The Bush and Truman doctrine have caused a heated debate between the people of America for some time now. Although many people believe that the Truman Doctrine was a better decision than the Bush Doctrine, both doctrines have had their ups and downs. Even though doctrines are solely based on the president’s decisions, perhaps the citizens should also get a say in the
After the Revolutionary War, the rewriting and ratification of the Constitution, and the inauguration of George Washington as president, the nation still had many political issues to deal with, however different groups in the government had very different opinions and strategies about how to solve them and how the new government should be run. This lead to the development of political parties. The two first parties were the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans. One way the original political parties in America differed was their thoughts on whether or not our government should be “ruled by the wealthy class” versus “ruled by the people”. The Federalists party, founded by Alexander Hamilton, believed that the government should be ruled by the wealthy.
Also, these two presidents were able to use public information as a tool for their causes, and it helped to gather support. Woodrow Wilson also sided with the pro-imperialists, believing that the United States had the right to do with these nations as they pleased. It was after both World Wars that arguments and actions occurred against extensions of presidential power. The author mentioned that Dean Acheson, who was President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, criticized the right of the president to be able to use American troops in executing foreign policy, while the Congress has no say in the matter. Also, this was followed by actions by the Supreme Court to say “that Truman had gone beyond his authority by moving to take over strike-bound mills to ensure the steady production of war material”.
Expressed powers are powers granted to the president by the constitution. There are quite a few powers that are bestowed upon the president. Budgeting is one of them; the president has the power in taking the initiative in advising and executing budget priorities. An example of this from the book is “ the president could rein in congressional spending by impounding funds”(losco 310). Another power is Law Enforcement, normally Law Enforcement goes to the state and local government but they have grown to work on bigger responsibilities.
If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue. Who will decide that the public’s demand that the president and the government act to keep them safe is now excessive? If security requires America to shape the world by its direct military efforts, how
Loose Versus Strict Interpretation The constitution today is used in a loose interpretation. Although it is questioned by many Democratic republicans who believe that the constitution should be interpreted in a stricter manner. While the Federalists debate the government should have a loose construction. Both parties fear that the united states will be in danger without their views. Who came up with these vastly different views of government, you might ask.
Two changes I would make in the constitution both fall into the second article. This is the article concerning the presidential election process and duties. While other articles could of course be modified in some way or another, I find that the two changes I came up with could be agreed with by almost everyone. I tried to make these decision not based on how I feel about politics and my beliefs, but instead I made my decisions based on what is best for everybody. I wanted to put my political affiliation aside for this question because in the grand scheme of things what I will suggest are things that could legitimately be addressed without too much complication.
This pattern repeats itself an alarming number of times, another prime example being CIA activities in Guatemala. The newly elected Guatemalan government was overthrown with the support of the CIA, an action that was entirely undemocratic and stood in harsh contrast to the ideals put forward by the West. Not only would these actions result in a myriad of human rights travesties, but the reason for overthrowing this government was hugely influenced by the desire to maintain the influence of US corporations such as United Fruit within the
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government.
This function of judicial review is not meant for specific cases but more importantly to guide the other two branches and we could say that thanks to this, the Supreme Court can actually modify laws to its preferences and interests. This is one of the main features that lead people to believe it is the most powerful branch of American government and even though it may sound extreme, we could very well say that the way the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional is unconstitutional
The Electoral College (another words for as it stands) today, has become (another word for detrimental) to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As an American citizen, it is our (another word for duty) to (another word for fight) for our right to fair representation. In a fair democracy, everyone’s vote should be counted equally but he method that the United States uses to elect its president using the Electoral College violates the
With the checks and balances the government was able to get more power or something subjects but the government 's branches could still get check to see if they were stay in line and not getting too much power over everything or everyone else. Document 4 supported this claim because the legislative branch could have the president veto the law or goal the other branches suggested, the Exec branch appointed the judges for the judicial branch and the legislative branch could impeach the judges for the judicial branch and ⅔ of the branches could veto anything the legislative branch did if it wasn’t a benefit. We had got a bill of right in the constitution. This new bill of right was made as a compromise for the federalist and antifederalist argument over ratifying the constitution and the bill of right also gave us a ten amendments, Document 3 supported the claim because with the bill of right it had gave us more freedom over some things over subject that had been restrict to the people and what the were allowed to do and not to do.
In this role the president is their there to hopefully help protect the help and not let something pass that may end up hurting the people more then it would help protect them. - I dont really think one role that the president has is more important then any of the other roles. Each one of them is very important and if they are not handled in the right way it could end up in a disaster. It
The modern presidency powers have evolved from the evolution of the past combination of constitutional and evolutionary powers. The greatest fears that the anti-federalist once vision the President would have back in 1700 finally became fruitful from strong President Personalities. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were major influences in the early years of the 1800s, which shaped the President’s role in the national government. It was not until the 1930s after the 18th and 19th centuries when the shift of the dominant power of the Congress to the President in the national government. Then what is now seen in the 20th and 21st Century where the power of the executive branch currently has been at least equal power to the legislative
Over time, the president’s executive power has dramatically increased in cases of emergency and war. One such case is that of George W. Bush and his stance of preemptive strikes on Iraq known as the Bush Doctrine. The doctrine was met with much support, however, caused much controversy later. The Bush Doctrine, although allowed, was in violation of the Constitution and lacked approval from congress.