Introduction
From the fledgling beginnings in the history of the United States, the populace of the newly formed republic were concerned with protecting into perpetuity their hard-won independence. To ensure that democracy would rein unchallenged, a formalized guarantee, the Constitution, spelled out whom would comprise the actors and what processes were to be made available for governance. Distinct roles were drafted for both the president and Congress for the purposes of evenly distributing power and preventing any single entity from wielding their power arbitrarily (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 103). Though these roles are complementary, they have also at times been conflicting. This push and pull has also been sewn into the historical
…show more content…
The result has been an “invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy” (Jordan et al, 2014, p. 74).
Increasing Presidential Prerogative
Creation of the National Security Council
The framework provided by the Constitution was quickly augmented as was deemed necessary. In 1793, George Washington asserted a presidential prerogative to act without congressional consultation in order to be able to act swiftly in responding to foreign crises and preserve the state (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 74). By the time of Abraham Lincoln’s administration, war power as a derivative of being commander-in-chief had become an accepted justification for acting unilaterally. The relationship between national emergency as presidential prerogative was firmly established. This presidential prerogative eventually expanded to include confronting the crises of a global war, that of World War II (Jordan et al, 2009, p. 74).
With the Allied victory of World War II emerged a new world order. The United States abandoned any lingering ideas of remaining isolationist and began to accept the role of the world’s new superpower. For the first time in its history, geopolitics and the realist paradigm dominated policy-making, and national security moved to “center stage” in American politics (Snow, 2014, p. 66). The result was was the passing of the
Another of these monumental changes would be the surrender of the control of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Over the twentieth century, this became an increasing reality as the focus shifted from Congress to the president (Cooper 2009, 388). While this development has many different advantages in the American government system, there are disadvantages as well, such as a decrease in stability (Cooper 2009, 379). The role of the president has become more important because of the changes that have led to the modern world (Cooper 2009, 388). This has occurred because of a number of reasons, such as “substantial increases in the responsibilities of the federal government, the stakes of politics, and the ease of communication and travel” (Cooper 2009, 388). Furthermore, in recent years, Congress has not worked hard in certain circumstances to protect their rights but have surrendered to the executive branch (Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee 2010, 498). It is
Moe and Howell point out that the Founders of the Constitution had agreed on an incomplete contract that does not explicitly state what decisions should be made under all current and future contingencies, but builds a governing structure consisting of the president, Congress, and the courts. It also shares powers among them, specifies procedures for public decision-making, and offers a framework of rules that allows leaders to make public decisions as well as handle any contingencies that may come up. The authors then explain that the three branches would fight with each other
This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.
The United States Constitution was carefully crafted by a group of deliberate and thoughtful individuals; each having their own unique and particular ideas about government, and the people it may govern. As this supreme foundation for government was molded, each founding father put forth their learned beliefs and philosophies to be integrated into this modern document. All of the crafting members were both well-read and thoroughly educated, allowing for deep and extended discussions on past governments, their efficiencies, and their deficiencies. Through their readings and philosophical discussions, it became apparent that two previously governing bodies stood, in their opinions, above the rest: The Greek and Roman empires. Their governmental practices and virtues were key in the development of the Constitution, as they were dissected, and eventually, emulated by this country’s founding members.
Even though the United States emerged as a clear victor of World War I, many Americans after the war felt that their involvement in the conflict had been a mistake (Markus Schoof, “The American Experience During World War II,” slide 3). This belief, however, did not deter the country from engaging in many other international affairs in the future, most importantly the WWII and the Cold War. Right from the Manifest Destiny, which led to expand its empire at home and abroad, to the World War I, the country had come a long way from being somewhat a lonely-land to a global superpower of the 20th century. Its influence in the international arena grew unprecedently after its commitment to the World War II, and like they say, the rest is history. If the WWII was a resounding success to the American legacy, what followed, the Cold War, put many implications on the American diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and to the world. Although the rising Fascism in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor drove the U.S. to enter the WWII, historians over the years have laid equal blames on both nations for starting the Cold War. These two events helped in shaping up many domestic and foreign policies for the U.S.
“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” With this statement, Madison aptly points out in Federalist 10 that United States citizens might not always elect the most qualified or well-intentioned political leaders (24). In our current presidential political climate, these words seem more pertinent than ever. There is no question that the powers of the presidency have increased since the founding of the United States, but what are the implications of this for American democracy? Increased presidential powers are taking power away from Congress, undermining the system of checks and balances, and ultimately hurting American democracy. Concentration of power in the executive branch circumvents democratic deliberation and limits
While the newly independent United States was full of new ideas and plans, there were also multiple challenges that had to be discussed amongst the the higher ups. For instance, what kind of government should be established? What will the goals of this new government be? How will new territory be managed? As these very valid and vital questions were being discussed, other challenges came about, and more answers were needed. American leaders agreed on a republic government, or popular sovereignty, but then came an entirely new set of challenges such as the burdening consequences of this new government, and what exactly would be done about who should be more powerful; a central government or the states. It was more than obvious that there were
The 21st century has greatly changed the institution of presidency than the one created during the 1700’s. During the early years, certain constitution provisions limited the presidency (Feldman, 2006). Since the inception of the constitution until the 1930’s, the congress was the most powerful branch of the government. Throughout the following decades of the 20th century, there has been a dramatic shift of power where the executive holds the same powers as the legislative branch. This paper aims at evaluating why the role and influence of the presidency has increased in the political history of the U.S.A.
The Framer’s notion of a republic, or democratic republic form of government, rested on the necessity to limit the formation and success of factions. Yet, as Dahl argued, the irony of Madison’s aversions to factions is that, not long after the ratification of the
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress and the president various responsibilities, but there have extensive disputes about where war powers begin and the other’s ends. The U.S. Constitution permits the president to let wars happen as commander in chief while Congress has the power to claim war; in fact, to authorize hostilities at any level and fund them. Many people can agree that presidents can send U.S. troops to fight when the country is being attacked, it appears forthcoming but chief executives from both major parties often differ with Congress over their ability to let military force into other combat situations. The president’s relationship with Congress is crucial to American politics. Federalism and the Constitution represent the effort that the president and Congress need to do, which is work together for the good of America.
After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.
Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.
America's republican form of representative government was premised upon the idea of three co-equal branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The three branches, in theory, operate independent of one another and serve as check upon one another. It is this structure of this government, the founders believed, that would retard any establishment of monarchial government that the American Revolution was fought upon. However the civil war, and more specifically the Reconstruction period following it tested these principles to the core. While it may be accurate to characterize governmental struggles that defined Reconstruction as ones that were inter-branch, a more detailed and nuanced survey reveals it was borne more so out
Certain interests do not change over time in our society. Over 200 years ago, the prominent concern that led to the framing of the Constitution regarded the establishment of a government that was “for the people and by the people.” The framers of the Constitution, with concern of an over powering central government in mind, provided a basis for the structure of the federal government of the United States. The powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are laid out strategically in a way that no one branch can have more power than the other. The national concern of maintaining a legitimate government has not shifted since the initial days of the framers. Although the capacity of the government has grown over time, the system of checks and balances that was adapted in the framing of the Constitution allows for the structure and powers of the federal government to remain in order today. Other than providing a structural map for how the government will operate, however, the additional aspects of the Constitution fail to administer practical framework for addressing 21st century interests. This document was written over 200 years ago and it has not been altered substantially since then (Lazare). While certain Amendments have been added to assist the Constitution in staying relevant, such as the abolishment of slavery and the addition of women’s right to vote, there has been practically nothing added to help in applying the framers’ intentions
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,