Link to this site as we will be using it often throughout the year!
Monday, March 5, 2012
Imperial Presidency
Analyze the arguments put forth by Schlesinger in his 1973 publication, The Imperial Presidency, as well as the subsequent readings. Do recent administrations bolster or undermine his arguments? Discuss.
In 1973 Schlesinger asserted that the position of presidency has changed from one of “presidential primacy” to “presidential supremacy”. He tracked the development of this imperialism, declaring Nixon the ultimate imperialist. Schlesinger argues that this role of the president as an imperialist is the result of foreign relations - the presidents ability to declare war and military offenses. He believes that this ability has allowed the “imperial president” to overwhelm and overshadow the traditional set of checks and balances. Schlesinger also attributes the rise of the imperial president to the decline in the traditional party system. It is a clear trend within the past half century that there is a lack of cohesiveness and strong commitment to particular parties. Since the 1970s there has been a significant amount of ticket splitting and lack of constancy in party members. As a result, the president has risen out of this dis-alignment as the one strong and decisive political choice to serve as a figurehead for the American people to look to as a source of shaping policy and the undertones of the nation. Schlesinger also believes that the Keynesian revelation put the president in charge of the economy, and nuclear conflict showed the necessity for final and universal presidential decision making. Compounding this is increasing secrecy in government activities, which limits public knowledge and gives the president more free reign to do what he thinks is best for the country. In general I am in agreement with Schlesinger’s theory. As we have learned in class, the president has numerous essential roles that make him a larger than life figure, who carries the weight of America’s hopes, dreams, future, and failures upon his shoulders. His argument that is most valid is that the presidents role has enlarged because of the decline of the importance of political parties. Before it was all about party loyalty and the president representing the interests of the party. This is clearly no longer the case, with presidents taking actions that do not align with their party at all. The argument that this imperialism has come about because of foreign relations is a bit shaky, only because we have been involved in foreign conflicts since the birth of the nation, where the president has been attributed with the credit for its success or failure. Presidents Bush and Obama have exemplified how foreign affairs have made them “imperial presidents”. Bush is the name associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The general American public believes it was all Bush’s idea to go in and find WMD and to hunt down Al Qaeda. Obama is given credit for the capture and kill of Osama Bin Laden and pulling the troops out of Iraq, because it is portrayed that his leadership and decision making led to this outcome. However, in both cases these are merely perceptions of the American people that Bush and Obama are such imperialists. It was the Bush administration that laid the ground work for pulling out troops and finding bin Laden. Furthermore, it most likely wasn’t Bush’s sole decision to start the war on terror. These examples show that modern presidents certainly fit Schlesinger’s argument for what the president has evolved to, but in more of a sense that they fulfill that image for the American people, without actually being responsible for what is happening with the country. Americans blame Obama for the economic slump and say they do not want to reelect him because of this. This argument is nonsense because it is not all his fault and he has clearly done as much as he can. Schlesinger argues that presidents have become someone authoritarian leaders of America by making final decisions and affecting the outcome of events for America. While this held in the earlier part of the second half of the century, it has transitioned now to the fact that Americans believe that the president is an imperialist, when in fact there is a lot more behind it that is not solely up to the president.
The phase of Imperial Presidency describes presidential administrations that have speckled the latter half of the 20th century and start of the 21st century. Presidential powers have indeed significantly increased since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s terms as president. FDR used the increase in power to fuel a successful war against malicious forces in Europe and Asia and rebuilt a failing America. Meanwhile Lyndon B. Johnson expanded the influences of an Imperial Presidency to new limits, calling for an invasion, but not a war per se, against a country on the brink of a communist government. The reason behind the decisions to expand presidential powers is unique with each President. Critics cannot condense decades worth of presidential decisions according to whether they were determined with benevolence or vindictive reasons. The influence of a president has not only been used to create harmful results. Such as Kennedy’s performance with decreasing America’s tense relationship with Cuba as Schlesinger mentioned in his 1973 publication. President Obama has not extended the powers as much as President Bush had done with the invasion of Iraq as a preemptive attack. The activity of recent Administrations have both bolstered and undermined Arthur Schlesinger’s arguments. In terms of military-related Imperial Presidential powers, President Obama handled the assassination of Osama bin Laden with secrecy and the extension of power needed to guarantee success of the mission. There are certain actions that a President should not take such as Nixon’s decision to use government finances to decorate his properties. The extension of power for the president seems to be an inevitable step in the American government given the stagnation in the current Congress. The Executive branch of the government should be allowed to have certain abilities to make decisions on their own without consulting Congress which would most likely curtail process.
In “The Imperial Presidency,” Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. Starting simply as a main figure in the Executive branch, the President has become a huge part of the government that this author believes may have the most influence over any other branch. Recently, it does seem that Schlesinger’s arguments are supported by the past few administrations. Presidents have grown to have many powers in order to check on the other branches of government. Using the veto has proven to be hugely significant since an override of a Presidential veto takes a majority vote by both houses of Congress. This is extremely difficult to achieve. Hence, if a President does not want a bill to be passed, it can be vetoed and there is very little chance that it will be passed. Additionally, there are so many people that work in the Executive branch. Starting with the leaders of each department within the Cabinet, the President has so much power over these employees. He is also the leader of all military personnel, and has enormous influence in this sense. The President is very well respected by people all over the world, and using his diplomatic abilities, he is able to create great relationships with other government that the other branches are not able to. Finally, the President has great control over what happens with the economy as well as with legislation. There is no measure to the amount of authority that the President has, and it seems to be growing each year. Years ago when Schlesinger wrote his ideas in “The Imperial Presidency,” he was correct in his thinking. Today, the President of the United States continues to be an extremely strong figure.
Schlesinger wrote the Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the U.S. Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits. A presidency becomes imperial when it relies on powers beyond those allowed by the Constitution. Schlesinger credits an increase in the Imperial Presidency to a decline in the traditional party system. Loyalty to a particular party has become a rarity in America. The president as a result has risen to the throne of America to take control and create policy as well as the national mood. In recent years, the Imperial Presidency continues to thrive through Presidents such as Bush and Obama. This power was displayed in foreign affairs when Bush first invaded Iraq. Bush argued that he did not need congressional approval to invade Iraq. However, it is a Congressional power to approve such a resolution. During America’s presence in the Middle East, Congress voted on numerous measures regarding the Iraq War, including appropriations measures, attempts to redeploy and remove U.S. troops from Iraq, and resolutions opposing President Bush’s decision to escalate the conflict. However, Bush ignored opponents of the conflict, therefore unconstitutionally increasing his powers as Chief Executive. In a way, Obama is also doing what George W. Bush did in the national security sphere by using a crisis to expand presidential authority. Amid the recession and financial meltdown, Obama is moving to increase and exert his peacetime powers through programs such as Obama Care. Measures that both President Bush took and Obama continues to take have resulted in a more muscular Presidency. However, the U.S. government was built upon a three-branch system of checks and balances that need to continue to function justly. The Presidential power needs to be harnessed back into guidelines originally set by the Constitution to cease Imperial Presidency from existing.
Schlesinger presents convincing evidence in “The Imperial Presidency” of the trend of presidents to overstep their boundaries. However, one must examine the results of Schlesinger’s supposed transgressions. When Schlesinger was discussing Polk, not enough time was spent on remembering that Polk wrested half of Mexico away from the Mexicans and added it to America: territory that America cannot imagine itself without today. When Lincoln was suspending Habeus Corpus and censoring newspapers, there was a true state of emergency in the nation. The unapproved Spanish American War was another victory parade for the United States, with significant side effects, yes, but significant gains as well. And McKinley’s role in the Boxer Rebellion was one of a united effort with a dozen other countries—comparable to modern day participation in United Nations activities. Teddy Roosevelt may have overstepped some boundaries, but in the end his face ended up in Mount Rushmore. Another example of how the ends justified the means. Coolidge will forever be remembered by his lack of regulation of the economy and American corporations, not for sending less than 6000 troops to a Central American country I can hardly spell—and that you will most likely need to Google. World War II went far, far beyond the scope of America’s executive branch overstepping its boundaries. To discuss World War II and focus on criticizing Roosevelt for doing too much is akin to discussing the Great Wall of China and focusing on criticizing Imperial Construction Manager Number 12 for giving himself too much pay: It’s a moot point. The book goes on and on, but what I was left with was this: if the president is not stepping up to the plate, then who will? Congress? If I had to choose between having the President overstepping his boundaries or letting Congress pull itself together and attempt to accomplish something tangible, I would pick the President without hesitation. Individuals are needed to lead a nation to glory and success, not a flock of bickering sheep. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang, and George Washington will live on in history, alongside their empires. As for the Diet of worms, Perisan Absolutism, Han Fei bureaucracy, and the United States Congress…. in the long run they are irrelevant.
In his writing on The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger follows the history of the presidency and overall shows concern that the presidency is out of control and that it had exceeded constitutional limits. An “imperial President” is one who relies on powers that lie beyond those of the Constitution. He exemplifies a few presidents for expanding their power appropriately; more specifically Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy. With Roosevelt’s New Deal, Schlesinger saw it as gaining extraordinary power in order to meet domestic needs and with World War II Harry Truman used the power to meet international problems. During the nuclear age of Kennedy, Schlesinger saw his use of power as it beautifully fulfilling both the romantic ideal of the strong president and the prophecy of a split-second presidential decision. However, he puts down Richard Nixon as one of the most imperial presidents in history. He called him out for displaying more monarchical yearnings than any of his predecessors. Nixon organized the executive branch and the white house in order to shield himself from direct question or challenge. Since the Nixon white house escaped the legal consequences of its behavior, Schlesinger warns every one of upcoming Presidents who could fall into the imperial President category. He mentions in the beginning of the article that President Bush could fall into that category, but I disagree completely. How are the actions of President Bush any different from Roosevelt’s from World War II? The President has the power to declare war with the consent from Congress and that is what Bush did with the backing of the American public. After the attacks on the twin towers, all Americans were in favor of war to protect our freedom and show that we wouldn’t back down. It wasn’t President Bush’s decision alone and as Commander in Chief I don’t see how someone can say he didn’t have the power to declare a war on terror. If you want to call a recent President and Imperial one, it’s president obama. Where in the Constitution does it give him the right to socialize health care? He is turning this country into a socialist nation and not to mention he didn’t even say the oath of office correctly the first time! When a president messes up saying that he will protect the Constitution while in office, it’s a sure sign that he won’t. It was during his legislation that Congress wanted to limit people’s freedom of speech and knowledge with the SOPA bill and he brought our country way more into debt right in the beginning of his presidency. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the United States to be owned by China. He’s not even a president, he’s a celebrity.
Schlesinger argues in his piece The Imperial Presidency, that the role of the president is exceeding its intended limits. He follows our nations presidents through time to explain how they have crossed the line. I think that it is clear that powers have increased since FDR, but I don't necessarily think they at are at a dangerous or 'imperial' level. He states that in the mid 1900s the president gained not only the power over "peace and war" but also over the "political scene". This implies an unconstitutional amount of power in which checks and balances are in a sense ignored. I can see this argument maybe with the power of the veto. Especially right now with President Obama not having the majority in Congress and working against constant opposition, he has a lot of power if he so chooses. He writes, “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak and the power to lie”. Relating this to the Watergate scandal and the Nixon presidency in general, I do agree fully with his argument. Nixon totally crossed the line into a place of power too much for the president. He used the increasing power of the presidency to mask himself from the public and ultimately do wrong. But I think the Obama administration is very good about not allowing to much secrecy from the public. Also Schlesinger also points out that since the mid 20th century, “the Presidency stood out in solitary majesty as the central focus of political emotion, the ever more potent symbol of national community”. I think this ‘expansion’ of power is totally necessary and not imperial at all. Especially at this point in time, with the economy where it is, and during Bush’s administration with 9/11 nothing is more important. America needs to have the cheerleader aspect of the presidency to remain confident. I think that Schlesinger’s argument is a generalization and really depends on the individual president. A president can make a conscious or subconscious choice to be of the ranks of an imperial president, but I wouldn’t put all presidents since the mid 20th century into that category.
