, he consciously chose to create a new model of presidential power that he thought would fit better with the system of the separation of powers after seeing “the danger overwrought executive power poses to republican constitutionalism” (Kleinerman). Despite of having such good intention, some of his actions led the country through some significant suffers.
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.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...
The United States government braces its power among three powerful branches, legislative, executive and judicial. These branches interact with one another to establish authority that is strong, yet equal to have power over the country. Each branch pursues certain responsibilities and duties to operate in an efficient and effective manner in which society upholds. The executive, legislative and judicial branches all interact amid each other to validate accuracy of the nation’s most powerful law of the land, the Constitution. It is important to know how these branches interact with each other to learn how a bill becomes a law. Reflecting on how the three branches promote a balance of power that is constructive to include the agendas and electoral roles that also plays a vast part in the government’s operation.