Schlesinger's War and the American Presidency offers great insight into American foreign policy and its implications on presidential power. Specifically, it looks deep into Bush's administration and the public's perception and dissent of Bush foreign policy. He claims that Bush is fighting wars solely to prevent future wars and attacks. Furthermore, he claims that giving the president all this power during extreme circumstances and during wartime is creating a presidential office with too much power. He calls this the imperial presidency and explains that since there is a precedent set during wartime to abuse these powers it is becoming more and more common for the presidential office to abuse these powers during times of peace. I agree with Schlesinger's argument, because by allowing the president to expand and abuse his Constitutional powers during wartime we are unknowingly setting a precedent for him to do the same without a declaration of war.
The presidential office always uses past administrations to model their own policy. In Bush's case, when he suspended habeas corpus, he was able to reference Lincoln and his suspension of habeas corpus. The reasoning sounds better when you are able to show that it worked in the past from one of the country's most well-known presidents. However, they were two different situations and Lincoln's suspension was more justified. During the Civil War, the fight was on American soil and suspending habeas corpus was a much needed measure to ensure national security. However, Bush's War on Terrorism is not being fought in America and suspending habeas corpus wouldn't achieve as much for national security. This example reveals that presidents look for a precedent to justify their abuses of power. So, a president abusing a power once during wartime, you are setting up future presidents to abuse the same power.
If we look at Obama's presidency, he is continuing the abuses that Bush started. In Obama's case, he has faced little scrutiny even though he took Bush's abuse a step further. Bush suspended habeas corpus, but Obama went even further by ordering assassinations of US citizens and not giving them their right to due process. However, there hasn't been as much interest in this abuse of power compared to Bush. In my opinion, the lack of attention is because their was already a precedent set by Bush. There was a smooth transition of this policy from the Bush to Obama administration. So, it was easy for the Obama administration to continue the abuse of the Bush admin. How long is this abuse going to last? Because the longer it last and if it continues to be used by future presidents, then it will become a part of the American presidency. It will become one of the assumed powers of the president. By giving the president the leeway to abuse these powers we are setting up future presidents to do the same. It will become common for the president to suspend habeas corpus and that will not be good for American citizens.
So, Schlesinger is bringing up a good point. We need to look at these abuses of power and limit them. We need to set a precedent of not allowing the presidential administration to abuse their powers during wartime. Because these powers start to leak over past the actual wartime and become more common and more acceptable. This is dangerous. Even though we don't notice the long-term implications when the president abuses his power, we need to start thinking about it. This brings up one of Cato's main fears from Cato's Letters. He argues that if we give the president all this power, then a president who has the ambition to be tyrannical can assume that position. We are handing over too much power to the president and this will come back to haunt us when these abuses become a more common aspect of the presidency.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Jackson's Opinion on Relationships Between Branches
The decision from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer isn't as important as the implications of the concurring opinion of Justice Robert Jackson. He split up presidential power into three situations and ranked them according to how strong his authority is. The first category is when the president exercises a power granted to him by Congress and this is when his power is the strongest. Also, the president can act when there is no Congressional law or grant; executive power may vary in this situation and is uncertain. Finally, he can act by going against a Congressional act, which has the lowest amount of power and is most relevant to the court case.
When thinking about the roles of the president and Congress, the end of Jackson's opinion gives us some insight into the relationship between these branches. First off, he explains that laws govern us not the people. And the law-making ability is solely in the hands of Congress and the only powers that the president has are vetoes and recommendations. The president cannot act without the approval of a law. And laws are set up solely by Congress. Jackson wants to keep the power in the hands of Congress and not sacrifice Congress' power and give it to the president. If the president can act against a law, you are giving him more power over the other branches. The president must "... be under the law" and the law must be made be Congressional considerations and discussions.
It seems like Jackson's understanding of the relationship between Congress and the president is lopsided. He believes the president is "... under the law..." and Congress is the one who makes the laws. Therefore, the president is under the rule and power of Congressional actions. He needs to abide by these rules. This understanding is extreme, but I do agree with it. The president needs to follow the laws. The founding fathers of our country wanted to set up a system of governance that separated powers and created checks and balances between branches. It won't allow one branch to gain too much power. If we allow the president to act out against Congressional laws, then we are disrupting the delicate system of checks and balances. You would be giving the president too much power to do what he wants. He wouldn't have to follow Congressional acts that he didn't want to. Regardless of the fairness of the law, it is still a law. As Jackson stated we should "... be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law." Nobody should be able to escape the law and its intentions (not even the president).
