In The Rise of the Plebiscitary Presidency, Professor Craig Rimmerman argues against the “plebiscitary presidency”, where the president governs through the direct support of the American people. Rimmerman argues that the Framers of the Constitution assumed that the legislative branch would serve as the central policymaking role. The modern plebiscitary presidency has been shaped by the tremendous amount of personal power drawn from the people through the Supreme Court and Congress. Rimmerman argues that the consequence of a presidentially-centered form of government that Neustadt and other scholars failed to recognize is that presidents will strive to meet the expectations that come with the new presidency to the extreme, where they will exert …show more content…
Neustadt linked strong presidential leadership with a good government, and argued that presidents should be evaluated on how they achieved the presidential standards set by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He rejected the Framers’ view that the Constitution should be the chief policymaking branch and argued that the president should not be constrained by checks and balances. I disagree with Neustadt’s view, and agree with Rimmerman’s argument. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to keep the president from acting like a monarch. The checks and balances system is needed to keep the President from exerting too much power. The job of the President is to enforce the laws passed by Congress, not the other way around. In 1918, Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, a peace treaty ending World War I. The Republicans in Congress opposed the Treaty because Article X would have allowed the League of Nations to declare war without a vote by the United States Congress. President Wilson launched a nationwide speaking tour in the summer of 1919 to refute the arguments set forth by these Republicans. His power of persuasion failed to succeed. Although Neustadt is correct when arguing that the power of persuasion is key, Rimmerman is correct when fiercely arguing that presidential power cannot dominate. One person cannot run this country alone, and should not be the only one making decisions that influence the lives of every single
Thaddeus Russell, author of A Renegade History of The United States, furthers his book by changing his focus to one specific presidency,Franklin D. Roosevelt’s. Roosevelt strays away from democratic policies and tries to swift the nation into an autocracy. Roosevelt’s presidency was on the verge of dictatorship. Russell continues to explain how this one particular presidents ideas and policies were no longer self-governing, but seemingly a tyranny waiting to arise. The president plans on propaganda and censorship were said to make America great again.
In George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796), the departing president warned that the creation of political factions, would most certainly lead to “formal and permanent despotism” for the United States, of which he was clearly right. Despite Washington’s words of warning, two of his closest advisors, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, helped to form the factions that led to the dual party system under which the U.S. operates today. Hamilton and Jefferson came to represent the divisions that shaped the early national political landscape, for they had polar opposite views on how the Constitution of the United States should allow, and support, their vision of how the government should be run. Jefferson took a strong position against the creation of a large, central federal government that got itself involved in domestic affairs. According to Jefferson, the role of government should be small and more direct to local citizens, in order to keep the new republic from returning to a tyrannical monarchy.
As our nation first formed, there was much concern about the role of our nation’s leader and how powerful they should be. When the Articles of Confederation were written in 1781, it did not provide for an executive branch. In 1787, at the first Constitutional convention, the delegates agreed that there had to be an executive branch which would be separate from the legislative branch. They felt this would avoid any corruption and would provide for checks and balances to prevent dictatorial rule by this branch of government. Though small, the executive branch plays a crucial role in running the United States.
As the United States of America takes shape through the molding of our nations leaders such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, many controversies arise and these men are the first to set precedent for the nation. Many of these controversies occur during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, although these men were both of the same political party, the way they responded to the call of presidency happened to be very different. As Jefferson and Madison lead the people of the American nation, both held power for the party of Jeffersonian Democrats, yet Madison’s strict interpretation of the constitution tended to contradict the loosely interpreted decisions of his predecessor Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson can be called many things but during his presidency Jefferson can most accurately be described as a
In reflection to my first icebreaker post, I completed the following sentence "The government can be trusted to do the right thing if they stop.... with the phrase: demeaning the U.S. Constitution and follow what the framers intended. " In respect to my former phrase it has not evolved into a new perspective or understanding, but instead, it supported what other political science professors have written. Lawrence C. Dodd & Bruce I. Oppenheimer (2013) in their book Congress Reconsidered, as well as political scientist Michael Nelson (2014), presents in his compilation titled The Presidency and the Political System. All of the previous publications mention how the government has evolved to modern times and it is not functioning as a deliberator for the citizens but rather a powerful bureaucratic institution.
The Shay’s Rebellion, as well as economic depression in the United States, opened doors for protests and questions regarding the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation. The question of whether a powerful central government was necessary to provide citizens fundamental rights caused deliberation among officials. After years of debate, the Articles of Confederation was overturned, resulting in the establishment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution, perceived as a supreme document, served as a solution to the defects of the Confederation. In 1787, the same year the Constitution was ratified, an essay was written, presumably by Robert Yates.
Moe and Howell offer compelling reasons as to why unilateral action is even a concern. They point to the combination of constitutional ambiguity in the level to which presidents are able to act. The multitude of statues, clauses, and loopholes give the executive room to take action in a number
If the president appeals to one set of interests over another, unwanted circumstances can arise. Commonly, the president would want to consider the public opinion which usually
The president of the United States and Congress have different roles and powers in the area of foreign policy. According to the Constitution, the president “shall have the Power, by and with the advice and Consent of Senate, to make Treaties … shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” (Milkis and Nelson, 2016). The Constitution also states that Congress has the power to declare war. These are all Constitutional powers, powers that were given to the president and Congress by the Constitution. In foreign policy, Congress or the legislative branch should have the power to take lead in the area of foreign policy.
“I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead” (Nixon, NY Times). This is what former President, Richard Nixon, said in 1974 about the ease of firing nukes, which if done, sets off alarms about an imperial presidency. An imperial presidency is dangerous because it gives one person the unequivocal power to rule over a country. In the year 2012, Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith published a novel called Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11 about whether or not an imperial presidency is achievable. He states that due to the accountability checks we have on government and the democratic process a 21st-century imperial president could not exist.
In recent years there has been debate on whether or not the president has too much power. The president 's power has increased over the years, I believe that this increase has given the president way too much power. The amount of power that the president has, can cause total destruction and can manipulate people into doing things that they do not actually believe in. A president should not have some of the powers that he possess, but they are given to him simply because he is the leader of the country. In my opinion the president should be allowed certain powers in order to run the country properly, he is also the leader of the country which grants him the right to have certain powers according to the constitution.
William Henry Harrison’s speech left the idea that the president should protect the nation through the power that the president receives. For instance, President Harrison stated, “ A person elected to that high office..., must consider himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest” (Inaugural Speech). In other words, Harrison’s words left the impression to the public that they can feel safe by President Harrison because he believed, since he has the power, the obvious way to use that power is to protect and defend everyone no matter who the individual
In “Federalist No. 69”, Alexander Hamilton wrote to inform and persuade the public to agree to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Particularly, he focused on the executive leadership’s role in the new government. He described the number of years the President can serve for before he is eligible for reelection. The President’s conduct and actions regarding legal matters are described as not being above the law. Law-making checks are imposed on the President as the two houses carry a large say.
George Washington encouraged the United States to take a neutral approach, to avoid wars with nations in the future. Woodrow Wilson wanted to continue the policy of neutrality. He eventually asked Congress to declare war on Germany. The Government failed to sign the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations. Many thought that joining the League of Nations would lead to war.
In his essay, Woodrow Wilson breaks down his essay into three sections, the first of which gives a detail of the history of public administration. Without delay he concedes that technically public administration has been around for a long time. However, he supersedes this through claiming that no one had studied in depth the field and systematic knowledge of public administration until the previous century. He details of during the period of and preceding his essay, people would disproportionately focus on the constitution of the government. These people would focus on the relationship of the constitution and how the laws were made, what laws could be made, and who made the laws.