The Constitutional Framers And The President Of The United States

The relationship between the president and Congress has changed drastically in the past two hundred years. The framers of the constitution did not want an executive power in charge of the whole country in fear of it turning into a monarchy. They knew they needed a leader for America though. The framers did not want political parties. “Political parties established after Washington left the presidency” (Mandate). The relationship between Congress and the president changed in a very visible way. In the past, the president would meet to discuss issues with Congress, but that is not how it is today. Also the president would have to go through congress to pass a bill or an amendment, but presidents found a way around going through congress. The president can sign a bill without congress’s approval. For example, president Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wanted to pass an amendment that would end slavery but Congress said no. Lincoln then did what the people wanted and signed the emancipation proclamation anyways to end slavery. Also known as the thirteenth amendment. Some presidents even put the people in power.

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).

The Framers of the Constitution in 1787 believed the people weren’t intelligent enough to choose their own leader. They were concerned how informed their voters would be and decided that the president should be elected indirectly. Thus, the Electoral College was produced. The Electoral College, fundamentally, prohibits civilians from voting directly for the president. How does this work? First, the country holds the popular vote. Every adequate voter in every state gets one vote for the president. Then, it is passed to the electoral vote. Now, each state obtains at least three votes depending on the population of that state. In order to be declared president, the candidate must receive a majority of the votes. If no one acquires a majority of the votes, then the House of Representatives elects the president from the top three contenders. In which case, each state gets one vote. Therefore, is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? The answer is no; the process may not be equal, but it protects the country’s ideologies. The Electoral College should be kept because it keeps extremists in check, protects the federalist system, and settles the presidency.

Our initial question asks why the President is the dominant force in foreign policy making within the U.S. government? A corollary is to ask whether or not the President should be the dominant force in foreign policy. This is an ongoing debate and tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches. First, we should understand that, under our current President, there is strong opinion that he should not be the dominant force for foreign policy. There are at least two opposing points of view regarding the role of the President and foreign policy. If one favors the Executive Branch, one takes the position that the Executive is better able to respond quickly and efficiently to changing conditions in world politics. If one favors the Legislative Branch, one takes the position that the Legislative is better able to consider, review, deliberate, and debate various points of view before deciding what course of action would best serve the interests of the entire nation.

The powers of the president have long been debated in our country, starting at the founding and continuing to now. How much power should the president be given? How much is too much power? All these questions have been explored numerous times by numerous people. In our Constitution, the President is given expressed, inherent, and delegated powers. These powers have been used by Presidents in many different ways. The study of the way Presidents use these powers is explored in the book by Richard Neustadt: “Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan”. Neustadt discusses how modern presidents wield

The Framers of the United States Constitution chose to give power to the federal government opposed to the state governments for many reasons. Such as there were many problems with the Articles of Confederation. Also the Framers took away power from the state governments and gave power to the federal government for many reasons. Then what the constitution now says about federal and state powers.

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, presidential powers have been a massive controversy on whether the powers are expanding in the nation’s best interest or if the President is accumulating too much power in the government. In Christina Lyons article, Presidential Power, she develops a historical scope of past presidential powers, ranging from Reagan to Obama. Also, Lyons discusses the many issues arising of whether the President is in need of constrictions and restrictions on the executive powers or if Congress has put a big enough indentation on these powers since September 1st, 2001 terrorist attack against the United States of America. Lyons examines the reasons behind presidents expanding their powers throughout the past two centuries, which recent terrorists attacks and congressional gridlocking play a major role. She provides specific types of executive actions that recent presidents have used to exert their powers, like President Bush, President Obama, and President Clinton. Lyons stipulates arguments of those who are opposed to expanded presidential powers, for example, setting policy for the country. Lastly, the author observes the Constitutional provisions of checks and balances between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches in constraining presidential power.

In fact, when thinking about foreign affairs congress is thought of as a major player very little in pour recent history. Yet, this was not how it was originally designed to be. Our founding father worried about given the president a kind of absolute power when involved with foreign affairs. Though they believed he should be a big part in it, they feared how close it was to the power the king of England had at this time, which was the absolute opposite kind of position they wanted a person to have in the newly formed United States. This is why a balance of power was put into place, in this case having the congress have major controls over declaring war and keeping the nations wealth away from the president, also known as presidential disempowerment. However, reflecting on past situations we see that congress have either turned a blind eye on the president’s action in foreign policy or was unable to gain the upper hand. This can be seen early on in the United States with George Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793. Even though congress argued that this went over them to go to war the matter was soon hushed since the law was vague enough that it allowed the president to have more power than actually specified. Yet, this was one of few instances where the President took control more than congress in foreign policy, at least in early

The framers of the United States of America constitution were all a group of visionaries. They come together and drafted the constitution to address the issues as well as avoiding some dangers in which they foresaw where not only to face the American people then, but even in the years to come. The American constitution was drafted to address key issues such as the freedom of speech, governing and abiding laws, freedom of religion and equal protection by the law. To achieve all this, the framers of the United States of America constitution went ahead and drafted government powers in the three main branches of government; the president, Judiciary and executive.

Though opinion plays a large role when determining whether or not the President of the United States is given too much power, it is extremely prevalent when analysing the validity and weight of evidence used to support the view that the President has been allowed too much power. Many people agree with this viewpoint because they are basing their argument off of negative and poorly thought out action by American government in the past, as well as being backed up by opinionated politicians and their current political views (Democrat vs Republican). In “Can a President be Too Strong?”, published by Scholastic, Inc. in 1989, the author voices his opinion on the President and his/her level of power: The president has taken more and more power at the expense of Congress. The people who wrote the Constitution believed in checking and balancing power

After the American Revolution the newly independent colonies entered a period called the critical Period. This was called the critical period because the colonies faced many foreign and domestic issues. This called for an end to the Articles of Confederation and the creation of a new government.

The Presidents over time has increased the power of the office beyond what is specifically stipulated in the U.S. Constitution in many ways. Part of it has to do with how over time the Presidents all became distracted by the other President’s pressing issues. Congress’s decisions required that all the Presidents control their agenda, but only a few of the Presidents even managed to do that. Each of Presidents the over time approached developments and final approaches of the legislation, but some were unable to promote their certain provisions that they had. Historical Presidency and Modern Presidency shows how the power of the office has increased over time.

Although with their constituents, they have advantages to consider domestic policy more. The Presidential Studies Quarterly claims that, “Presidents obtain an informational advantage with regard to national outcomes, while members of Congress hold the advantage when considering district level outcomes” (Howell et al. 806). These are not necessarily balanced powers, the advantages of their powers from the Constitution steers Congress and the president to a certain

The relationship between the President and Members of Congress is very important. The quote "The American people are the ones who suffer when the highest levels of government don't trust or communicate with each other."(Lott) is a great representation of what happens when the relationship between the two is not at its greatest. The Congress, by law, has the constitutional authority to create new agencies, fund these new agencies, and charge them with administrative responsibilities. Congress also has the constitutional power to enact laws that are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the country. The President has the authority to direct these agencies, that are created by congress, and select their

Another aspect that has changed is the power the President has over policymaking. Sam Gailmard and John W. Patty say it best in their paper “Congressional Development of the Institutional Presidency: Policy Advice under Separation of Powers.” They wrote: “Presidential power over policymaking has grown vis-à-vis Congress. This changing balance power balance coincides with and partly results from the president’s informational advantages vis-à-vis Congress. Yet Congress is a willing partner and principal architect in the design of institutions that confer these very advantages. Therefore, Congress is actively complicit with the President in creating the institutions that have shifted power or, at least in relative terms, to the president,” (Gailmard and Patty, 2).