Perhaps one of the most interesting times in a president’s administration is during the end of his term in office. Having reached the ultimate goal in a politician’s career, a president no longer has to worry about public opinion or any of the other political give and takes that usually influence a politician’s actions. He is truly free to act as he pleases almost free of consequences. Bill Clinton’s final days in office certainly demonstrated this fact. Using the ultimate unchecked executive power of clemency Clinton issued over 140 pardons and thirty six sentence commutations. He protected over a million acres of land through the creation of six new national monuments. He also nominated nine new federal judges. Clinton also issued a number of executive orders during this time. Unlike most previous presidents who laid low during their last days in office, Clinton was in a flurry of activity trying to exert some last bit of influence from his office. The reasons for his actions are wide spread, ranging from political to personal. The results of his actions were extensive, affecting many situations in the American political and judicial realms. The final days of Clinton administration may be the most controversial of a presidency that was full of tumult and plagued by scandals.
Most powers in our government do not go unchecked; the power of the presidential pardon is an exception to this rule. It is explicit in the constitution that this power was meant to be held solely by the president for the purpose of forcing him to use it sparingly and fairly. Nonetheless our government has evolved a system through which presidential pardons usually follow. The system was developed so as to insure that pardons were not used for personal or political gain. All clemency candidates are screened first by the department of justice and then a committee formed by the president before a full report, with recommendations for action, is presented to the president himself. Normally the department of justice does not consider an applicant eligible for a presidential pardon until five years after his or her sentence has been completed or after the conviction if no sentence is given. Also, according the normal regulations, pardons aren’t granted to people who are under probation or parole. Due to the wording in the constitu...
... middle of paper ...
...s were vast, setting an unheard of precedent for lame duck presidents. Many of Clinton’s actions were truly shameless, blatant abuses of power. Clinton’s two terms of presidency were marred by scandals, impeachment and lawsuits, but this did not stop him from saving the best for last. We may only hope that future two term presidents do not follow his standard of use of unchecked power in the final hour.
Bibliography
1. Bovard, James. Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000
2. Olson, Barbra. The Final Days. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing INC., 2001
3. Braun, Stephen, Serrano, Richard A. “Clinton Pardons” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25th, 2001.
4. Daday, Meg. “Clinton’s Final Days Controvesial” The online Observer Newspaper, Feb. 13th 2001.
http://www.dailyillini.com/jan01/jan18/news/news01.shtml
5. Doneberg, Jon. “Clinton Making a Strong Finish for final term” The Daily Illini, Jan. 18th 2001. http://www.dailyillini.com/jan01/jan18/news/news01.shtml
Sidney M. Milkis, Michael Nelson. The American Presidency Origins & Development, 1776-2011. Washington DC: CQ Press, 2008.
He thinks that regardless of the existence of other influential performers from other branches of the government, the president can act based on many other rights he possesses, such as executive orders and national security directives. These tools will allow him to bypass the traditional legislative process. Despite that both authors define power as president’s prime influence, Howell however argues that president has more capacity in which he can partially decide the outcome of a given situation if not whole. Howell steps further and insists more on the president’s capability despite the fact that Neustadt defines power as individual power. Howell envisions that the President must influence the “content of public policy”, in contrast, Neustadt’s argument is based on the exercise of the “Effective” impact by President. Howell, on the other hand, considers that the President is way more powerful on his own than Neustadt thinks. Howell thinks that executive orders, for example, open the path to the President to make important decisions without trying to persuade Congress or the other branches of the government to gain their support. Howell uses President Truman’s decision about federal employees. Howell’s view of unilateral presidential action perfectly fits moments when of crisis when the President, as the Commander in Chief cannot afford the long process of the congressional decision making. As he writes “a propensity of presidents, especially during times of crisis, to unilaterally impose their will on the American public.”
The recent scandal in the White House has brought my attention to the American Presidents as people and Presidents. Looking into the American history and her presidents I have found out that presidents are not just political figures but that they are also people. In my research I will compare and contrast two of the American presidents - Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.