Arthur Schlesinger brings a good point in showing how the president has almost been imperial with it’s powers to withhold, leak, and lie and its power in foreign affairs. FDR was where the first surge of presidential power happened. This was seen through FDR’s New Deal where he took hold of his executive powers and made available all of the federal funded services to the public during the depression. Since FDR though presidential power has been on the decline. Congress has become more polar and stagnant due to partisan voting causing the president's legislative power to decrease. However executive power has found a way around this and has transferred itself through foreign affairs as seen with many of the military resolutions and conflicts in other countries. Examples of this include Vietnam, North Korean war, Libya, Iraq etc. Many of these are not declared wars but conflicts risen from national crises or executive discretion. However this is somewhat dampened by the War Powers Act to keep the president from becoming a warmonger. But such imperialistic power has now been used by the executive branch to assassinate American civilians in an effort to stop terrorism. One such case is the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Awlaki, however, was not a good man and in fact had connections to al-queda and was involved in propagating terrorist ideas and in planning terrorist attacks against the United States. In this case, Obama’s decision to take out Awlaki was a sound and just one for our national security. However if the executive branch can kill Awlaki, a United States citizen, without trial or jury, does that stand for all other United States citizens? When even the fifth amendment states that “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”? Well if the United States were under the presidency of former senator Joseph McCarthy, then there might be a problem. But in all seriousness, no president should have ultimate power. That is why the founders created our country with checks and balances so that no one person or body would have ultimate power and decide on everything. Yet different administrations have used their executive power to withhold information, leak out what information they deem appropriate, and lie to the public about the truth. Such cases have been reflected in Vietnam, Watergate, Awlaki. Perhaps to limit or reform presidential power another bill or an amendment to the War Powers Act should be made regarding the president being given the power to perform whatever action is deemed necessary to fight a threat or opposing force.
Schlesinger presents a well reasoned convincing argument on what he dubs “The Imperial Presidency.”
The executive branch as a whole has changed greatly from the writing of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted to find a balance between empowering a strong leader and protecting themselves from monarchy. The recent history and overthrow of King George was something they wished and were determined to never let happen again. So far, with the introduction of the three branches and the checks and balances of power the country has avoided dictatorship. All however, is not rosy. Our government’s composition has changed significantly from the creation of the Constitution to our current centralized state. Today, the executive branch is the trunk of the governmental tree. Many, like Schlesinger say that it is necessary and needed in many situations to keep government effective to all. One area and example Schlesinger mentioned was the realm of foreign affairs. This is especially potent in our world today and is something our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen. The world is a more connected place than ever before. A common Spanish phrase used to describe how our world is getting smaller is the world used to be a handkerchief but now it is just an at sign. This says we used to have an idea of the world but communication was hard. Now the world is tiny and we can contact anyone anytime using technology. The president needs large amounts of executive privilege and power to truly represent the world we live in. He needs the ability to make quick decisions that have a true impact on the world. One shining example of this is Obama’s daring raid to capture Osama bin Laden. Obama made “getting Osama” a priority as he started his term. Without exceptional executive power bin Laden would be a free man today. This power however, is also used ineffectively as Kennedy demonstrated with the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion. But as is common with both of these decisions ultimately the people of the country knew what was going on.
The examples above represent the need for secrecy but also the downside. The founders, however, created a fourth branch of government, the press. The press will continue to do their one and only job, to keep the government honest. So yes, presidents will continue to push to boundaries sometimes too far, like Nixon with Watergate. These transgressions however will eventually be discovered by the press and will force other presidents to toe the line. Fifty years is about right for the warning to fade but be certain the warning will always reappear and keep the presidency in its place, one of three branches.
Schlesinger’s argument in The Imperial Presidency that the U.S. President has gained vast amounts of power in the recent years, exceeding the Constitutional limits is extremely plausible, given that he presents the fact that there has been a decline in the traditional party system. To back up this theory, he argues that the party systems had lost all loyalty that they once possessed. I fundamentally agree with this viewpoint. Recently, especially proven in primaries, candidates rely less on party loyalty and more on their personal attributes that would qualify them as a president. He declares Nixon the ultimate imperialist, but I believe the first example of an imperial president was FDR, when he created a presidency in which the executive branch trumped the legislative branch, with his passing of the New Deal. His idea of an imperial president is also bolstered by the authorization of troops to Iraq by President Bush. According to the Constitution, Congress would have the authority to approve this movement of troops. However, nothing was done as a consequence; thus, this increased the power of the presidential position. While Bush’s assertions to deploy troops may have been justified, it states explicitly in the Constitution that it is not solely his decision. Despite this, I would regard President Obama as more of an imperial president than President Bush. A prime example to support this would be ObamaCare, which creates a socialist form of health care in which more power is placed in the hands of the executive branch. His expedition to assassinate Osama Bin Laden was justified in the end, but where is the line drawn for a president to reserve powers they are not given outright? If the mission had failed, it would have been an enormous breach of protocol. If the president has the power to mandate certain reforms with absolutely no input from the people, where does it end? What power surges will follow? A serious reality check needs to take place in Washington in order for the Constitution to regain the recognition it deserves, rather than the undermining it is receiving.
Maggie Senft Schlesinger argues in his publication, “The Imperial Presidency,” that the Presidents have gained a tremendous amount of power over the country. He states that a President becomes imperial when they exceed the Constitutional limits. The powers of each President have increased greatly in the recent years, however I do not feel that they have not been imperial. As Schlesinger stated, it is important for the President to be at the forefront of all government affairs in order for the government to be effective. The President must have a great amount of leadership in the area of foreign affairs in order for our country to be protected from attacks. Many wars such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam were all fostered by the corresponding Presidents. In addition, President Obama had started the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. If he did not have power over others in the government, this decision would have taken a great amount of time to make by getting approved by Congress and thus would not have been successful. The roles of the President have changed over time, but they have changed in order to keep up with our ever-changing society. With technology increasing, we need a President who has the power to make important decisions in a quick amount of time without being undermined by others.
In Schlesinger’s piece, he argues that the President’s powers have reached an Imperial level. But, I believe that this is not so. While it is undeniable that since FDR the powers of the executive office have significantly increased, I do not believe that these powers are anywhere close to exceeding their Constitutional bounds. In fact, it is quite arguable that the powers of Congress have increased alongside the powers of the executive office, in an attempt to “check” the powers of the President and the executive branch. Back in the day, there was no way for the Founding Fathers to know any of the challenges that the Presidents of the future would face. Nuclear war, terrorism, environmental catastrophes, and civil rights came onto the table way after the Constitution was written. Additionally, while many presidents over the years have asked Congress for amazing power (especially in the role of Commander in Chief), there are always countless things holding them back. For example, in the modern day, there are new polls taken every hour. The president always has public opinion to consider when making any extreme decisions. Additionally, friendly foreign diplomacy is more important now than ever before, what with the possibility of an annihilating war. While the President does act as the figurehead of the nation and does posses much more power in the present than the past, he is not the sole person controlling what goes down in America.
Schlesinger discusses in The Imperial Presidency that the constitutional balance is shifting, and could eventually become out of control. The power of the US President as increased immensely in recent years and Schlesinger makes a good point that the area of forign policy is what is giving the president this surge in control. He reffers to the decision to go to war as "the most vital of national decisions." Although the United States has not officially declared war many times, the President as abused his privledges in many aspects of this area. Commander In Chief is a massive role for one person to be in charge of, especially a person that in my mind already has pleanty on his (or maybe in the future, her) plate. The way Obama dealt with the recent Libya conflict represents an abuse in this power. Although the conflict was handled and ended in the dealth of Quaddafi, Obama did not consult congress before engaging in this conflict and at the end of the 60 days where he was required to consult congress and ask to recieve an extension, he argued that this conflict did not apply to the War Powers Act so therefor he did not have to follow the appropriate procedue. I'd say that his explanation and refusal to consult congress represents a huge exercising of Presidential power. And nothing has been done in consequence to this. Another interesting point is that "Every president reconstructs his presidency to meet his psychological needs." While reading, this caught my attention. It is rediculous that presidents such as Nixon used federal money to satisy their own redicuous "needs." I'm sure Obama has abused that power as well. For example, watching that video a while back on Obama going to Five Guys for lunch. The entire secret service, which our taxes pay for, and hundreds of precautions had to be taken place for that outing to occur, when in reality someone could have simply just went out and got the food for him. As stupid as this example may sound, its still true. Another thing is Schleshinger's last point. "The longer the secrecy system dominated the government, the more government assumed the right to lie..." Personally, I think that the government sould be as truthful as possible with people. I understand there are cases where this is impossible and secrecy is necessary, but lately it is coming to the point where it could possibly be out of control. For example, Nixon's watergate scandal. But still, lieing to the people is a huge exercise of power. It is, in other words, the government hiding things from the people. Afterall, we all watch TV shows and movies where the government lies at press conferences about "unfortunate training exercises" or some other thing similar to that. If you think about it, what do we really know for sure that the government is telling us that is true and what is just what they want us to know? It is scary in a world like today that we have to consider those things.
In The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. He says that the President becomes too “imperial” when he starts to exceed the limits set forth by the Constitution. I agree with the claim that the amount of power held by the President has greatly expanded over recent years, and that this is a negative thing. I believe that recent administrations have bolstered the arguments made in The Imperial Presidency. I think a major event that exemplifies this claim was the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. I’m not saying Obama was wrong in doing this, but I think it went against the so-called “principles” of our nation that the Founding Fathers established through the Constitution. I definitely think the President has too much executive power and it should be limited.
In “The Imperial Presidency,” Arthur Schlesinger presents the convincing case that trends in American history have proved the executive branch to have gained an excessive amount of power. Schlesinger gives clear cut examples of U.S presidents who he is convinced, in their time in office had crossed the line of intended powers given to them as the leaders of our nation. However, are Schlesinger’s examples strong enough to convince a reader that the current powers of the President are indeed unacceptably unrestricted? Personally, I think that Schlesinger’s declaration is an overstatement. Although he does include some reasonable examples to show that the President’s powers have increased over time, I do not believe these examples are strong enough to say that the President is beyond his constitutional rights. Schlesinger presents a compelling and agreeable case that the “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak and the power to lie”. This idea directly relates to the Nixon administration and his corrupt use of power through the Watergate Scandal, in which he attempted to cover up his administration’s involvement. Using his political position, Nixon took advantage of his power, directly supporting Schlesinger’s claim. However, to rebuke that claim, the Watergate scandal undoubtedly contributed to Nixon’s resignation due to imminent impeachment. Therefore despite Nixon’s use of excessive power, it is obvious that that use of power led to a large scale decline in his public support. This sends a message to any President that the American public will not stand for and allow for a misuse of power. Regardless of the secrecy of the Nixon administration, I don’t feel that there has been an unreasonable amount of information kept from the American public since, however of course no one would know but the insiders. Another example presented is the “imperialistic” presidency of FDR in which the legislative branch’s power was incomparable to the executive branch with the passing of the New Deal. Added to this example was the Iraq war and deployment of troops during the Bush administration without the authorization of Congress, a direct violation to the War Powers Act. However, at that time there was incredible support from the passionate American citizens after 9/11. Although these cases all prove somewhat imperial uses of power through the presidency I don’t feel that we are at the point where the President is a sole decisive factor behind what happens in our country. If that were the case, we would be led by a dictator and we are certainly not at that point and I strongly doubt the presidency will ever be that powerful. Therefore I do think Schlesinger has some effective arguments but I am still not completely on his side.
