This is perhaps one of the more controversial powers given to the President because it begs the question of how a President can be held responsible if the people don’t know what they are doing? On the contrary, executive privilege is necessary because it maintains a certain level of security that is needed in all government
Diametrically opposed, their views on the future of the country fueled the creation of political parties and led to the two men emerging as the figureheads of those respective parties. While Jefferson is justly portrayed as Hamilton’s chief political foe, his opposition with fellow Federalist and Founding Father, John Adams, was no less volatile. John Adams was a member of the Federalist Party and served as George Washington’s Vice-President, yet he and Hamilton were not equals and initially had a strictly professional relationship that would later
In his time as President, he had had to deal with the Quasi-War, “America 's first major international crisis,” between Britain, France, and America (Florence). This meant that Adams had to make many major decisions in regards to the nation’s commerce and defense. “Some extreme Federalists were ready for a fight, but President Adams disappointed them, refusing to press war against Virginia or France (Florence).” His decision angered many
Congressmen aren’t elected through a slate of people voted by citizens to vote for citizens, so why is the president? If the government is truly to be by the people, why can this happen? If the answer is, it isn’t, that’s not the way the founders intended it, then we shouldn’t use a hastily created system made by people who came from a time when the common man was illiterate. It was a system created because the founders believed that the average person couldn’t truly be trusted electing the leader, so they created a system to separate their decisions from how the president is picked. Whether or not the founders were
In Document C, Samples provides a federalist argument for supporting the electoral college by stating that it gives states an important role in choosing the president and thus supporting a fundamental principle of our democracy. The problem with Sample’s argument is that the electoral college is in essence undemocratic. We know that the electoral college is undemocratic because not only are small states over represented but a citizens vote can be weighted more or less depending on the state in which they reside in. In Document F, we are told what happens in case of a tie or no one winning the electoral vote. In case of this situation occurring then the House of Representatives will decide on who becomes president where state representatives will all get an equal vote.
Current day, it has little relevancy since it was originally included to address also issues that do not exist anymore, including not trusting the decision to be made by the American people. When originally founded, they wanted to ensure the President was decided by electors who had the knowledge to make what they felt was informed decisions. Now, many people feel as though too much power is given to the electoral votes, and that their vote does not mean as much as someone in a different state. As it stands, many feel that small states are largely misrepresented and given too much power since the votes are not divided equally among the population. In fact, if the Electoral College system was not in the Constitution, it would undoubtedly be removed due to it being unconstitutional, because using the electoral votes violates the principle of one-person, one-vote.
Through the system of checks and balances it states “The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. But it also makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces.” (Glass). Because of this regulation of power the president is unable to make any rash decisions on his own without the approval of Congress which provides grand safety to the people. If the executive branch were to come to decisions without being monitored by the legislative and judicial branch the U.S. government would function as a dictatorship where no one has a say in
No other nation has so ornamental a manner of determining their leader in this circumstance, as president of the United States. The framers petrified that a presidential plebiscite and—with reminiscences of how the Roman republic deteriorated into an kingdom—dreaded that the people together with a president who controlled the armed forces might imperil liberty and constitutional government. Their distress of mobocracy led them to cast-off popular election of the president (Genovese “Electoral College”). Unlike the electoral process for members of Congress or governors, citizens do not directly elect the president of the United States. Instead, the president is chosen by a group of 538 electors that comprise the Electoral College.
And like every political battle in the Senate, the Legislation and the Judicial branches of our government, when a president stands in the way of justice and freedom – charges can be brought to impeach. That does not mean it is always carried out, even if trials go one tediously. Ambiguous technicalities were defended well on Johnson’s behalf, and moderate Republicans had concern of upending the balance of the three branches of government afore mentioned. And like many political maneuvers that go on behind the scenes of trials and tribulations of American life and politics, Johnson made the promise to appoint a new Secretary of War, General John M. Scholfield and to relent in the obstruction of Reconstruction. Upon these few facts, his acquittal came with a one vote shy of the two-thirds majority needed to impeach
If a president were to be elected without proper votes, it would be a comfort for voters to have term limits. Most importantly, term limits prevent a president from becoming too powerful by limiting his time in power. Term limits prevent the government from turning into a dictatorship.
I have always contended that the President has little or no power. Or maybe a better way to say this is that he has the powers the US Constitution allows him to have, checked by the other branches of government and he can exercise them with the blessing of the US citizens. So his powers are very limited. For example, the president is the "Commander in Chief" so you would think this means that the Armed Forces answer to him. But image what would happen if he tried to take over the country by military force.
But that’s not all the president has to do. He/She also has to approve or veto new laws that are trying to be passed. The president also has to grant pardons, which usually is a very tough decision to make. The president is also the Commander in Chief, so he has to decide to send troops and risk people’s lives or not. These are just a few reasons why the president’s job is
If the President were to be infuriated by another Nation’s acts, the President might at that very moment feel like his office should send troops to that nation or drop bombs. A good leader would think things through and come to the best solution possible, especially if those actions will be affecting other people. Another example would be that of relationships, when dealing with other people, there are many instances in which we may be frustrated and want to leave that particular person, because of disagreements or fights. If we were to act spontaneously in those cases, every human would be alone for the rest of their lives. The proper thing to do would be to think things over, to look at every angle of the situation and act accordingly.
John Adams threatened to strip power from Congress so he could complete things he thought were best for the country if Congress didn’t agree with him. Every president has a certain agenda towards accomplishing things for the country during their time in office. It isn’t easy to follow those agendas though over the course of