Why Should The Limit On The President Stay The Same?

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.

Weapons of mass destruction are ‘weapons that can devastate large areas and kill huge numbers of people’. There are 3 types of WMD’s; Nuclear Weapons, Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons. In the world there are only 8 counties that own nuclear weapons and these include USA, Russia, UK, China, France, India and Pakistan and unofficially Israel. In this essay I will be looking at whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) can be justified, we can link this to the just war theory. I will also be looking at the 1945 Atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and whether or not it can be justified.

Another very notable role of the President also outlined in Article II. Section 2. of the Constitution and reads, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html). It essentially gives the President power to make treaties with foreign nations however, two-thirds of Congress must be in agreement with the decision. Although the President, or the Executive Branch can be interpreted as the most authoritative arm of government, its powers are still limited and restricted by the process of checks and balances. Each branch of government has some governance over the other two divisions. For instance, just as it is outlined above, the President can nominate Ambassadors and Judges of the Supreme Court but the decision must be upheld by Congress. In other words, under the "Advice and Consent clause the appointed member must be sworn in by the Senate. Again, this is an example of how the system of checks and balances limits the powers of the President.

The main breaking point between the President and Congress was in the Vietnam war. This war sparked a debate on who has the right to declare war, and who has the right to only send advisory troops. Only Congress has the right to declare war, the President can only send advisory troops to other countries. This is a very controversial topic because many people think that the President can declare war, but they have to ask the Congress first. Another convincing reason on why Congress is more powerful that the President is the fact that Congress can make laws and the President has no say. Laws are the outline of America, and they are the only thing keeping crime from all streets in all states across America. Those are only two reasons why Congress is more important to America than the President. All of these powers are stated in Article 1 of the Constitution and the powers of the President are listed in Article 2 of the Constitution. Some people still disagree, though, they think that the President has more rights than

The founding fathers did their part of making sure no one person is given too much power by ensuring that the United States has checks and balances. The 22nd Amendment has contributed to the checks and balances by limiting presidents to two terms in office. Term limits should also be in place for congressional members. This may be another way to ensure no congressional member ever has too much power within the government. Candidates would be running for the purpose to the serve people and not to just benefit themselves. Term limits would also stop the political reward and power abuse within Congress, leading to committees being assigned to individuals based on merit and their expertise to make informed decisions. Doing all

The presidential power expanded because of the need for quick response to events and situations, such as 9/11 in addition to the fact that the constitution is not really specific on the subject.

What are the most important limitations on presidential control of the federal bureaucracy? What are the benefits and problems with granting federal bureaucrats discretion in the implementation

The War Power can be found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. The war power is the congressional power that states that congress can declare war without the president's consent. They also control the navy, and they make all the rules for the forces of the military. This power is important because in the case that another country attacks us then congress knows the correct procedure for declaring war. There is no limit on this power. I believe that there is no limit on this power because there shouldn’t be a limit. If congress needs to declare war then they should be able to without restriction.

Has it been acceptable for the President to overstep Constitutional limitations during times of national crisis?

When it comes to foreign affairs it is very important that the President has the ability to use executive privilege. For instance, if the United States was making a treaty with another country, both countries may have to give things up in order to come to an agreement, and everything considered by both sides as well as everything agreed upon should not be made public for everyone, including other countries to see. This is best stated in 1796 by George Washington after the House of Representatives requested that he give them information concerning his instructions to the United States Minister to Britain regarding the treaty negotiations between the United States and Britain. Washington replied by saying:

The War Powers Act was explicitly meant to limit presidential powers during war time, but it has failed to do so. The ninety day limit has never been followed and while 99 reports have been submitted to Congress because of the Resolution, the reports are simply to inform, rather than consult with Congress, after a planned action is already under way. During the presidential reign of Gerald Ford, the United States was involved with six military crises: the rescue of U.S. citizens and refugees in Vietnam after the war, the rescue of the Mayaguez, and two evacuation operations in Lebanon. The War Powers Act was not applied in any of these situations, and it’s relevancy in military

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.

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.

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.”(Margaret Thatcher). Although this quote sounds ridiculous, it is absolutely right. Arguments have been made by President Obama that “nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to U.S. security.” However, history proves that weapons of mass destruction whether– biological, nuclear, chemical or radioactive, are a necessary evil to sustain global stability, deter attacks from rogue nations and encourage diplomacy.

What defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction from other conventional weapons is no thin line. The broad gap that stands between your conventional ballistic missile and the Big Ivan, or Tsar Bomba as the Western front knows it, the largest human-created explosion in history. It holds the record at 50 Megatons of TNT, approximately 1,570 times the force of the bombs detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although WMD may seem to be a long-used term, the actual phrase can only date as far back as the early 20th century, around the era of World War One. As stated by Defining weapons of Mass Destruction by W. Seth Carus, “The men who created and adopted WMD as a term of art clearly wanted terminology that differentiated certain categories of weapons from conventional weaponry—nuclear and biological in the case of Bush and CBRN in the case of the CCA negotiators.”(Pg.39). The