Arthur Schlesinger puts forth a great argument in his piece, "The Imperial Presidency". He essentially makes the claim that the president assumes an excessive amount of power. He continues to say that the president is over stepping his boundaries and going outside the limits that were set by the Constitution. For the most part, I would have to agree. Throughout our nations history we have seen examples of this, whether they were for the good or for the bad. The Founding Fathers did not intend for this to be an issue. The Constitution established the three branches in hopes to keep some sense of stability and fairness. The idea of checks and balances is intended to keep any branch from overpowering the others. Principles like these were initially established to protect our nation from turning into a monarchy, the form of government they desperately broke away from. Today the President does assume a great amount of power, which can be scary at times. Our Constitution keeps our nation in check, and has successfully prevented a dictator from taking over. This is why it's imperative that we follow the principles that are outlined in the document. The President has enough power as it is, which is clearly outlined in the Constitution itself. He should assume no more, or no less then what is written. Schlesinger put together a rather convincing argument in my opinion. He makes a legitimate claim which we all should acknowledge.
Arthur Schlesinger truly demonstrates the expanded power of the President within the past decade. From FDR on, the President's power has greatly exceed that that was granted by the constitution, and this argument serves as a great reminder of that. I do believe, however, that this excessive power is justified. There are still checks and balances that limit the power of the President, but this power was granted by congress. This is evident in the cases of FDR and LBJ asking for the ability to go to war (or invading in LBJ's case) and this request being granted. In addition, I believe that the current system has the perfect balance. If the President was to get more power, the government would begin to look more and more like a monarchy. Likewise, I do not believe that congress should increase in power either, as it would make the president obsolete (and we all know how effective Congress is with more power). Arthur Schlesinger presents a very interesting point, and it is definitely a key issue in the United States in the future.
"The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger delineates the idea that the President has a great amount of power--perhaps too much power. Although he puts forth commendable examples, such as FDR's New Deal, my philosophy as of now is that this expansion of executive power has not been all that detrimental to society. In the past it has become evident that certain decisions made by the President were not intelligent decisions, however I feel that the executive branch has only allowed itself to expand a reasonable amount at a fairly reasonable pace. A stellar example of a claim that might refute my own, is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. President Johnson, through extremely vague language, expressed to the United States that US boats were attacked in neutral waters approximately 30 miles away from the coast of North Vietnam. Before even consulting Congress on a declaration of war or anything along those lines, Johnson immediately sent a reasonably large group of military personnel to the coast of North Vietnam. According the law, the President is required to request Congress's permission to send troops abroad, which Lyndon B. Johnson neglected to do. However, we view Johnson's ignorance for the law as a failure simply because the Vietnam War was a military failure for the United States. Had we won in Vietnam, I have no doubts that Johnson would be considered a hero for basically "following his gut." President Barack Obama did something similar with the capture of Osama Bin Laden. He never consulted Congress before sending troops to capture the infamous terrorist, but we don't particularly care, because we caught him! I'm sure his actions would have been perceived differently if the capture turned out to be an abominable failure that resulted in a loss of American soldiers.
Jesse Eddy Schlesinger shows the executive power in the United States and how much it is really expanding. As the years pass the Presidents seem to find a way to expand there power more and more and at this point the president has more power than they should based on the constitution depending on how you interpret it. The presidential power can not continue to grow but should rather remain where it is because this point the executive legislative and judicial branches have the correct checks in balances but if the presidential power continues to expand then the checks and balances would not longer be there. This expanded power has been used by all the presidents since FDR and most recently by president Obama. Obama used his expanded power to commit America's troops to the mission in Libya. This expanded power is definitely necessary because nothing would be done when they needed to be done in dire situations if the problems like this had to go through Congress. Congress is just too slow for some powers to be able to only pass through them, but the presidential power can not continue to grow because that would bring America to far from what the founding fathers envisioned when they began our country.
In "The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger, the presidents power is put into the spotlight. Over the somewhat recent years the President and executive branch have gained a substantial amount of power. While acknowledging that the President's power is mostly balanced out by the power given to the Legislative Branch, Schlesinger highlights that the President has gone beyond what power has been designated to him and the executive branch by the Constitution. Recent presidents such as Bush and Obama have gone beyond their designated powers. Bush tested what he was able to do many times during his 8 years as President of the United States, the deploying of troops to Iraq without the consent of Congress is just one example of how Bush expanded his power as president. The Constitution explicitly states that Congress is to approve or deny whether war will be waged and the resources that will be made available. Obama waiting to inform Congress of the troops he sent in to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden is another example of how the presidential power has increased in recent years. The checks and balances that were established in the Constitution are there for a reason, to ensure that the government of the United States is as well balanced as possible and to ensure that no one area of government is more powerful or stronger than another. If the president continues to make decisions on his own without being checked by Congress, then the Executive branch will only grow stronger and throw off the balance in Washington D.C. Much has changed in recent years, and while change is inevitable, the domination of the government of the United States by the president is not a change that can continue. The power given to the president through the constitution is just the right amount and should never be exceeded.
"The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger shows how over the years presidents have generated a great amount of executive power, and i feel this is not what the founding fathers had intended to happen. The Constitution has been over looked letting the presidents from FDR and on use powers that certainly was not granted. Although i do feel that the reasons some of these powers were used are justified, and the system still initiates checks and balances for this power being used from the congress to limit the presidential power to a certain point. However i do not believe that the congress should grow in power either or else this would make the president obsolete. I feel that Obama's action with in killing Osama Bin Ladan did breach over his presidential powers by only informing congress minutes after that he had used and in danger ed US forces to assassinate him. Although i do feel that Obama had a justifiable reason to do so. Never the less it does go against the principles and i feel that the presidential power should be limited.
The 1973 Schlesinger publication discusses imperial presidency as a role that has developed through the broad use of executive power over the years. Schlesinger discusses that Presidents have gained immense power primarily through foreign relations. Calling this power presidential supremacy, Schlesinger asserts that an imperial presidency is created when there is a lack of balance of power in the political system. For example, when the president sends troops overseas without the consent of congress first would violate the balance of power. Also, when the President takes immense power at home and creates many legislative programs, an imperial presidency may exist. As an example he cited FDR’s New Deal programs that subsequently turned the President into a legislator. Schlesinger believes that Nixon had the perfect example of an imperial presidency because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s power grew to such large proportions that he felt he could bypass the traditional ways of politics. I feel that President Bush’s administration is an example of the imperial presidency Schlesinger discusses. Bush sent troops into Iraq without a formal proclamation of war given by the consent of Congress. Obama’s recent action taken against Osama Bin Laden is another example of a president expanding his power. Obama did not notify Congress about the decision to take out Osama Bin Laden, however the case was extremely sensitive and notifying members of Congress might have jeopardized the situation. I do believe that Presidents sometimes overstep their boundaries but both the Obama and Bush administration have just reason for doing so. President Bush acted on the rush of 9/11 and was trying to send a message to America’s enemies when he increased efforts on the war against terror. The crisis of 9/11 gave Bush the power he needed to enter Iraq. Obama may also be known like FDR, as a legislative president. However Obama’s efforts were needed to deal with an economy that exploded into one of the biggest recessions this country has ever seen. Each Presidency has its own circumstances that need to be evaluated separately. While I do believe that Schlesinger was on to something when he first coined the term ‘imperial presidency’, I do not believe that such a general term can apply to different presidents who have all served in different times and circumstances.
Arnold Schlesinger, the author of “The Imperial Presidency,” claimed in his book that presidency in our country has significantly exceeded the ways of the Constitution. In the very beginning, Schlesinger says that Nixon was an imperialist because of the Watergate scandal and in general, his controversial terms in office, which I definitely agree with. During Watergate, Nixon was discovered to have had hidden recorders in his office which held footage of conversations he had with other officials. All this time, Nixon had been trying to cover up the break-in of burglars that were related to a fund that would help reelect presidents. Nixon was most definitely an imperialist for his actions in office; he went beyond what the Constitution had loyally stated and betrayed the country. In general though, many presidents before Nixon and after him have an overwhelming amount of power. Schlesinger also talks about secrecy, stating, “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie…” According to this, it seems a president can be an imperialist even if he is a man of few words. Withholding information from the country, what our government commonly does today, is one of the highest peaks of this imperialism idea simply because they know it and the common population does not. And not even that, but we are told we cannot know under any circumstances. A common example would be the idea/theory that the government listens to our phone calls and reads our emails. Given that this is true, the government and the president has way too much power in their hands. In this case, that is a violation of privacy. Nothing is being said, yet there is so much power and control in the situation. According to the article, Eisenhower’s administration was hiding CIA operations that were against various governments around the world. So many events happened afterwards because of this secrecy, which only harmed our country. “The Imperial Presidency” brought many viewpoints to the surface; it most certainly proved that US presidency is slightly damaged because of the overwhelming power that has been taken on by presidents in the past. This theory of imperialism has an effect on our current society and the future presidents to come.
The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. Through the use of examples of presidents in the past using the executive branch to surpass the checks and balance system, although a stretch, he is convincing enough to have one believe that the president’s office is expanding to the point where our government was never meant to be at. With the legislative branch and judiciary branch remaining in the same amount of authority, the president’s office must too remain the same size as all the others in order for our great system of checks and balances to be effective. However, Schlesinger also brings up a great argument that the executive branch is certainly necessary in many and all aspects of our government to work correctly. This is indeed perceived as needed in examples Schlesinger demonstrates such as foreign affairs. However, we cannot lose sight of how the executive branch as meant to serve as our founding fathers had intended to keep us protected from a strong central government. As long as we have presidents in office who continue to push the boundaries of their office, we need to have the other branches of the federal government keep them in line.
Eric Price In Arthur Schlesinger's "the Imperial Presidency," the main points are taken that the executive power in the United State's Government has been and will continue to expand. The argument is that all the presidents since FDR was in office has used powers outside of what is granted in the U.S. Constitution. One strong point Arthur makes is that presidents have appointed staff members that were personally affiliated with the person in office. Another thing he pointed out was powers obtained when foreign affairs were involved. FDR really used these expanded powers during World War 2 and with his new deal. FDR declared the nation in a state of emergency which let him take control of things like production, communication, and commodities. Even in recent years, President Obama has sent troops to Libya and acted on the affairs in Africa. It is very true that the powers of the president are expanding with the current threats with Iran. But, these expanded powers can really help the country in a way, or at least ease the process of certain foreign affairs. If congress were to take votes on every bit of issue that needed an important decision then not a whole lot would be accomplished. Especially with war and conflict involving other nations. Congress would certainly stale a lot of matters due to disagreements between parties. So, if the president can make a quick decision that would potential offer benefits than it is within his jurisdiction to do so.
In “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the course of years. He argues that the President becomes imperial when they exceed the Constitutional limits. The imperial presidency, born in the 1940s and 50s intentions were to save the country from ruin. The broadened executive powers were expressed primarily through foreign affairs. Schlesinger makes a point of FDR’s imperial presidency beginning with his New Deal policy. He broadened his scope of powers and made government funded services available to the public. FDR used his executive powers to revive the country’s failing economy. Schlesinger also applauds John F. Kennedy’s action during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy took matters into his own hands with the short time he had. There was not enough time to wait for Congress as they debated amongst themselves. The missile crisis demonstrated the pressures of threat, secrecy, and time put on the decision making process. Kennedy demonstrated that it is the President’s job to make the final decisions of war and peace. President Obama also is an example of successful imperial presidency. He stated his mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. He took matters into his own hands into moving the mission along and eventually reach success. The executive branch of the government should be able to make important decisions in a short amount of time without being cut short by Congress.
In his publication, “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger discusses his view of the executive branch in the United States government. According to him, the executive branch has been expanding in power since FDR took office and instituted his New Deal. In this particular situation, I do believe the president had too much power; the President, in this case FDR, held a significant amount of power over the Supreme Court during the process of passing his legislation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court represents the Constitution, which is the supreme law of our nation, and should take precedence over any body of power in government, including the President. Our founding fathers envisioned a nation governed under the Constitution, and that is how it should be. Once the executive branch exceeds the limitations of the Constitution, it has gone too far. Therefore, in regards to staying loyal to the Constitution, I agree with Schlesinger’s claims. On the other hand, there are several instances in which the expansion of power in the executive branch has been the cause of extremely good things for our nation. For instance, last year, President Obama, without the consent of Congress, sent out a special mission to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden. If Congress had been involved in making this decision, it may not have ever been launched or at least as successful as it was. But, because Obama was able to make the decision on his own, a major terrorist was captured and killed with no blood shed from American forces. Therefore, although the expansion of executive powers goes against the intentions of our founding fathers, in some situations it is the most practical solution.
