President : How A President Should Wield Their Power

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

The life of a dominant king who got lost in the things of the world, resulted in him losing focus on his destiny through power and time. It is a battle between man and the natural world he faced. Percy Shelley’s poem, Ozymandias, demonstrates that no matter the position one holds, in time, power can be arrogant and ruling, but cannot ultimately last for an eternity.

Daniel R. Ortiz’s writing, The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform states that those who argue for campaign finance reform, violate the democratic theory in the name of defending it. This article reveals the paradox between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of political process. Although the paradox is unavoidable, along with discomforting, it should be made evident.

It is time that the voters are the only one’s deciding elections. Candidates should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform.

We all know the president as the leader of our country, but we never really consider the many things that encompasses. He must be a Chief of State, a Chief Executive, a Commander in Chief, a Chief Diplomat, a Chief Legislator, and other various smaller roles. The President has many roles to take on and must act as all of them possibly in any given week or day. Taking a look at four random weeks in The President’s schedule I am going to identify examples of the president executing these roles, explaining why he was more active in certain roles, and why some roles are absent during these weeks.

The presidency has been titled the most prestigious executive position in the United States of America, yet it is the most restricted. Presidents possess vast formal powers, nonetheless these powers are restricted due to constitutional check and balances. Article II of the constitution contains the constitutional powers of the government, which delivers the method of election, and provide a permanent four year term. When reading the 2nd Article of the Constitution, many are struck by how much attention is given to the process of the presidential election, and the slight attention paid to the powers of the president once in office. Factually, several presidents have taken a restrictive view of their duties, and the process through which a president is nominated and

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

While some would argue that the framers of the Constitution did enough to limit the power of the President because of actions carried out by the leaders of the past, the more valid perspective is that these actions were made based on personal goals, and that judgements on these actions are justified based on opinions—not facts. From this, it can be concluded that the authors of The Constitution of the United States have placed enough rules, regulations, and checks to successfully limit the power of the President. In this modern American world, social and governmental society is continuously developing and evolving over time; important decisions that drive this evolution are made everyday by people of great importance. One of these important

Thus the imperial presidency was born from foreign affairs, from “faith and duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world” at any moment without the approval of congress (Schlesinger). Past presidents have dealt with national emergencies, this pressure is responsibility that he “must take unto himself” and act accordingly (Schlesinger). Good government starts with the appearance of our leader, and the entire executive office. The president should be representative of the all people in the United States, an exceptional role model who takes the people’s needs into account. The best time for a strong imperialistic president is when faction, anarchy, and excessive ambitions threaten it. The energy put forth by the president “generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree” than that of a weaker and more dispersed power system (Hamilton). The importance of this energy highlights the respect our government continues to have for the constitution because of the importance it maintains in this day and age.

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would

Being the leader of the free world is an accomplishment that citizens of the United States see as job with a vast amount of responsibility. Along with the responsibility comes great scrutiny. Presidents have come and gone, leaving a legacy that either creates a lasting memory of great leadership, or leaves a bad taste in the mouth of American voters. Leading the way in the land of the free is judged by three points: how the president chose to conduct themselves during controversial times, critical situations, and most importantly how they plan to help the citizens of the United States.

The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.