The Guardian Article, By Glenn Greenwald

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

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 President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of

In the past, the power of executive privilege has been used by Presidents to conceal information that has to do with foreign affairs and negotiations, military, national security issues as well as deliberations and policy making that is done between the President and his top aides. This power is only used when Congress asks the President or one of his top aides to produce all of the information pertaining to an event or situation. If the President then feels that parts of this information needs to be kept secret to protect the best interest of the public, or the other issues listed previously, then he will use executive privilege in order

Throughout American history, after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, the validity of executive privilege has been questioned in federal courts and among legal scholars on countless occasions. According to Merriam-Webster, executive privilege entails, “exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, executive privilege is the notion that the President is exempt from having to give evidence or disclose information to congressional hearings or to judicial inquiries. Executive privilege also typically includes immunity from legal disputes involving the presidency. Although not officially referred to as “executive privilege” until Eisenhower’s presidency, the first argument of executive privilege or immunity took place during George Washington’s presidency (The Constitution and Executive Privilege). Claiming executive privilege has been a common occurrence throughout all U.S. presidencies and continuing with President Obama. Those who argue against the legitimacy of executive privilege use the reasoning that it is not constitutional because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and interrupts the separation of powers. On the other hand, many legal scholars assert that executive privilege is necessary for

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?

Over the past couple of years, the increasing dominance of the national government over the state governments has led politicians to ponder over the rise of a “fourth branch” of government. Political scientists believe “our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency” (Turley 1). This newfound independence and authority these government agencies and departments are experiencing are now having substantial impacts on the lives of the citizens of America due to this fourth branch. It is much disputed whether or not federal bureaucrats should be granted discretion in the implementation of public policies. To understand this concept more extensively, we can examine the case of Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) subcontractor.

Comey presented a two-page memo that states in explicit terms that the premise of the controversy is entirely illegitimate in regards to violating what is stipulated under federal law, and that he was reportedly exhausted with continuing investigations into what he claimed to be a marginal privacy error that is being invited an unwarranted amount of congressional and public scrutiny (Kelly). Keep in mind, within the same article, VICE NEWS also asserts that they have consistently filed FOIA lawsuits pertaining to the questionable methodologies in what is permitted to be disclosed to the media and the public audience (Kelly). There seems to be a conflict of bias hidden here, and while both Vice News and James Comey do have statements that seem logical at first glance, there is rhetorical devices in both Comey’s appeal to common sense, and the clearly evident self-promotional agenda to generate controversy over a contemporary, and arguably profitable in terms of reader subscription, political affair that begs the question as to whether or not normative ethical scruples are applicable to representatives of the government presiding over the United States of

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.

The limits of power on the executive branch are continuously growing and expanding, because presidents have continued to push the boundaries to accomplish their own goals for the nation.

Since the late 18th century, presidential claims of a right to maintain the confidentiality of information in response to legislative demands have evolved significantly over the course of U.S. history. This right is regarded as executive privilege, or “the right of the president and important executive branch members to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and the public” (Rozell 323). As the federal bureaucracy has grown to assume the responsibilities for managing and implementing public policy in a wide variety of areas, it has experienced a steadily ascendant level of executive power. Congress’s ability to obtain information about the ways in which that power is exercised becomes increasingly difficult as the Executive gains more authority.

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix," President Harry Truman once said. Harry Truman understood the importance of an open government in a free society. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has a different outlook. From the first days of his administration, President Bush has taken steps to tighten the government's hold on information and limit public scrutiny of its activities. Expansive assertions of executive privilege, restrictive views of the Freedom of Information Act, increasing use of national security classification, stonewalling in response to congressional request for information – all these were evident even before the September 11 attacks (At Issue: Has the Bush administration misused government

Back in early June of 2013, Glenn Greenwald an author, former lawyer and journalist for The Guardian newspaper published an article on U.S. government massive surveillance program that would shock the world and to be considered one of the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history. Greenwald wrote a book called No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, which talks about the event before and during the release on massive U.S, government surveillance. In his book, Greenwald traveled to Hong Kong with Laura Poitras a documentary director and Ewen MacAskill a journalist for The Guardian to meet with NSA contractor Edward Snowden who had emailed Greenwald anonymously as “Cincinnatus” six months prior, Snowden leaks

The Freedom of Information Act was enforced when our government realized the importance of the relationship between access to information and government accountability. This act enables citizens to view a plethora of different files and records from government agencies. This act proved to be “a principal instrument for breaking down bureaucratic secrecy in American public administration” (p. 62).