Jeffrey Lee P8 In Schlesinger’s The Imperial Presidency he takes about the powers of the president and how they could theoretically become a supreme power, which has unimaginable power. He states that over the years the president has gained too much power, for example, Roosevelt’s new deal. However, I do not believe this is true. Congress can still veto his decisions and there are still checks and balances. The president’s power has been on the rise since FDR’s term but it has not necessarily risen to “imperial status”. Yes there has been an increase, for example Obama’s call to capture Osama, which lead to the assassination of Bin Laden. But this power is necessary because the president’s job needs to have lots of executive power which at any time can change the world for the better or the worse. The power of the president has also been growing since the terms of FDR and Johnson by the increase of troops sent to foreign countries such as Libya. The power of the president is growing and this is evident but I belie that it has and never will gain Imperial Status.
Schlesinger's arguments in The Imperial Presidency are very well argued, and I believe he has a fair point. The president has often gone beyond what the Constitution allowed. However, so far, most of the presidents' excursions outside what the Constitution allows have been for the benefit of the country, so the legislative and judicial branches see no reason to take his power away. The issues will start the day a corrupt president takes office, because the people will assume that because the presidents' past actions have been for the general welfare, this president's actions will also. The president is, fortunately, acting for the good of the people most of the time. For example, even though Lincoln did suspend writ of habeas corpus, he ended up winning the war and re uniting the nation.
In addition, the legislative branch is too dysfunctional to make decisions in time. The theoretical situation where Israel tells us that they are bombing Iran is one where the intervention of Congress will be foolish, because there is no way Congress will be able to make a decision in time. The US will also lose the element of surprise, because telling Congress is pretty much the same thing as telling the tv channels, since so many people will have heard the secret. While it is very important to make sure no one group gets too much power, the role of the president, in the present day, at least, is to be a figure head for the nation. A president that relies on Congress for everything will not be seen as a powerful leader.
The president is also not the only who has stepped outside his limits. Even though he's stepped the furthest, Congress is not free of guilt. For example, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about free health care for all, even though there was primitive health care available. This shows that we must interpret the Constitution liberally, or we'll still be bogged down in 18th century America. Interpreting the Constitution liberally means that the President does get more power, because his role, just like Congress' and the Supreme Courts (although they've barely changed) must change with the times.
In “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. He believes that the U.S. Presidency is out of control, and that the power of the executive branch has exceeded the constitutional limit. He presents his argument by following the past few administrations through time to show how they have overstepped their boundaries. However, I don’t believe that the President’s power as researched an imperial amount. Yes, the recent Presidents have had powers the Founding Fathers would never have imagined, however, I believe that the Presidents acted accordingly to the situation at hand. Like Schlesinger mentioned, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and Harry Truman have all expanded their powers and used it appropriately. Although there have been cases such as Nixon with Watergate, our current President Obama has not expanded his power to a dangerous “imperial” level. The power of the Veto has proven to be quite powerful, seeing that overriding a Presidential veto would require a majority vote by both houses. However, given our current Congress, if the President does not want something to be passed, it has a very slight chance in getting passed. In addition, it is important for the President to establish a great amount of leadership when it comes to foreign affairs. Obama has managed to kill Osama bin Laden. If he did not have the power to act upon the mission right away, it would be unsuccessful considering the amount of time Congress approves anything. Although the Presidents have expanded their powers, they are always being “checked” by the different branches of the government and the press. The President acts as the leader of the nation and have expanded their powers, however, he is not the “monarch” controlling the entire nation.
In the article "The Imperial Presidency" the author Arthur Schlesinger discuss the idea that the President has a great amount of power and maybe even a little too much power. Each year the Presidents power is expanded and each year they become more and more powerful through the executive branch. It is evident that in the past some decisions that were made by the President were the smartest or well thought out, which makes me feel that the Presidents power should stay at a stand still because as of right now the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all have the correct “checks and balances” and if his power were going to expand that would throw them off. For example, according to Schlesinger, the executive branch has in fact been expanding in power since FDR took office and since he instituted his New Deal. The President (FDR), in this particular case held a large amount of power, that of a substantial difference, over the Supreme Courts power during the time in which his legislation was being passed. I personally feel that in this situation, the president became too powerful. I feel that the Supreme Court is the representation of the Constitution and it governs over America as the supreme law of the land. I believe that in cases like this is should be above anything and everyone when dealing with the government, which includes the President. Another example this time dealing with President Barack Obama would be when he captured Osama Bin Laden. This for America is a huge stepping stone in our history due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and could have been a very large issue if something had backfired. Thank god for the Presidents sack that we captured him, however, if it were not this way it would have resulted in a n outburst from the American people and congress, due to the fact that he did not consult or tell anyone before doing this. Overall I feel that the President has too much power and that if the Presidents power does not lessen, then this individual will become too powerful, and no one person should have all the power.
The role of the president has largely increased over the years as the president is credited with major aspects of history, despite the fact that many of the decisions reached are in fact the work of the President's backing party. While the President's influence is a great part of legislation, there can be no doubt that there is an entire party that is backing him. The Imperial Presidency argues that the president has the power to declare war and has made the role of the presidency and President's power far greater than that of the original checks and balances system that was intended by the founding fathers. The right to declare war is officially held by congress, however the President on the other hand holds the power as head of the military to spend troops to areas without a declaration of ear. This was done by the president when in the 1960s there were 30,000 so called "advisors" in Vietnam. The role of the president has majorly increased, with Obama holding what seems to be a supreme amount of power. This is essentially what Schlesinger is arguing. While I agree that the role of President has become more and more powerful, it does in fact take an individual to figurehead an operation. The role of the president was first and foremost created for the entire country to have someone to look to as a person who is leading the nation. The presidents power is only a justification what it takes to lead a country such as the United States of America. The president will not simply gain more power until he is practically a king. It is just not possible, with the power of the supreme court and congress, the President will always and constantly be checked in his powers.
The 1973 Schlesinger publication discusses imperial presidency as a role that has developed through the broad use of executive power over the years. In Schlesinger’s piece, he argues that the President’s powers have reached an Imperial level primarily through foreign relations. Calling this power presidential supremacy, Schlesinger asserts that an imperial presidency is created when there is a lack of balance of power in the political system. He cited, as an example, FDR’s New Deal programs that subsequently turned the President into a legislator. Schlesinger believes that Nixon had the perfect example of an imperial presidency because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s power grew to such large proportions that he felt he could bypass the traditional ways of politics. I do not believe that such a general term can apply to different presidents who have all served in different times and circumstances. For example, President Bush may be considered an imperial president by Schlesinger because he sent troops into Iraq without a formal proclamation of war given by the consent of Congress. Obama’s recent action taken against Osama Bin Laden is another example of a president expanding his power. Obama did not notify Congress about the decision to take out Osama Bin Laden, however the case was extremely sensitive and notifying members of Congress might have jeopardized the situation. I do believe that Presidents sometimes overstep their boundaries but both the Obama and Bush administration have just reason for doing so. Each Presidency has its own circumstances that need to be evaluated separately.
Arthur Schlesinger argues in "The Imperial Presidency" that the role of the president is becoming increasingly imperial over democratic. He cites many modern presidents as proof of their overstepping their traditional boundaries. It is certainly true that since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in particular, the role of the executive branch has increased, probably to more than the Framers had imagined. Whether each president was as autocratic and ambitious as they have been implied to be, however, is less agreeable. Foreign relations in general were not especially planned for by the founders, who favored isolationism (as Ron Paul will tell you) and thought that America dealt best when it kept to itself. While I agree with an original interpretation of the constitution, even I cannot deny that the world we live in has changed dramatically from the world of the founders. In an increasing global society, threats of instability, nuclear power, and other dangers abroad will affect America more than ever; in modern times, other countries' problems can very quickly become American problems. Recent presidents that Schlesinger mentions, George Bush and Barack Obama in particular, are criticized for sending troops across borders, but these presidents have dealt with a whole new kind of society where such actions can be justified as prudent, and moreover demanded swift action that Congress could never provide. On the homefront, however, I believe Schlesinger more. FDR's social programs and Nixon's Watergate scandal are central to Schlesinger's thesis that the role of the president is being overstepped, and I agree with that assessment. The president should never take the role of legislator; the federal government was carefully crafted to avoid a marriage of branches when it could be avoided. Overall, while Schlesinger may be exaggerating some claims, and while some changes must be made for modern society, the statement that presidential power has increased to the point of going too far is one with which few people could disagree.
The argument put forth by Schlesinger is that the power of the president has grown an immense amount. The decisions made by the president are mainly to back his party. The president has taken a huge role in the legislative branch. He lobbies members of Congress. He uses hi bully pulpit to influence legislation. For example, President Obama told the American people to contact their representatives to vote yes on increasing the debt ceiling back in June. The president has also declared war in the past indirectly even though that is in the hands of Congress. They have sent troops to South Korea and Vietnam without Congress passing a Declaration of Independence. President Obama has been able to increase his power by playing a figure headrole and using his accomplishments to his advantage. Another good example is FDR and the New Deal. He expanded the presidency power by making Congress give him authority to pass legislation. The power of the Presidency has expanded a lot overtime. This goes against what our founding fathers envisioned. No one person should have that much power. Kayleigh Torok
Courtney McQuade Schleshinger believes that the power of the U.S. president, in terms of legislation, has become too high, higher than out forefathers had planned. Many cite Franklin D. Roosevelt as the first president to exemplify the overage of power possessed by a president. In fact, his presidency was the one to cause the 22nd ammendment to be added to the Constitution, saying that a president cannot serve more than 2 complete terms (plus finish out the term of the previous president had they come into office through the death of their predecessor). FDR demonstrated enormous power as president of the Unites States especially through his New Deal programs. FDR happened to be president during 2 major crises, the Great Depression and World War II. He was the first president to demonstrate that the office of the president may possess too much power. Since then there have been several issues that have caused the same concern of an "imperial presidency", including the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave Lyndon Johnson the authority to command acts of war to protect U.S. interests in Vietnam without actually declaring war. At the time, this resolution was very highly approved by congress and the American public, as were the actions of Franklin Roosevelt. In hindsight however, we can see much more clearly. We now know that the president of the United States should not possess that much power, this is the exact reason why we have a congress, and a separate legislative branch, and a separate judicial branch as well, to make sure that the executive branch doesn't take over.
Alfred Kroqi In "Imperial Presidency" Schleshinger argues the idea that the United States President has obtained too much power over the years. Nowadays, the President is like the captain of a team instead of the caretaker of a country. He backs his parties interests instead of the interests of the country. This leads to ineffective legislation being past. The President also lobbies other members of congress to vote for measure his party and/or he approve of. Because of his tremendous influence these pieces of legislation are usually passed. The power to veto bills is a big power for the President. It gives him the power to check congress. Congress can still pass a vetoed bill with a two thirds majority vote but this is extremely difficult to do. Therefore, the President's power is somewhat too great. The system of checks and balances does work but in recent times it has seemed as if the executive branch has gained power over the other two branches. This needs to be revisited. This is a land of democracy and the President has become imperialistic.
Taylor Frazier Period 8 -In Schlesinger’s piece, “The Imperial Presidency”, he argues that the Power of the President have reached an Imperial level. He poses a convincing argument on how the President has been able to get around the checks and balances systems however, I disagree. It is obvious that in recent years, the president has gained an extreme amount of power but I do not believe that it has exceeded its constitutional boundaries. The President’s power is limited by congress through systems such as checks and balances and their power to veto. I agree that the Presidents power has grows since FDR’s presidency and that it is likely to continue to increase in the upcoming years but i think it is hardly imperial and that it will never revert to that of a monarchy.
