preview

The Pros And Cons Of The Boland Amendment

explanatory Essay
1869 words
1869 words
bookmark

The Rule of Law is a legal standard that requires the government to use its power according to well-established, clearly defined rules, regulations, and principles of a given society. In other words, “the highest level of authority is a body of law that applies equally to all” (Shafritz, Russell, & Borick, 2016, p. 188). This means that the government and its officials are accountable to the laws of the land. That being said, the laws are only as good as the intentions of those who are interpreting them. When Ronald Reagan took office on January 20, 1981, he promised to continue former President Jimmy Carter’s policy of blocking the sale of arms to Iran on the grounds that Iran had previously been designated as a supporter of …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that the rule of law requires the government to use its power according to well-established, clearly defined rules, regulations, and principles of a given society.
  • Explains that ronald reagan promised to continue former president jimmy carter's policy of blocking the sale of arms to iran on the grounds that iran had previously been designated as a supporter of terrorism.
  • Explains that the effort to end the cold war and halt the spread of communism was carried out on a number of different fronts through various methods.
  • Opines that while president reagan and his administration may have had good intentions, the actions undertaken by certain individuals while carrying out the operations mentioned above, did in fact violate laws and executive orders, and put the offenders in direct conflict with the rule of law.
  • Explains that secret arms sales to iran violated the united states policy prohibiting negotiations for the release of hostages and the arms export control act of 1976.
  • Explains that the sale of arms to iran and the financial of the contras seemed to be deliberately constructed so as to bypass, not only expressed administration policy, but also the boland amendment.
  • Explains how oliver north deliberately deceived congress and obstructed the investigations. the presidential records act of 1978 changed the ownership of presidential records from private to public and mandated preservation of such records.
  • Explains that president reagan was responsible for putting in effect all laws created by congress, and appointing the heads of federal agencies, the cabinet included.
  • Explains that as the commander in chief, the president is the head of the armed forces: the air force, army, navy, and marines.
  • Illustrates how the responsibilities of the president can sometimes come in conflict with each other. president reagan and his administration employed a number of tactics which put them squarely in the dilemma of how to uphold and enforce the laws created by congress while doing what they deemed necessary to accomplish their goals.
  • Describes oliver north as a life-long, highly-decorated, marine corps officer who took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  • Explains that lt. colonel oliver north was appointed a deputy-director to the national security council (nsc) by president reagan in 1981.
  • Explains that three investigations into the iran-contra affair were conducted by the tower commission, which was created by the president, and both the republican and democratic controlled congress each conducted their own investigations.
  • Opines that president reagan took full responsibility for his actions and those of his administration.
  • Explains that the rule of law is an inherently vague term and is used differently in different contexts. from an operational standpoint, any approach to implementing the rule of law must take into consideration many variables.
  • Explains that the iran-contra affair illustrates that duties, orders, and responsibilities can easily conflict with each other because there are so many areas of gray.
  • Analyzes how president reagan's speech about the iran arms and contra aid controversy deteriorated into trading arms for hostages.
  • Analyzes the writer's answer to the question of whether president reagan or col. north violated the rule of law by putting themselves above the law. the intentions which guided their decisions were theoretically plausible.
  • Opines that when one is faced with making that choice; to follow the law or to put the nation first and serve the country’s best interests, this question is not one that is cut and dry, nor is it easily answered.

The Boland Amendment was a series of three legislative amendments formulated to prohibit federal funding of the Contra insurgency against the Nicaraguan government. It is believed that some at the Reagan administration however, chose to take a rather narrow interpretation of the Boland Amendment so as to have it apply only to U. S. intelligence agencies, thereby allowing the National Security Council (NSC), which was labeled as a White House advisory body, not an intelligence agency, to continue the flow of funds to the Contra rebels (Understanding the Iran-Contra …show more content…

The American public expects this and has a right to it. Ultimately, President Reagan did take full responsibility for his actions and those of his administration (Speech about Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy, 1987). As stated in the Rule of Law Handbook, ““the “Rule of Law” is an inherently (and frequently intentionally) vague term” and “the term is used differently in different contexts” (Rule of Law Handbook, 2011). The Rule of Law Handbook goes on to say, “from an operational standpoint, any approach to actually implementing the Rule of Law must take into consideration many variables-cultural, economic, intuitional, and operational-that it may seem futile to seek a single definition for the Rule of Law or how it is to be achieved” (Rule of Law Handbook, 2011). In the field of Public Administration there is a highly-defined structure of constitutional, legal, and procedural requirements that are in place to keep those in power in check. That being said, no matter how stringent the oversight, or how well-meaning the intentions of those who serve, Public Service is a complicated field with many landmines to navigate. As the Iran-Contra Affair illustrates, duties, orders, and responsibilities and can easily conflict with each other because there are so many areas of

Get Access