The American Empire: A Reality

Most of the specifications for the executive branch in the Constitution, other than how he is to be elected, have to deal with the interactions between Congress and the President. The president can (fill in the blank) but only if (this part) of Congress approves. The powers of the president have been interpreted widely so that he has more power than I believe the Framers intended. They wanted him to be able to check Congress with veto power and be the head of the military. However, I think that presidents nowadays have too much power. They are active in trying force their policy agenda through Congress, manage foreign relations, and act as the administrative head of the entire nation. The textbook lays it out well in, "The vast size of the executive branch and the number and complexity of decisions that must be made each day pose a challenge for the White House.” (316) In order to deal with the stresses put on the executive branch, there are thousands of employees that work to give the president the information that he needs to make decisions. He has advisors, cabinet members, legislative liaisons; the list goes on and on, but he is the person who actually gets to make all of the choices. The President is limited in some ways and given more power in other ways by the structure laid out for him in the Constitution, and evolved to be what it is now.

In many ways, the US constitution has changed and shifted since its creation in 1787. It has changed, with power being put into the hands of bodies not specified in the constitution and certain constraints on power no longer existing. All in all, however, the constitution has maintained the very thing it was created for- to limit the power of the government and protect the people from tyranny of the executive. In this sense, the constitution is still very much embodying the vision of the founding fathers and is relatively unchanged given the lengthy period of time they have existed for. The powers of the president

The government of the United States of America has been around for over 2 centuries, in this time the original setup has been little altered. The government is composed of three individual branches: judicial, executive, and legislative branches. All three branches are held together using a system of checks and balances. While each branch has some kind of trump or has control over another branch, some branches are arguably more powerful than others. The main focus of this paper will be on where the executive branch stands power-wise. When our founding fathers first started building our nation from the dust, they had in mind a system of branches where no one branch was more powerful than the others. The decision of whether or not they hit

When a president is sworn into office, he or she takes on a multitude of titles. One of the many titles the president is issued is the role of Chief in Legislator. This means that the president plays a crucial part in the legislative process or lawmaking. This title holds much authority in the eyes of Americans (Hoffman & Howard, 1317). Though this title does not give the president absolute authority, it does grant him or her strong jurisdiction in the legislature. The framers of the Constitution did not want America to be a monarchy the way they were when under the rule of England. As a result, the framers purposefully outlined the president’s limited power in the constitution, creating a democratic

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

Over 200 years ago the United States’ Founding Fathers created a unique system of government that allowed a balance to exist between both the federal government and the separate state governments. Through the three branches of government, specifically the executive and legislative branches, the United States has been able to act as a unified body with several varying individual parts. With the executive branch and the legislative branch each having outlined powers of their own the Founders were able to equally balance the power of the national government and the state governments. Although this system has managed to stay in tact for two centuries and has allowed the United States of America to become a dominate player in international affairs, there has consistently been a battle of power between the president in the executive branch and the two houses of congress in the legislative branch. As the United States continues to evolve and face multiple obstacles, so does the relationship between these two branches.

Franklin Roosevelt vastly expanded the powers of the presidency beyond anything before seen. The New Deal expanded the federal government 's authority over the economy in response to the emergency of the Great Depression. Less well known, FDR enhanced the executive branch’s power relative to Congress and the Court. This proved to be an expansion going far beyond a war emergency. FDR worked closely with Democratic majorities in Congress to pass broad delegations of lawmaking authority to new federal agencies to exercise virtually all of Congress 's lawmaking powers, subject sometimes to the requirement only that the agencies ' decisions promote “the public interest.”

Beyond this “blunt instrument” of the executive branch’s formal constitutional powers, the presidency is largely what the president makes of it (Romance, July 27). The president’s real power is one of persuasion, or the ability to convince

Discuss the extent to which American hegemony led to the rise of the modern American empire.

Unlike Congress, the President was the only representative in the federal government elected by the will of the nation. This meant the President, unlike Congress, was accountable to the whole nation rather than constituents of a specific State. Due to this unique relationship with the people he believed the presidency was bestowed with broad executive powers. However, these broad powers from the citizens also came with the responsibility to become an agent of reform for the people. “…The President’s duty is to act so that he himself …[can] do efficient work for the people” (Roosevelt, The Presidency,1913). Likewise, the President’s exclusive ability to act quickly made the Presidency ideally suited to protect the interests of every man and woman. Additionally, Roosevelt’s stewardship theory employed a broad interpretation of constitutional restrictions. He insisted, the President was obligated in the execution of his duty “…to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by laws”(Roosevelt, The Presidency,1913). He argued a broad interpretation was necessary since the strict interpretation of the Constitution had hindered both the State and federal government’s ability to respond to people’s needs in this new era of big business. “The prime need is to change the conditions which enable

In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war

In this paper we will compare the formal and informal powers if the President and we will explore how and why the Presidential powers have increased over time. The history of the Presidency is an account of aggrandizement; one envisions, today, a President with far reaching power, however, when looking at the Constitution alone we find a President with significant limits. Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or merely a helpless giant?

The United States experienced a period of growth and maturation during the twentieth century. Now, this is not to say that this was the only period of growth, but it was a significant time during which the United States began to establish its military force at an international level. By establishing itself during the twentieth century as one of the world’s largest superpowers, America grew to be respected by most of the world’s nations. America also grew to become much more active in foreign affairs, even in ones that had no relation to the nation. The United States began to look for chances to expand their country, as well as opportunities to benefit financially from these territories. Imperialism is the word that best describes the foreign

Imagine if the entire American government system was operated entire by the president. Every decision, law, and court ruling determined by only one person. There is no room for debate or questioning, ultimately leading to the abuse of power and authority. While this may seem completely absurd, many believe that this is not very far away from actual truth. Due to the uneven use of checks and balances among the three branches of government, it has resulted in the executive branch of the American government gaining too much power, therefore leaving the original intent of the constitution to be changed and unenforced.

Blowback (The Costs and Consequences of American Empire) was written by American author Chalmers Johnson. It was first published during 2000 and was later published during 2004 by Holt Paperbacks. Between 1967 and 1973, Johnson was a consultant for the CIA, which gave him a lot of insight into how the U.S. government intrudes on the affairs of other nations. He witnessed displeasing matters tied to the government's regimes, which inspired the development of Blowback. The term "blowback" was established by the CIA and is defined as unexpected or undesirable outcomes of American activity in other nations. With this book, Johnson was aiming to expose the negative consequences of America's government working to dominant other regions, while giving