42 comments:
In 1973 Schlesinger asserted that the position of presidency has changed from one of “presidential primacy” to “presidential supremacy”. He tracked the development of this imperialism, declaring Nixon the ultimate imperialist. Schlesinger argues that this role of the president as an imperialist is the result of foreign relations - the presidents ability to declare war and military offenses. He believes that this ability has allowed the “imperial president” to overwhelm and overshadow the traditional set of checks and balances. Schlesinger also attributes the rise of the imperial president to the decline in the traditional party system. It is a clear trend within the past half century that there is a lack of cohesiveness and strong commitment to particular parties. Since the 1970s there has been a significant amount of ticket splitting and lack of constancy in party members. As a result, the president has risen out of this dis-alignment as the one strong and decisive political choice to serve as a figurehead for the American people to look to as a source of shaping policy and the undertones of the nation. Schlesinger also believes that the Keynesian revelation put the president in charge of the economy, and nuclear conflict showed the necessity for final and universal presidential decision making. Compounding this is increasing secrecy in government activities, which limits public knowledge and gives the president more free reign to do what he thinks is best for the country.
In general I am in agreement with Schlesinger’s theory. As we have learned in class, the president has numerous essential roles that make him a larger than life figure, who carries the weight of America’s hopes, dreams, future, and failures upon his shoulders. His argument that is most valid is that the presidents role has enlarged because of the decline of the importance of political parties. Before it was all about party loyalty and the president representing the interests of the party. This is clearly no longer the case, with presidents taking actions that do not align with their party at all. The argument that this imperialism has come about because of foreign relations is a bit shaky, only because we have been involved in foreign conflicts since the birth of the nation, where the president has been attributed with the credit for its success or failure.
Presidents Bush and Obama have exemplified how foreign affairs have made them “imperial presidents”. Bush is the name associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The general American public believes it was all Bush’s idea to go in and find WMD and to hunt down Al Qaeda. Obama is given credit for the capture and kill of Osama Bin Laden and pulling the troops out of Iraq, because it is portrayed that his leadership and decision making led to this outcome. However, in both cases these are merely perceptions of the American people that Bush and Obama are such imperialists. It was the Bush administration that laid the ground work for pulling out troops and finding bin Laden. Furthermore, it most likely wasn’t Bush’s sole decision to start the war on terror. These examples show that modern presidents certainly fit Schlesinger’s argument for what the president has evolved to, but in more of a sense that they fulfill that image for the American people, without actually being responsible for what is happening with the country. Americans blame Obama for the economic slump and say they do not want to reelect him because of this. This argument is nonsense because it is not all his fault and he has clearly done as much as he can. Schlesinger argues that presidents have become someone authoritarian leaders of America by making final decisions and affecting the outcome of events for America. While this held in the earlier part of the second half of the century, it has transitioned now to the fact that Americans believe that the president is an imperialist, when in fact there is a lot more behind it that is not solely up to the president.
The phase of Imperial Presidency describes presidential administrations that have speckled the latter half of the 20th century and start of the 21st century. Presidential powers have indeed significantly increased since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s terms as president. FDR used the increase in power to fuel a successful war against malicious forces in Europe and Asia and rebuilt a failing America. Meanwhile Lyndon B. Johnson expanded the influences of an Imperial Presidency to new limits, calling for an invasion, but not a war per se, against a country on the brink of a communist government. The reason behind the decisions to expand presidential powers is unique with each President. Critics cannot condense decades worth of presidential decisions according to whether they were determined with benevolence or vindictive reasons. The influence of a president has not only been used to create harmful results. Such as Kennedy’s performance with decreasing America’s tense relationship with Cuba as Schlesinger mentioned in his 1973 publication. President Obama has not extended the powers as much as President Bush had done with the invasion of Iraq as a preemptive attack. The activity of recent Administrations have both bolstered and undermined Arthur Schlesinger’s arguments. In terms of military-related Imperial Presidential powers, President Obama handled the assassination of Osama bin Laden with secrecy and the extension of power needed to guarantee success of the mission. There are certain actions that a President should not take such as Nixon’s decision to use government finances to decorate his properties. The extension of power for the president seems to be an inevitable step in the American government given the stagnation in the current Congress. The Executive branch of the government should be allowed to have certain abilities to make decisions on their own without consulting Congress which would most likely curtail process.
In “The Imperial Presidency,” Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. Starting simply as a main figure in the Executive branch, the President has become a huge part of the government that this author believes may have the most influence over any other branch.
Recently, it does seem that Schlesinger’s arguments are supported by the past few administrations. Presidents have grown to have many powers in order to check on the other branches of government. Using the veto has proven to be hugely significant since an override of a Presidential veto takes a majority vote by both houses of Congress. This is extremely difficult to achieve. Hence, if a President does not want a bill to be passed, it can be vetoed and there is very little chance that it will be passed.
Additionally, there are so many people that work in the Executive branch. Starting with the leaders of each department within the Cabinet, the President has so much power over these employees. He is also the leader of all military personnel, and has enormous influence in this sense.
The President is very well respected by people all over the world, and using his diplomatic abilities, he is able to create great relationships with other government that the other branches are not able to.
Finally, the President has great control over what happens with the economy as well as with legislation. There is no measure to the amount of authority that the President has, and it seems to be growing each year. Years ago when Schlesinger wrote his ideas in “The Imperial Presidency,” he was correct in his thinking. Today, the President of the United States continues to be an extremely strong figure.
Schlesinger wrote the Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the U.S. Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits. A presidency becomes imperial when it relies on powers beyond those allowed by the Constitution. Schlesinger credits an increase in the Imperial Presidency to a decline in the traditional party system. Loyalty to a particular party has become a rarity in America. The president as a result has risen to the throne of America to take control and create policy as well as the national mood. In recent years, the Imperial Presidency continues to thrive through Presidents such as Bush and Obama. This power was displayed in foreign affairs when Bush first invaded Iraq. Bush argued that he did not need congressional approval to invade Iraq. However, it is a Congressional power to approve such a resolution. During America’s presence in the Middle East, Congress voted on numerous measures regarding the Iraq War, including appropriations measures, attempts to redeploy and remove U.S. troops from Iraq, and resolutions opposing President Bush’s decision to escalate the conflict. However, Bush ignored opponents of the conflict, therefore unconstitutionally increasing his powers as Chief Executive. In a way, Obama is also doing what George W. Bush did in the national security sphere by using a crisis to expand presidential authority. Amid the recession and financial meltdown, Obama is moving to increase and exert his peacetime powers through programs such as Obama Care. Measures that both President Bush took and Obama continues to take have resulted in a more muscular Presidency. However, the U.S. government was built upon a three-branch system of checks and balances that need to continue to function justly. The Presidential power needs to be harnessed back into guidelines originally set by the Constitution to cease Imperial Presidency from existing.
hi tom
Schlesinger presents convincing evidence in “The Imperial Presidency” of the trend of presidents to overstep their boundaries.
However, one must examine the results of Schlesinger’s supposed transgressions. When Schlesinger was discussing Polk, not enough time was spent on remembering that Polk wrested half of Mexico away from the Mexicans and added it to America: territory that America cannot imagine itself without today. When Lincoln was suspending Habeus Corpus and censoring newspapers, there was a true state of emergency in the nation. The unapproved Spanish American War was another victory parade for the United States, with significant side effects, yes, but significant gains as well. And McKinley’s role in the Boxer Rebellion was one of a united effort with a dozen other countries—comparable to modern day participation in United Nations activities.
Teddy Roosevelt may have overstepped some boundaries, but in the end his face ended up in Mount Rushmore. Another example of how the ends justified the means. Coolidge will forever be remembered by his lack of regulation of the economy and American corporations, not for sending less than 6000 troops to a Central American country I can hardly spell—and that you will most likely need to Google. World War II went far, far beyond the scope of America’s executive branch overstepping its boundaries. To discuss World War II and focus on criticizing Roosevelt for doing too much is akin to discussing the Great Wall of China and focusing on criticizing Imperial Construction Manager Number 12 for giving himself too much pay: It’s a moot point.
The book goes on and on, but what I was left with was this: if the president is not stepping up to the plate, then who will? Congress? If I had to choose between having the President overstepping his boundaries or letting Congress pull itself together and attempt to accomplish something tangible, I would pick the President without hesitation. Individuals are needed to lead a nation to glory and success, not a flock of bickering sheep. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang, and George Washington will live on in history, alongside their empires. As for the Diet of worms, Perisan Absolutism, Han Fei bureaucracy, and the United States Congress…. in the long run they are irrelevant.
also this is Dan Chen, the period 6 one
In his writing on The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger follows the history of the presidency and overall shows concern that the presidency is out of control and that it had exceeded constitutional limits. An “imperial President” is one who relies on powers that lie beyond those of the Constitution. He exemplifies a few presidents for expanding their power appropriately; more specifically Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F Kennedy. With Roosevelt’s New Deal, Schlesinger saw it as gaining extraordinary power in order to meet domestic needs and with World War II Harry Truman used the power to meet international problems. During the nuclear age of Kennedy, Schlesinger saw his use of power as it beautifully fulfilling both the romantic ideal of the strong president and the prophecy of a split-second presidential decision. However, he puts down Richard Nixon as one of the most imperial presidents in history. He called him out for displaying more monarchical yearnings than any of his predecessors. Nixon organized the executive branch and the white house in order to shield himself from direct question or challenge. Since the Nixon white house escaped the legal consequences of its behavior, Schlesinger warns every one of upcoming Presidents who could fall into the imperial President category.
He mentions in the beginning of the article that President Bush could fall into that category, but I disagree completely. How are the actions of President Bush any different from Roosevelt’s from World War II? The President has the power to declare war with the consent from Congress and that is what Bush did with the backing of the American public. After the attacks on the twin towers, all Americans were in favor of war to protect our freedom and show that we wouldn’t back down. It wasn’t President Bush’s decision alone and as Commander in Chief I don’t see how someone can say he didn’t have the power to declare a war on terror. If you want to call a recent President and Imperial one, it’s president obama. Where in the Constitution does it give him the right to socialize health care? He is turning this country into a socialist nation and not to mention he didn’t even say the oath of office correctly the first time! When a president messes up saying that he will protect the Constitution while in office, it’s a sure sign that he won’t. It was during his legislation that Congress wanted to limit people’s freedom of speech and knowledge with the SOPA bill and he brought our country way more into debt right in the beginning of his presidency. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the United States to be owned by China. He’s not even a president, he’s a celebrity.
Schlesinger argues in his piece The Imperial Presidency, that the role of the president is exceeding its intended limits. He follows our nations presidents through time to explain how they have crossed the line. I think that it is clear that powers have increased since FDR, but I don't necessarily think they at are at a dangerous or 'imperial' level.
He states that in the mid 1900s the president gained not only the power over "peace and war" but also over the "political scene". This implies an unconstitutional amount of power in which checks and balances are in a sense ignored. I can see this argument maybe with the power of the veto. Especially right now with President Obama not having the majority in Congress and working against constant opposition, he has a lot of power if he so chooses.
He writes, “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak and the power to lie”. Relating this to the Watergate scandal and the Nixon presidency in general, I do agree fully with his argument. Nixon totally crossed the line into a place of power too much for the president. He used the increasing power of the presidency to mask himself from the public and ultimately do wrong. But I think the Obama administration is very good about not allowing to much secrecy from the public.
Also Schlesinger also points out that since the mid 20th century, “the Presidency stood out in solitary majesty as the central focus of political emotion, the ever more potent symbol of national community”. I think this ‘expansion’ of power is totally necessary and not imperial at all. Especially at this point in time, with the economy where it is, and during Bush’s administration with 9/11 nothing is more important. America needs to have the cheerleader aspect of the presidency to remain confident.
I think that Schlesinger’s argument is a generalization and really depends on the individual president. A president can make a conscious or subconscious choice to be of the ranks of an imperial president, but I wouldn’t put all presidents since the mid 20th century into that category.
