Should the Executive Privilege Be Absolute In United States, the Executive Privilege played a positive role on the president in domestic and foreign policy decisions, defend national interests and the protection of national defense secrets. However, this privilege can be abused by the president and executive members as well in seizing power, even provide legal basis to disguise their illicit activities at the White House. In my point of view, I think the executive privilege should not be absolute due to lack of transparency and supervision on the matter of personal interest and national security. As the strongest nation across the global, the president and members of the executive of the United States has the power to conduct a number of operations or information in secret and the executive privilege grants them to resist some legislative and branches of government for disclosing those communications if would potentially interfere the functions of executive branch (Legal Information Institute).
LOBBYING WHAT IS LOBBYING? Lobbying means you are supplying information to policy makers (usually lawmakers) trying to influence someone as they make public policy. Many people think of “lobbying” as good and positive, while others think of it as bad and corrupting.
The executive branch is given too much power from the Constitution, and there is a probability of it becoming a monarchy soon. The Federalists could argue that a strong national government is needed to deal with problems, like trade and defense, but that does not counter the fact that they carry an army during peacetime, and it could be used to suppress the people. They might also say that a strong executive branch is necessary to to fulfill its responsibilities, this can be countered by the fact that one branch should not be stronger than the others, that was the whole point of the three branches. In conclusion, the Constitution has many errors that need mending.
Servant needs to please without making limits or restrictions on people who he is serving to. In reality politician is a “visible architect of our restraints” who “taxes us, licenses us, forbids and permits us, directs us” (Walzer 1973:163). We can see that instead of possessing politician, politician possesses us and does this for his and our own good, as paradoxical as it may sound. He can even use violence or the threat of violence against us with a potential of becoming a killer. That is why Walzer presented three reasons of why there is the problem of dirty hands in politics: politician needs to serve himself in order to act for others; politician needs to rule over others to serve them; politician needs to use violence against
If anything, they made placed more effort into protecting I-Hotel and its tenants. They placed political pressure on Shorenstein’s status as Campaign Finance Chairman of the Democratic Party, as coincidentally, the Democratic Party wanted to project an anti-elitist image. Therefore, there was a
It does not seem wise to have citizens out of work due to differences in opinion. Washington might have been around long before these issues, however, he foreshadowed what would happen if we had different political parties. He stated, “They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests” (Washington). He knew if we were divided as a nation we would not function as one
According to Angela Stampey, photo IDs would stop voter fraud. The United States democracy is at risk when we cannot trust our election results. Voter fraud is real, and because of this our election polls cannot be trusted. Angela Stampey suggests citizens need to require photo identification at the polls.
The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.
Formation of policy occurs in Congress, while implementation of policy at the federal level occurs through the executive bureaucracy. This formation and implementation are not without struggles between the executive branch and Congress, yet, interest groups with a stake in the policy also seek to influence the policy process. Scholars highlight arguments as to who controls and influences the bureaucracy the executive, legislative, or pluralistic interest groups. No matter who influences the bureaucracy, under the current conditions of party polarization and greater hyper-pluralism there is greater contentiousness in the policy process and a decreasing ability for government policies to be flexible for meeting current policy problems.
Comptroller of the Currency said, “Culture is a critical component of a sound management team.” Glazer and Rexrode add that it could also significantly affect his agency’s rating of a bank’s strength. The article then states that there have been ideas floating around such as putting banks on a driver’s-license-like “point system.” With this system the bank’s licenses could be pulled for a bad performance. Glazer and Rexrode also contribute the ideas of “fining bank chief executives, banning bad traders from the business or factoring compliance breaches into compensation aim to build a more personal sense of responsibility.”
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.
The following analysis will expand upon one of the congressional caricatures observed in Hamilton 's article: the act of lobbying misrepresents the public 's opinion and should not be endorsed. Hamilton proposes a precisely balanced approach to lobbying. He states that lobbyists are principled people who play a large part of focussing the public 's attention on significant issues and are key to helping Congress members stay informed. He emphasizes that those who practice lobbying do so, in the open, as part of "the broader policy debate" (as cited in Stinebrickner, 2015, p. 117). As a previous member of congress, Hamilton 's opinion on the matter is soon justified and I agree with him.