Constitutional Convention: Should The US Even Have A President?

523 Words3 Pages
Final Exam Question 1 Back in 1787, the Constitutional Convention had to answer a very essential question that would determine the office of the presidency: Should the U.S. even have a president? The Founding Fathers feared executive power such as monarchies, yet they also knew that state governments weren’t strong enough to keep the republic afloat. They had to find a balance between a leader that was both strong and dependable, yet gave a healthy amount of power to the people. In the Constitution, the office of the presidency is vaguely mentioned, yet it mentions three types of powers given to the president: 1) Expressed Powers, which are explicitly granted from the Constitution itself 2) Delegated Powers, or powers granted by Congress, and 3) Inherent Powers, which are assumed by the president during times of crisis. The use of these powers determine if the president is going beyond the limits of the office. Many argue that the president has abused these powers with the use of the Unitary Executive Theory, which states that the Constitution puts the president in charge of executing the laws, and that nobody can limit the president’s power when it comes to executive powers. It therefore tips authority from Congress to the presidency, upsetting the power of checks and balances.…show more content…
There are many problems and issues in our country that need special attention such as the broken economy, immigration issues, the faulty education system, cultural disruption, etc., yet most of them are not properly taken care of. Barack Obama seems to be an almost perfect example of this: he says he will bring change and promises to fix important issues, yet he spends time on things that end up being a bad idea later on, like Obamacare. Much like Jimmy Carter, the presidency isn’t abusing its power, it’s just not using its power in the way that it
Open Document