Arthur Schlesinger brings a good point in showing how the president has almost been imperial with it’s powers to withhold, leak, and lie and its power in foreign affairs. FDR was where the first surge of presidential power happened. This was seen through FDR’s New Deal where he took hold of his executive powers and made available all of the federal funded services to the public during the depression. Since FDR though presidential power has been on the decline. Congress has become more polar and stagnant due to partisan voting causing the president's legislative power to decrease. However executive power has found a way around this and has transferred itself through foreign affairs as seen with many of the military resolutions and conflicts in other countries. Examples of this include Vietnam, North Korean war, Libya, Iraq etc. Many of these are not declared wars but conflicts risen from national crises or executive discretion. However this is somewhat dampened by the War Powers Act to keep the president from becoming a warmonger. But such imperialistic power has now been used by the executive branch to assassinate American civilians in an effort to stop terrorism. One such case is the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Awlaki, however, was not a good man and in fact had connections to al-queda and was involved in propagating terrorist ideas and in planning terrorist attacks against the United States. In this case, Obama’s decision to take out Awlaki was a sound and just one for our national security. However if the executive branch can kill Awlaki, a United States citizen, without trial or jury, does that stand for all other United States citizens? When even the fifth amendment states that “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”? Well if the United States were under the presidency of former senator Joseph McCarthy, then there might be a problem. But in all seriousness, no president should have ultimate power. That is why the founders created our country with checks and balances so that no one person or body would have ultimate power and decide on everything. Yet different administrations have used their executive power to withhold information, leak out what information they deem appropriate, and lie to the public about the truth. Such cases have been reflected in Vietnam, Watergate, Awlaki. Perhaps to limit or reform presidential power another bill or an amendment to the War Powers Act should be made regarding the president being given the power to perform whatever action is deemed necessary to fight a threat or opposing force.
Schlesinger presents a well reasoned convincing argument on what he dubs “The Imperial Presidency.”
The executive branch as a whole has changed greatly from the writing of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted to find a balance between empowering a strong leader and protecting themselves from monarchy. The recent history and overthrow of King George was something they wished and were determined to never let happen again. So far, with the introduction of the three branches and the checks and balances of power the country has avoided dictatorship. All however, is not rosy. Our government’s composition has changed significantly from the creation of the Constitution to our current centralized state. Today, the executive branch is the trunk of the governmental tree. Many, like Schlesinger say that it is necessary and needed in many situations to keep government effective to all. One area and example Schlesinger mentioned was the realm of foreign affairs. This is especially potent in our world today and is something our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen. The world is a more connected place than ever before. A common Spanish phrase used to describe how our world is getting smaller is the world used to be a handkerchief but now it is just an at sign. This says we used to have an idea of the world but communication was hard. Now the world is tiny and we can contact anyone anytime using technology. The president needs large amounts of executive privilege and power to truly represent the world we live in. He needs the ability to make quick decisions that have a true impact on the world. One shining example of this is Obama’s daring raid to capture Osama bin Laden. Obama made “getting Osama” a priority as he started his term. Without exceptional executive power bin Laden would be a free man today. This power however, is also used ineffectively as Kennedy demonstrated with the disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion. But as is common with both of these decisions ultimately the people of the country knew what was going on.
The examples above represent the need for secrecy but also the downside. The founders, however, created a fourth branch of government, the press. The press will continue to do their one and only job, to keep the government honest. So yes, presidents will continue to push to boundaries sometimes too far, like Nixon with Watergate. These transgressions however will eventually be discovered by the press and will force other presidents to toe the line. Fifty years is about right for the warning to fade but be certain the warning will always reappear and keep the presidency in its place, one of three branches.
Rachael Robitaille
Schlesinger’s argument in The Imperial Presidency that the U.S. President has gained vast amounts of power in the recent years, exceeding the Constitutional limits is extremely plausible, given that he presents the fact that there has been a decline in the traditional party system. To back up this theory, he argues that the party systems had lost all loyalty that they once possessed. I fundamentally agree with this viewpoint. Recently, especially proven in primaries, candidates rely less on party loyalty and more on their personal attributes that would qualify them as a president. He declares Nixon the ultimate imperialist, but I believe the first example of an imperial president was FDR, when he created a presidency in which the executive branch trumped the legislative branch, with his passing of the New Deal. His idea of an imperial president is also bolstered by the authorization of troops to Iraq by President Bush. According to the Constitution, Congress would have the authority to approve this movement of troops. However, nothing was done as a consequence; thus, this increased the power of the presidential position. While Bush’s assertions to deploy troops may have been justified, it states explicitly in the Constitution that it is not solely his decision. Despite this, I would regard President Obama as more of an imperial president than President Bush. A prime example to support this would be ObamaCare, which creates a socialist form of health care in which more power is placed in the hands of the executive branch. His expedition to assassinate Osama Bin Laden was justified in the end, but where is the line drawn for a president to reserve powers they are not given outright? If the mission had failed, it would have been an enormous breach of protocol. If the president has the power to mandate certain reforms with absolutely no input from the people, where does it end? What power surges will follow? A serious reality check needs to take place in Washington in order for the Constitution to regain the recognition it deserves, rather than the undermining it is receiving.
Maggie Senft
Schlesinger argues in his publication, “The Imperial Presidency,” that the Presidents have gained a tremendous amount of power over the country. He states that a President becomes imperial when they exceed the Constitutional limits.
The powers of each President have increased greatly in the recent years, however I do not feel that they have not been imperial. As Schlesinger stated, it is important for the President to be at the forefront of all government affairs in order for the government to be effective. The President must have a great amount of leadership in the area of foreign affairs in order for our country to be protected from attacks. Many wars such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam were all fostered by the corresponding Presidents. In addition, President Obama had started the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. If he did not have power over others in the government, this decision would have taken a great amount of time to make by getting approved by Congress and thus would not have been successful.
The roles of the President have changed over time, but they have changed in order to keep up with our ever-changing society. With technology increasing, we need a President who has the power to make important decisions in a quick amount of time without being undermined by others.
In Schlesinger’s piece, he argues that the President’s powers have reached an Imperial level. But, I believe that this is not so. While it is undeniable that since FDR the powers of the executive office have significantly increased, I do not believe that these powers are anywhere close to exceeding their Constitutional bounds. In fact, it is quite arguable that the powers of Congress have increased alongside the powers of the executive office, in an attempt to “check” the powers of the President and the executive branch. Back in the day, there was no way for the Founding Fathers to know any of the challenges that the Presidents of the future would face. Nuclear war, terrorism, environmental catastrophes, and civil rights came onto the table way after the Constitution was written. Additionally, while many presidents over the years have asked Congress for amazing power (especially in the role of Commander in Chief), there are always countless things holding them back. For example, in the modern day, there are new polls taken every hour. The president always has public opinion to consider when making any extreme decisions. Additionally, friendly foreign diplomacy is more important now than ever before, what with the possibility of an annihilating war. While the President does act as the figurehead of the nation and does posses much more power in the present than the past, he is not the sole person controlling what goes down in America.
Schlesinger discusses in The Imperial Presidency that the constitutional balance is shifting, and could eventually become out of control. The power of the US President as increased immensely in recent years and Schlesinger makes a good point that the area of forign policy is what is giving the president this surge in control. He reffers to the decision to go to war as
"the most vital of national decisions." Although the United States has not officially declared war many times, the President as abused his privledges in many aspects of this area. Commander In Chief is a massive role for one person to be in charge of, especially a person that in my mind already has pleanty on his (or maybe in the future, her) plate. The way Obama dealt with the recent Libya conflict represents an abuse in this power. Although the conflict was handled and ended in the dealth of Quaddafi, Obama did not consult congress before engaging in this conflict and at the end of the 60 days where he was required to consult congress and ask to recieve an extension, he argued that this conflict did not apply to the War Powers Act so therefor he did not have to follow the appropriate procedue. I'd say that his explanation and refusal to consult congress represents a huge exercising of Presidential power. And nothing has been done in consequence to this. Another interesting point is that "Every president reconstructs his presidency to meet his psychological needs." While reading, this caught my attention. It is rediculous that presidents such as Nixon used federal money to satisy their own redicuous "needs." I'm sure Obama has abused that power as well. For example, watching that video a while back on Obama going to Five Guys for lunch. The entire secret service, which our taxes pay for, and hundreds of precautions had to be taken place for that outing to occur, when in reality someone could have simply just went out and got the food for him. As stupid as this example may sound, its still true. Another thing is Schleshinger's last point. "The longer the secrecy system dominated the government, the more government assumed the right to lie..." Personally, I think that the government sould be as truthful as possible with people. I understand there are cases where this is impossible and secrecy is necessary, but lately it is coming to the point where it could possibly be out of control. For example, Nixon's watergate scandal. But still, lieing to the people is a huge exercise of power. It is, in other words, the government hiding things from the people. Afterall, we all watch TV shows and movies where the government lies at press conferences about "unfortunate training exercises" or some other thing similar to that. If you think about it, what do we really know for sure that the government is telling us that is true and what is just what they want us to know? It is scary in a world like today that we have to consider those things.
In The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. He says that the President becomes too “imperial” when he starts to exceed the limits set forth by the Constitution. I agree with the claim that the amount of power held by the President has greatly expanded over recent years, and that this is a negative thing.
I believe that recent administrations have bolstered the arguments made in The Imperial Presidency. I think a major event that exemplifies this claim was the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. I’m not saying Obama was wrong in doing this, but I think it went against the so-called “principles” of our nation that the Founding Fathers established through the Constitution. I definitely think the President has too much executive power and it should be limited.
Matt Mendonca Period 6
In “The Imperial Presidency,” Arthur Schlesinger presents the convincing case that trends in American history have proved the executive branch to have gained an excessive amount of power. Schlesinger gives clear cut examples of U.S presidents who he is convinced, in their time in office had crossed the line of intended powers given to them as the leaders of our nation. However, are Schlesinger’s examples strong enough to convince a reader that the current powers of the President are indeed unacceptably unrestricted? Personally, I think that Schlesinger’s declaration is an overstatement. Although he does include some reasonable examples to show that the President’s powers have increased over time, I do not believe these examples are strong enough to say that the President is beyond his constitutional rights.
Schlesinger presents a compelling and agreeable case that the “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak and the power to lie”. This idea directly relates to the Nixon administration and his corrupt use of power through the Watergate Scandal, in which he attempted to cover up his administration’s involvement. Using his political position, Nixon took advantage of his power, directly supporting Schlesinger’s claim. However, to rebuke that claim, the Watergate scandal undoubtedly contributed to Nixon’s resignation due to imminent impeachment. Therefore despite Nixon’s use of excessive power, it is obvious that that use of power led to a large scale decline in his public support. This sends a message to any President that the American public will not stand for and allow for a misuse of power. Regardless of the secrecy of the Nixon administration, I don’t feel that there has been an unreasonable amount of information kept from the American public since, however of course no one would know but the insiders.
Another example presented is the “imperialistic” presidency of FDR in which the legislative branch’s power was incomparable to the executive branch with the passing of the New Deal. Added to this example was the Iraq war and deployment of troops during the Bush administration without the authorization of Congress, a direct violation to the War Powers Act. However, at that time there was incredible support from the passionate American citizens after 9/11.
Although these cases all prove somewhat imperial uses of power through the presidency I don’t feel that we are at the point where the President is a sole decisive factor behind what happens in our country. If that were the case, we would be led by a dictator and we are certainly not at that point and I strongly doubt the presidency will ever be that powerful. Therefore I do think Schlesinger has some effective arguments but I am still not completely on his side.
Kaitlyn Gaudio
Arthur Schlesinger puts forth a great argument in his piece, "The Imperial Presidency". He essentially makes the claim that the president assumes an excessive amount of power. He continues to say that the president is over stepping his boundaries and going outside the limits that were set by the Constitution. For the most part, I would have to agree. Throughout our nations history we have seen examples of this, whether they were for the good or for the bad. The Founding Fathers did not intend for this to be an issue. The Constitution established the three branches in hopes to keep some sense of stability and fairness. The idea of checks and balances is intended to keep any branch from overpowering the others. Principles like these were initially established to protect our nation from turning into a monarchy, the form of government they desperately broke away from. Today the President does assume a great amount of power, which can be scary at times. Our Constitution keeps our nation in check, and has successfully prevented a dictator from taking over. This is why it's imperative that we follow the principles that are outlined in the document. The President has enough power as it is, which is clearly outlined in the Constitution itself. He should assume no more, or no less then what is written. Schlesinger put together a rather convincing argument in my opinion. He makes a legitimate claim which we all should acknowledge.
