The Role Of Independent Agencies And The White House Staff Essay

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

Another of these monumental changes would be the surrender of the control of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Over the twentieth century, this became an increasing reality as the focus shifted from Congress to the president (Cooper 2009, 388). While this development has many different advantages in the American government system, there are disadvantages as well, such as a decrease in stability (Cooper 2009, 379). The role of the president has become more important because of the changes that have led to the modern world (Cooper 2009, 388). This has occurred because of a number of reasons, such as “substantial increases in the responsibilities of the federal government, the stakes of politics, and the ease of communication and travel” (Cooper 2009, 388). Furthermore, in recent years, Congress has not worked hard in certain circumstances to protect their rights but have surrendered to the executive branch (Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee 2010, 498). It is

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

In conclusion, I applied what I have learned from American Government to give an informative view into a president who had a somewhat important role in the American political system 136 years ago which still applies to today. This in return was done using the three skills I have learned: knowledge of the American political system as well as the history of it, how the events correlate to today and how to research a

Presidential transitions mark the beginning of a new era in the presidency, and are crucial for the success of policy agenda for each president-elect. While there are many responsibilities during this time frame, it seems that using campaign rhetoric causes policy to be more popular during the early years of the presidency. Despite the contemporary use of this style by presidents, it is not clear where this methodic governing originated. Using historical analysis and case studies, this paper attempts to discover the origin of campaign-style governing during the transition period of the presidency.

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.

With the end of World War Two and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States emerged on the global stage as one of the planet's great economic and military powers. It is safe to say that with America's change in status, and in conjunction with profound industrial and technological change, that presidential leadership would necessarily have to transform yet again to meet a new era; nowhere could two different styles of leadership to meet the age be seen than in the Cold War administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. Both men would exhibit a unique style of leadership suited to the personality of each, and each style could be considered to characterize the administration of each president, but nevertheless, both men would also use very similar leadership styles when necessary in order to attain certain policy goals.

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.

A President’s obligation to his country is to protect the people, by the people, for the people. Envision a nation without a strong and fearless leader, through thick and thin that withstands the nation’s crises beyond belief, whose only objective is to pursue national security. As we reflect on history, James Madison stands out as the antithesis of the attributes of a leader. In the early 19th century, President Washington had proposed a foreign policy of isolationism, abstaining from relations with other countries; in a state of crisis two subsequent President’s—Adams and Jefferson—had wisely pursued his principles. On the contrary, President James Madison (1809-1817) had irrationally shifted the American Foreign Policy from isolationism

The American Presidency is undoubtedly one of the most widely recognized popular icons throughout the world. Although to most foreigners or those who have never resided in the United States or know little of its history, the executive branch of government may seem to be as dull and unyielding as the rest of the American politics, for those few rare individuals who have taken the time to examine and closely scrutinize this office of the American political system and its recent history, quite the opposite will be said. Unlike Congressional or local elections where typically a number of individuals of the same ideological background must be elected in order for a particular issue to be

The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that

The formulation of US foreign policy has always been a controversial issue with different views emphasizing on various factors—the role of the president, the influence of the congress, the impact of interests group and public opinion, etc—in the process of decision making. This project intends to discuss the extent to which the Obama Administration is to change the direction of the US foreign policy. First, the characteristics in the US foreign policy making is explored to show how critical the presidential pre-eminence is to the policymaking. Second, a revisit to the Clinton and George W. Bush Administration is made to trace the pattern of the US foreign policy. Third, the Obama Doctrine is studied to identify the policy continuity and the sporadic changes. Based on the analysis, the project comes to the conclusion that continuity still prevails in the Obama Doctrine and the changes are only made in a minor and incremental fashion.