The Presidency Has Changed Us Equal Opportunity

During the late 1800's and early 1900's, America was working toward becoming an imperialistic nation. With such a change, government policies must evolve in order to adapt to its country's needs. However, there is a point in which new government policies can be detrimental to those involved. While America's government's changing role was certainly necessary in expanding the country, there were numerous instances in which the government became too imperialistically rapacious.

The president’s accumulation of personal power can make up for his lack of institutional powers. The president must act as the “lubricant” for the other sectors of government in order to preserve order and accomplish business. Neustadt emphasizes the president’s ability to forge strong personal relationships and his or her

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).

To a fairly large extent, the Obama presidency is more ‘imperiled than imperial’ seems largely true, with Obama suffering from major constraints such as Congress. The theory of the imperiled Presidency suggests that rather than being too powerful, the President does not have enough power to be effective. In contrast, imperial presidency is characterised as when a president has greater power than the constitution allows. One can argue that his pursuit of major domestic policy goals has been much more aggressive than his predecessor, Bush, suggesting Obama’s presidency as imperial. Obama once quipped, “I’m the President of the United States, not the emperor of the

The president is constantly looking toward the state of nation’s defense. All major decisions and strategies are his to make alone. Likewise, the president is the nation's number 1 political boss. People look to the president as the leader for public opinion. Even though the president seems like he couldn’t take on many other roles, he is also the Chief of State, he is the leader of the rituals of the American Democracy.

Another source of presidential power that stems from the Constitution is the deceptively simple fact that the American president is both head of state and head of government (Romance, July 27). Unlike in several other democracies, such as in Great Britain where these two functions are split between the monarch and a prime minister, an American president has the ability to both symbolically represent the and to lead the nation (July 27). Even this is both a blessing and a curse because it forces a president to constantly live both roles and know exactly when to stress the appropriate one over the other (July 27).

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.

Imperial presidency first came about during the 1960s and was later the title of a book by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. entitled The Imperial Presidency. Schlesinger wrote stating two main concerns that the U.S. Presidency was uncontrollable and that it had exceeded the constitutional limits. The term imperial presidency refers to when a president exceeds his role and takes more power than the Constitution allows. The Imperial Presidency is classified by the President’s abuse of power, from executive orders to executive privilege, the president invokes many powers not granted them by the Constitution. Some examples of imperial presidents are George W. Bush and Richard Nixon. George W. Bush and his legal advisers had an extremely

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

This third and most helpful definition focuses not only on outcome, but also, crucially, on norms and process. Values are essential to the study of foreign policy, and explain why the policies of different states can vary so dramatically. Means are equally important: what a country does can be less significant than how it does it, as recent US actions illustrate. Central to pluralism is the notion that the three branches of government should be separate and distinct, with each acting to check and balance the others and thus preventing abuse of power. In the United States, the often-tumultuous relationship between especially the legislative and executive branches has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. The Presidency has seen a slow but constant expansion of power since the days of George Washington, culminating in what Schlesinger has called the "imperial presidencies" of Johnson and Nixon, and continuing today. The official rights and duties of the President as regards foreign policy-making are actually only briefly mentioned in the Constitution, and are rather limited. The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". However, presidents have frequently bypassed the need for congressional approval by enacting

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

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 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 Presidency is examined and criticized for various inadequacies and dangers that are highly representative of the Federalists desire for a stronger national government and the fears of the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution provides a limited description for executive powers of