Arthur Schlesinger truly demonstrates the expanded power of the President within the past decade. From FDR on, the President's power has greatly exceed that that was granted by the constitution, and this argument serves as a great reminder of that. I do believe, however, that this excessive power is justified. There are still checks and balances that limit the power of the President, but this power was granted by congress. This is evident in the cases of FDR and LBJ asking for the ability to go to war (or invading in LBJ's case) and this request being granted. In addition, I believe that the current system has the perfect balance. If the President was to get more power, the government would begin to look more and more like a monarchy. Likewise, I do not believe that congress should increase in power either, as it would make the president obsolete (and we all know how effective Congress is with more power). Arthur Schlesinger presents a very interesting point, and it is definitely a key issue in the United States in the future.
"The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger delineates the idea that the President has a great amount of power--perhaps too much power. Although he puts forth commendable examples, such as FDR's New Deal, my philosophy as of now is that this expansion of executive power has not been all that detrimental to society. In the past it has become evident that certain decisions made by the President were not intelligent decisions, however I feel that the executive branch has only allowed itself to expand a reasonable amount at a fairly reasonable pace. A stellar example of a claim that might refute my own, is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. President Johnson, through extremely vague language, expressed to the United States that US boats were attacked in neutral waters approximately 30 miles away from the coast of North Vietnam. Before even consulting Congress on a declaration of war or anything along those lines, Johnson immediately sent a reasonably large group of military personnel to the coast of North Vietnam. According the law, the President is required to request Congress's permission to send troops abroad, which Lyndon B. Johnson neglected to do. However, we view Johnson's ignorance for the law as a failure simply because the Vietnam War was a military failure for the United States. Had we won in Vietnam, I have no doubts that Johnson would be considered a hero for basically "following his gut." President Barack Obama did something similar with the capture of Osama Bin Laden. He never consulted Congress before sending troops to capture the infamous terrorist, but we don't particularly care, because we caught him! I'm sure his actions would have been perceived differently if the capture turned out to be an abominable failure that resulted in a loss of American soldiers.
Jesse Eddy
Schlesinger shows the executive power in the United States and how much it is really expanding. As the years pass the Presidents seem to find a way to expand there power more and more and at this point the president has more power than they should based on the constitution depending on how you interpret it. The presidential power can not continue to grow but should rather remain where it is because this point the executive legislative and judicial branches have the correct checks in balances but if the presidential power continues to expand then the checks and balances would not longer be there. This expanded power has been used by all the presidents since FDR and most recently by president Obama. Obama used his expanded power to commit America's troops to the mission in Libya. This expanded power is definitely necessary because nothing would be done when they needed to be done in dire situations if the problems like this had to go through Congress. Congress is just too slow for some powers to be able to only pass through them, but the presidential power can not continue to grow because that would bring America to far from what the founding fathers envisioned when they began our country.
Miranda Scaramozza
Period 6
In "The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger, the presidents power is put into the spotlight. Over the somewhat recent years the President and executive branch have gained a substantial amount of power. While acknowledging that the President's power is mostly balanced out by the power given to the Legislative Branch, Schlesinger highlights that the President has gone beyond what power has been designated to him and the executive branch by the Constitution. Recent presidents such as Bush and Obama have gone beyond their designated powers. Bush tested what he was able to do many times during his 8 years as President of the United States, the deploying of troops to Iraq without the consent of Congress is just one example of how Bush expanded his power as president. The Constitution explicitly states that Congress is to approve or deny whether war will be waged and the resources that will be made available. Obama waiting to inform Congress of the troops he sent in to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden is another example of how the presidential power has increased in recent years. The checks and balances that were established in the Constitution are there for a reason, to ensure that the government of the United States is as well balanced as possible and to ensure that no one area of government is more powerful or stronger than another. If the president continues to make decisions on his own without being checked by Congress, then the Executive branch will only grow stronger and throw off the balance in Washington D.C. Much has changed in recent years, and while change is inevitable, the domination of the government of the United States by the president is not a change that can continue. The power given to the president through the constitution is just the right amount and should never be exceeded.
Pat Winiarski
Period 6
"The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger shows how over the years presidents have generated a great amount of executive power, and i feel this is not what the founding fathers had intended to happen. The Constitution has been over looked letting the presidents from FDR and on use powers that certainly was not granted. Although i do feel that the reasons some of these powers were used are justified, and the system still initiates checks and balances for this power being used from the congress to limit the presidential power to a certain point. However i do not believe that the congress should grow in power either or else this would make the president obsolete. I feel that Obama's action with in killing Osama Bin Ladan did breach over his presidential powers by only informing congress minutes after that he had used and in danger ed US forces to assassinate him. Although i do feel that Obama had a justifiable reason to do so. Never the less it does go against the principles and i feel that the presidential power should be limited.
The 1973 Schlesinger publication discusses imperial presidency as a role that has developed through the broad use of executive power over the years. Schlesinger discusses that Presidents have gained immense power primarily through foreign relations. Calling this power presidential supremacy, Schlesinger asserts that an imperial presidency is created when there is a lack of balance of power in the political system. For example, when the president sends troops overseas without the consent of congress first would violate the balance of power. Also, when the President takes immense power at home and creates many legislative programs, an imperial presidency may exist. As an example he cited FDR’s New Deal programs that subsequently turned the President into a legislator. Schlesinger believes that Nixon had the perfect example of an imperial presidency because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s power grew to such large proportions that he felt he could bypass the traditional ways of politics. I feel that President Bush’s administration is an example of the imperial presidency Schlesinger discusses. Bush sent troops into Iraq without a formal proclamation of war given by the consent of Congress. Obama’s recent action taken against Osama Bin Laden is another example of a president expanding his power. Obama did not notify Congress about the decision to take out Osama Bin Laden, however the case was extremely sensitive and notifying members of Congress might have jeopardized the situation. I do believe that Presidents sometimes overstep their boundaries but both the Obama and Bush administration have just reason for doing so. President Bush acted on the rush of 9/11 and was trying to send a message to America’s enemies when he increased efforts on the war against terror. The crisis of 9/11 gave Bush the power he needed to enter Iraq. Obama may also be known like FDR, as a legislative president. However Obama’s efforts were needed to deal with an economy that exploded into one of the biggest recessions this country has ever seen. Each Presidency has its own circumstances that need to be evaluated separately. While I do believe that Schlesinger was on to something when he first coined the term ‘imperial presidency’, I do not believe that such a general term can apply to different presidents who have all served in different times and circumstances.
Arnold Schlesinger, the author of “The Imperial Presidency,” claimed in his book that presidency in our country has significantly exceeded the ways of the Constitution. In the very beginning, Schlesinger says that Nixon was an imperialist because of the Watergate scandal and in general, his controversial terms in office, which I definitely agree with. During Watergate, Nixon was discovered to have had hidden recorders in his office which held footage of conversations he had with other officials. All this time, Nixon had been trying to cover up the break-in of burglars that were related to a fund that would help reelect presidents. Nixon was most definitely an imperialist for his actions in office; he went beyond what the Constitution had loyally stated and betrayed the country. In general though, many presidents before Nixon and after him have an overwhelming amount of power.
Schlesinger also talks about secrecy, stating, “Secrecy seemed to promise government three inestimable advantages: the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie…” According to this, it seems a president can be an imperialist even if he is a man of few words. Withholding information from the country, what our government commonly does today, is one of the highest peaks of this imperialism idea simply because they know it and the common population does not. And not even that, but we are told we cannot know under any circumstances. A common example would be the idea/theory that the government listens to our phone calls and reads our emails. Given that this is true, the government and the president has way too much power in their hands. In this case, that is a violation of privacy. Nothing is being said, yet there is so much power and control in the situation. According to the article, Eisenhower’s administration was hiding CIA operations that were against various governments around the world. So many events happened afterwards because of this secrecy, which only harmed our country.
“The Imperial Presidency” brought many viewpoints to the surface; it most certainly proved that US presidency is slightly damaged because of the overwhelming power that has been taken on by presidents in the past. This theory of imperialism has an effect on our current society and the future presidents to come.
The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. Through the use of examples of presidents in the past using the executive branch to surpass the checks and balance system, although a stretch, he is convincing enough to have one believe that the president’s office is expanding to the point where our government was never meant to be at. With the legislative branch and judiciary branch remaining in the same amount of authority, the president’s office must too remain the same size as all the others in order for our great system of checks and balances to be effective. However, Schlesinger also brings up a great argument that the executive branch is certainly necessary in many and all aspects of our government to work correctly. This is indeed perceived as needed in examples Schlesinger demonstrates such as foreign affairs. However, we cannot lose sight of how the executive branch as meant to serve as our founding fathers had intended to keep us protected from a strong central government. As long as we have presidents in office who continue to push the boundaries of their office, we need to have the other branches of the federal government keep them in line.
Eric Price
In Arthur Schlesinger's "the Imperial Presidency," the main points are taken that the executive power in the United State's Government has been and will continue to expand. The argument is that all the presidents since FDR was in office has used powers outside of what is granted in the U.S. Constitution. One strong point Arthur makes is that presidents have appointed staff members that were personally affiliated with the person in office. Another thing he pointed out was powers obtained when foreign affairs were involved. FDR really used these expanded powers during World War 2 and with his new deal. FDR declared the nation in a state of emergency which let him take control of things like production, communication, and commodities. Even in recent years, President Obama has sent troops to Libya and acted on the affairs in Africa. It is very true that the powers of the president are expanding with the current threats with Iran. But, these expanded powers can really help the country in a way, or at least ease the process of certain foreign affairs. If congress were to take votes on every bit of issue that needed an important decision then not a whole lot would be accomplished. Especially with war and conflict involving other nations. Congress would certainly stale a lot of matters due to disagreements between parties. So, if the president can make a quick decision that would potential offer benefits than it is within his jurisdiction to do so.
Tiffany Wang
In “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the course of years. He argues that the President becomes imperial when they exceed the Constitutional limits.
The imperial presidency, born in the 1940s and 50s intentions were to save the country from ruin. The broadened executive powers were expressed primarily through foreign affairs. Schlesinger makes a point of FDR’s imperial presidency beginning with his New Deal policy. He broadened his scope of powers and made government funded services available to the public. FDR used his executive powers to revive the country’s failing economy. Schlesinger also applauds John F. Kennedy’s action during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy took matters into his own hands with the short time he had. There was not enough time to wait for Congress as they debated amongst themselves. The missile crisis demonstrated the pressures of threat, secrecy, and time put on the decision making process. Kennedy demonstrated that it is the President’s job to make the final decisions of war and peace. President Obama also is an example of successful imperial presidency. He stated his mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. He took matters into his own hands into moving the mission along and eventually reach success. The executive branch of the government should be able to make important decisions in a short amount of time without being cut short by Congress.
Emily Smith
Period 6
In his publication, “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger discusses his view of the executive branch in the United States government. According to him, the executive branch has been expanding in power since FDR took office and instituted his New Deal. In this particular situation, I do believe the president had too much power; the President, in this case FDR, held a significant amount of power over the Supreme Court during the process of passing his legislation. In my opinion, the Supreme Court represents the Constitution, which is the supreme law of our nation, and should take precedence over any body of power in government, including the President. Our founding fathers envisioned a nation governed under the Constitution, and that is how it should be. Once the executive branch exceeds the limitations of the Constitution, it has gone too far. Therefore, in regards to staying loyal to the Constitution, I agree with Schlesinger’s claims.
On the other hand, there are several instances in which the expansion of power in the executive branch has been the cause of extremely good things for our nation. For instance, last year, President Obama, without the consent of Congress, sent out a special mission to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden. If Congress had been involved in making this decision, it may not have ever been launched or at least as successful as it was. But, because Obama was able to make the decision on his own, a major terrorist was captured and killed with no blood shed from American forces. Therefore, although the expansion of executive powers goes against the intentions of our founding fathers, in some situations it is the most practical solution.