Greene, John Robert. The Presidency of George Bush. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Print.
Shogan, Colleen. Washington, George. In Genovese, Michael A. Encyclopedia of the American Presidency Revised Edition. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009. Web. .
Schwarz, Frederic D. "The Demagogue’s Downfall." American Heritage Nov.-Dec. 2004: volume 55, issue 6. Web.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
The Hunting of the President presented an argument by Harry Thomason and Nickolas Perry that from 1990 to 2000 a group of people were committed to destroying the reputation of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton. Through elaborate testimonials, the claim is that this group of well-funded individuals as well as media attempted to gain from Clinton’s alleged misfortunes.
One of the things Clinton is most famous for, but not the proudest of, is his affairs. The issue of Clinton having an affair with Monica Lewinsky is purely personal. It should have been discussed within his family and in his family alone. Many people seem to forget that Presidents before him have done the exact same thing. John F Kennedy is probably the best known with his affairs. This doesn’t diminish the fact that Clinton took it one step farther and lied about the affairs. Lying to the nation wasn’t a smart move. Does anyone know what John F Kennedy would have said, if asked about his affairs? How do we know that he wouldn’t lie? When Clinton was sworn in he said, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” No where in the oath does it say, “I will not lie.” By doing so he hasn’t broken his promises, he just let the country down.
Pardons and sentence commutations have been granted regularly and frequently, and sometimes that power was exploited and has great potential to be exploited (Love 2007). While there is clearly criminal injustice, pardons can serve as a way to remedy the injustices, but it is also vulnerable to misuse (Love 2007). For example, in the Lewis Libby case, Bush found the sentencing to be unreasonably punitive even though it was lawfully ordained (Love 2007). As the president, he had the power to influence the court to reassess other similar cases which could set the precedence for tolerating other similar crimes. While this particular case is not necessarily very likely to compel Congress or the Judicial system to change sentencing protocol, the power of pardons can potentially lead to
“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.” This is one of the most famous lines from our 42nd President William Jefferson Clinton. During his presidency America was a mixed bag, there was a lot of positive and negative. There were many successes and faults politically, economically, and socially. Overall Bill Clinton had a major impact on American society. Although Bill Clinton’s presidency was tarnished by his relationship with Monica Lewinsky causing national concern, he still had major
After successfully ending American fighting in Vietnam and improving international relations with the U.S.S.R. and China, Richard Nixon became the only President to ever resign the office, as a result of the Watergate scandal. Hubris has come to refer to recklessness and overconfidence among those who wield power in financial or political fields- particularly when it leads to disastrous errors of judgement. The word Watergate has entered the political dictionary as a term synonymous with corruption and scandal as a result of the overwhelming pride, or hubris, of President Richard Nixon, who engulfed himself in his own omnipotence.
Said but not meant, because in fact the Clinton Dynasty is riddled with disgusting offenses legal or moral. They are liars, criminals, and blatantly unpatriotic.
The approach focused on in this analysis will be the Neustadtian approach; a theory presented in Neustadt’s seminal work entitled Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents. Also up for analysis is an article by Matthew Kerbel, a follower of the Neustadtian approach who provides empirical analysis that substantiates Neustadt’s work.
Before stepping into the critical analysis of the speech, it is important to understand the historical setting from which the speech arose. The context can be briefly summarized as the following. In 1995 Clinton had a sexual relationship with one of his White House interns by the name of Monica Lewinsky. On January 17, 1998, a sexual misconduct lawsuit against him was filed. Clinton then quickly delivered a forceful public statement that he did not have a sexual relationship with the woman. However, unknown to President Clinton, Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky’s associates, had recorded several conversations of Lewinsky describing her affair with the President. In the seven months afterwards, Kenneth W. Starr, the StarWhitewater independent counsel, had began collecting evidence of the affair and carrying out investigation about Clinton’s obstruction of justice. Evidence of Clinton lying under oath would be grounds for impeachment. On August 17, 1998, Clinton decided to a...