Jeffrey Lee P8
In Schlesinger’s The Imperial Presidency he takes about the powers of the president and how they could theoretically become a supreme power, which has unimaginable power. He states that over the years the president has gained too much power, for example, Roosevelt’s new deal. However, I do not believe this is true. Congress can still veto his decisions and there are still checks and balances.
The president’s power has been on the rise since FDR’s term but it has not necessarily risen to “imperial status”. Yes there has been an increase, for example Obama’s call to capture Osama, which lead to the assassination of Bin Laden. But this power is necessary because the president’s job needs to have lots of executive power which at any time can change the world for the better or the worse.
The power of the president has also been growing since the terms of FDR and Johnson by the increase of troops sent to foreign countries such as Libya. The power of the president is growing and this is evident but I belie that it has and never will gain Imperial Status.
Bella Guo
Schlesinger's arguments in The Imperial Presidency are very well argued, and I believe he has a fair point. The president has often gone beyond what the Constitution allowed. However, so far, most of the presidents' excursions outside what the Constitution allows have been for the benefit of the country, so the legislative and judicial branches see no reason to take his power away. The issues will start the day a corrupt president takes office, because the people will assume that because the presidents' past actions have been for the general welfare, this president's actions will also. The president is, fortunately, acting for the good of the people most of the time. For example, even though Lincoln did suspend writ of habeas corpus, he ended up winning the war and re uniting the nation.
In addition, the legislative branch is too dysfunctional to make decisions in time. The theoretical situation where Israel tells us that they are bombing Iran is one where the intervention of Congress will be foolish, because there is no way Congress will be able to make a decision in time. The US will also lose the element of surprise, because telling Congress is pretty much the same thing as telling the tv channels, since so many people will have heard the secret. While it is very important to make sure no one group gets too much power, the role of the president, in the present day, at least, is to be a figure head for the nation. A president that relies on Congress for everything will not be seen as a powerful leader.
The president is also not the only who has stepped outside his limits. Even though he's stepped the furthest, Congress is not free of guilt. For example, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about free health care for all, even though there was primitive health care available. This shows that we must interpret the Constitution liberally, or we'll still be bogged down in 18th century America. Interpreting the Constitution liberally means that the President does get more power, because his role, just like Congress' and the Supreme Courts (although they've barely changed) must change with the times.
In “The Imperial Presidency”, Arthur Schlesinger argues that the President has gained too much power over the years. He believes that the U.S. Presidency is out of control, and that the power of the executive branch has exceeded the constitutional limit. He presents his argument by following the past few administrations through time to show how they have overstepped their boundaries. However, I don’t believe that the President’s power as researched an imperial amount. Yes, the recent Presidents have had powers the Founding Fathers would never have imagined, however, I believe that the Presidents acted accordingly to the situation at hand. Like Schlesinger mentioned, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and Harry Truman have all expanded their powers and used it appropriately. Although there have been cases such as Nixon with Watergate, our current President Obama has not expanded his power to a dangerous “imperial” level. The power of the Veto has proven to be quite powerful, seeing that overriding a Presidential veto would require a majority vote by both houses. However, given our current Congress, if the President does not want something to be passed, it has a very slight chance in getting passed. In addition, it is important for the President to establish a great amount of leadership when it comes to foreign affairs. Obama has managed to kill Osama bin Laden. If he did not have the power to act upon the mission right away, it would be unsuccessful considering the amount of time Congress approves anything. Although the Presidents have expanded their powers, they are always being “checked” by the different branches of the government and the press. The President acts as the leader of the nation and have expanded their powers, however, he is not the “monarch” controlling the entire nation.
Lexi Koukos
In the article "The Imperial Presidency" the author Arthur Schlesinger discuss the idea that the President has a great amount of power and maybe even a little too much power. Each year the Presidents power is expanded and each year they become more and more powerful through the executive branch. It is evident that in the past some decisions that were made by the President were the smartest or well thought out, which makes me feel that the Presidents power should stay at a stand still because as of right now the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all have the correct “checks and balances” and if his power were going to expand that would throw them off. For example, according to Schlesinger, the executive branch has in fact been expanding in power since FDR took office and since he instituted his New Deal. The President (FDR), in this particular case held a large amount of power, that of a substantial difference, over the Supreme Courts power during the time in which his legislation was being passed. I personally feel that in this situation, the president became too powerful. I feel that the Supreme Court is the representation of the Constitution and it governs over America as the supreme law of the land. I believe that in cases like this is should be above anything and everyone when dealing with the government, which includes the President. Another example this time dealing with President Barack Obama would be when he captured Osama Bin Laden. This for America is a huge stepping stone in our history due to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and could have been a very large issue if something had backfired. Thank god for the Presidents sack that we captured him, however, if it were not this way it would have resulted in a n outburst from the American people and congress, due to the fact that he did not consult or tell anyone before doing this. Overall I feel that the President has too much power and that if the Presidents power does not lessen, then this individual will become too powerful, and no one person should have all the power.
The role of the president has largely increased over the years as the president is credited with major aspects of history, despite the fact that many of the decisions reached are in fact the work of the President's backing party. While the President's influence is a great part of legislation, there can be no doubt that there is an entire party that is backing him. The Imperial Presidency argues that the president has the power to declare war and has made the role of the presidency and President's power far greater than that of the original checks and balances system that was intended by the founding fathers. The right to declare war is officially held by congress, however the President on the other hand holds the power as head of the military to spend troops to areas without a declaration of ear. This was done by the president when in the 1960s there were 30,000 so called "advisors" in Vietnam. The role of the president has majorly increased, with Obama holding what seems to be a supreme amount of power. This is essentially what Schlesinger is arguing. While I agree that the role of President has become more and more powerful, it does in fact take an individual to figurehead an operation. The role of the president was first and foremost created for the entire country to have someone to look to as a person who is leading the nation. The presidents power is only a justification what it takes to lead a country such as the United States of America. The president will not simply gain more power until he is practically a king. It is just not possible, with the power of the supreme court and congress, the President will always and constantly be checked in his powers.
Angela Yang
The 1973 Schlesinger publication discusses imperial presidency as a role that has developed through the broad use of executive power over the years. In Schlesinger’s piece, he argues that the President’s powers have reached an Imperial level primarily through foreign relations. Calling this power presidential supremacy, Schlesinger asserts that an imperial presidency is created when there is a lack of balance of power in the political system. He cited, as an example, FDR’s New Deal programs that subsequently turned the President into a legislator. Schlesinger believes that Nixon had the perfect example of an imperial presidency because of his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Nixon’s power grew to such large proportions that he felt he could bypass the traditional ways of politics. I do not believe that such a general term can apply to different presidents who have all served in different times and circumstances. For example, President Bush may be considered an imperial president by Schlesinger because he sent troops into Iraq without a formal proclamation of war given by the consent of Congress. Obama’s recent action taken against Osama Bin Laden is another example of a president expanding his power. Obama did not notify Congress about the decision to take out Osama Bin Laden, however the case was extremely sensitive and notifying members of Congress might have jeopardized the situation. I do believe that Presidents sometimes overstep their boundaries but both the Obama and Bush administration have just reason for doing so. Each Presidency has its own circumstances that need to be evaluated separately.
Megan McGrath
Arthur Schlesinger argues in "The Imperial Presidency" that the role of the president is becoming increasingly imperial over democratic. He cites many modern presidents as proof of their overstepping their traditional boundaries. It is certainly true that since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in particular, the role of the executive branch has increased, probably to more than the Framers had imagined. Whether each president was as autocratic and ambitious as they have been implied to be, however, is less agreeable. Foreign relations in general were not especially planned for by the founders, who favored isolationism (as Ron Paul will tell you) and thought that America dealt best when it kept to itself. While I agree with an original interpretation of the constitution, even I cannot deny that the world we live in has changed dramatically from the world of the founders. In an increasing global society, threats of instability, nuclear power, and other dangers abroad will affect America more than ever; in modern times, other countries' problems can very quickly become American problems. Recent presidents that Schlesinger mentions, George Bush and Barack Obama in particular, are criticized for sending troops across borders, but these presidents have dealt with a whole new kind of society where such actions can be justified as prudent, and moreover demanded swift action that Congress could never provide. On the homefront, however, I believe Schlesinger more. FDR's social programs and Nixon's Watergate scandal are central to Schlesinger's thesis that the role of the president is being overstepped, and I agree with that assessment. The president should never take the role of legislator; the federal government was carefully crafted to avoid a marriage of branches when it could be avoided. Overall, while Schlesinger may be exaggerating some claims, and while some changes must be made for modern society, the statement that presidential power has increased to the point of going too far is one with which few people could disagree.
The argument put forth by Schlesinger is that the power of the president has grown an immense amount. The decisions made by the president are mainly to back his party. The president has taken a huge role in the legislative branch. He lobbies members of Congress. He uses hi bully pulpit to influence legislation. For example, President Obama told the American people to contact their representatives to vote yes on increasing the debt ceiling back in June. The president has also declared war in the past indirectly even though that is in the hands of Congress. They have sent troops to South Korea and Vietnam without Congress passing a Declaration of Independence. President Obama has been able to increase his power by playing a figure headrole and using his accomplishments to his advantage. Another good example is FDR and the New Deal. He expanded the presidency power by making Congress give him authority to pass legislation. The power of the Presidency has expanded a lot overtime. This goes against what our founding fathers envisioned. No one person should have that much power.
Kayleigh Torok
Courtney McQuade
Schleshinger believes that the power of the U.S. president, in terms of legislation, has become too high, higher than out forefathers had planned. Many cite Franklin D. Roosevelt as the first president to exemplify the overage of power possessed by a president. In fact, his presidency was the one to cause the 22nd ammendment to be added to the Constitution, saying that a president cannot serve more than 2 complete terms (plus finish out the term of the previous president had they come into office through the death of their predecessor). FDR demonstrated enormous power as president of the Unites States especially through his New Deal programs. FDR happened to be president during 2 major crises, the Great Depression and World War II. He was the first president to demonstrate that the office of the president may possess too much power. Since then there have been several issues that have caused the same concern of an "imperial presidency", including the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave Lyndon Johnson the authority to command acts of war to protect U.S. interests in Vietnam without actually declaring war. At the time, this resolution was very highly approved by congress and the American public, as were the actions of Franklin Roosevelt. In hindsight however, we can see much more clearly. We now know that the president of the United States should not possess that much power, this is the exact reason why we have a congress, and a separate legislative branch, and a separate judicial branch as well, to make sure that the executive branch doesn't take over.
Alfred Kroqi
In "Imperial Presidency" Schleshinger argues the idea that the United States President has obtained too much power over the years. Nowadays, the President is like the captain of a team instead of the caretaker of a country. He backs his parties interests instead of the interests of the country. This leads to ineffective legislation being past. The President also lobbies other members of congress to vote for measure his party and/or he approve of. Because of his tremendous influence these pieces of legislation are usually passed. The power to veto bills is a big power for the President. It gives him the power to check congress. Congress can still pass a vetoed bill with a two thirds majority vote but this is extremely difficult to do. Therefore, the President's power is somewhat too great. The system of checks and balances does work but in recent times it has seemed as if the executive branch has gained power over the other two branches. This needs to be revisited. This is a land of democracy and the President has become imperialistic.
Taylor Frazier Period 8 -In Schlesinger’s piece, “The Imperial Presidency”, he argues that the Power of the President have reached an Imperial level. He poses a convincing argument on how the President has been able to get around the checks and balances systems however, I disagree. It is obvious that in recent years, the president has gained an extreme amount of power but I do not believe that it has exceeded its constitutional boundaries. The President’s power is limited by congress through systems such as checks and balances and their power to veto. I agree that the Presidents power has grows since FDR’s presidency and that it is likely to continue to increase in the upcoming years but i think it is hardly imperial and that it will never revert to that of a monarchy.
the person above me likes illegal drugs, and the person below is his dealer. Re-post
the person below me wrote a lot, the persona above did not
Post a Comment