On the other hand, Justice Jackson also gives us insight into his opinion about the relationship between the president and the Courts. The last two sentences of his opinion illustrate his opinion on the relationship. "Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up." This means that the court shouldn't "...aggrandize the presidential office.. at the expense of Congress." It seems that he is implying that he doesn't expect the Court and doesn't want the Court to let the president gain too much power. He is assuming a new role for the Court. He wants to protect the law and make sure the president cannot escape Congress' laws. Usually, the Court assumes the role of interpreting and reviewing the Constitutionality of the law. In this instance, however, he is suggesting that the Court must enforce the law when the president is unwilling to. With respect to our system of checks and balances, it seems like the court is creating a check to make sure the president follows the law which legislators make. Before this, there wasn't much we could do if the president wasn't sticking to the law. The Court will hold by this even when this idea starts to deteriorate. It is a balance of power that the Court seems to hold firmly in its beliefs.
For the regular conduct of government, Jackson's view has practical implications. The War Power's Act is a great example of how Congress can control the actions of the president through their laws. The president needs to adhere to the law and practice the intentions of the War Powers Act. He needs to get Congressional Approval within 60 days of deploying or increasing troops. This shows how Congress is restricting the president's explicit power as commander in chief. This implies that Congress has power over the president in the regular dealings of our government. They were able to construct a law that did just that. Even when the president tried to veto the law from passing, Congress still passed it with a super majority. And the president still needed to follow the law even though he vetoed and opposed it for practical reasons. So, for reasons like this the president should work together with Congress, because if Congress wanted to they can make the president's time in office as restrictive as the Constitution allows.
When thinking about the roles of the president and Congress, the end of Jackson's opinion gives us some insight into the relationship between these branches. First off, he explains that laws govern us not the people. And the law-making ability is solely in the hands of Congress and the only powers that the president has are vetoes and recommendations. The president cannot act without the approval of a law. And laws are set up solely by Congress. Jackson wants to keep the power in the hands of Congress and not sacrifice Congress' power and give it to the president. If the president can act against a law, you are giving him more power over the other branches. The president must "... be under the law" and the law must be made be Congressional considerations and discussions.
It seems like Jackson's understanding of the relationship between Congress and the president is lopsided. He believes the president is "... under the law..." and Congress is the one who makes the laws. Therefore, the president is under the rule and power of Congressional actions. He needs to abide by these rules. This understanding is extreme, but I do agree with it. The president needs to follow the laws. The founding fathers of our country wanted to set up a system of governance that separated powers and created checks and balances between branches. It won't allow one branch to gain too much power. If we allow the president to act out against Congressional laws, then we are disrupting the delicate system of checks and balances. You would be giving the president too much power to do what he wants. He wouldn't have to follow Congressional acts that he didn't want to. Regardless of the fairness of the law, it is still a law. As Jackson stated we should "... be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law." Nobody should be able to escape the law and its intentions (not even the president).
On the other hand, Justice Jackson also gives us insight into his opinion about the relationship between the president and the Courts. The last two sentences of his opinion illustrate his opinion on the relationship. "Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up." This means that the court shouldn't "...aggrandize the presidential office.. at the expense of Congress." It seems that he is implying that he doesn't expect the Court and doesn't want the Court to let the president gain too much power. He is assuming a new role for the Court. He wants to protect the law and make sure the president cannot escape Congress' laws. Usually, the Court assumes the role of interpreting and reviewing the Constitutionality of the law. In this instance, however, he is suggesting that the Court must enforce the law when the president is unwilling to. With respect to our system of checks and balances, it seems like the court is creating a check to make sure the president follows the law which legislators make. Before this, there wasn't much we could do if the president wasn't sticking to the law. The Court will hold by this even when this idea starts to deteriorate. It is a balance of power that the Court seems to hold firmly in its beliefs.
For the regular conduct of government, Jackson's view has practical implications. The War Power's Act is a great example of how Congress can control the actions of the president through their laws. The president needs to adhere to the law and practice the intentions of the War Powers Act. He needs to get Congressional Approval within 60 days of deploying or increasing troops. This shows how Congress is restricting the president's explicit power as commander in chief. This implies that Congress has power over the president in the regular dealings of our government. They were able to construct a law that did just that. Even when the president tried to veto the law from passing, Congress still passed it with a super majority. And the president still needed to follow the law even though he vetoed and opposed it for practical reasons. So, for reasons like this the president should work together with Congress, because if Congress wanted to they can make the president's time in office as restrictive as the Constitution allows.
Monday, April 11, 2011
A New Look at American Foreign Policy
In President Clinton's speech about the Kosovo conflict, he references a few reasons for reacting with military action. First off, he believed that a unified and stable European region was important to American political and economic interests. Furthermore, Kosovo is too close to other countries with similar problems. This invasion will help prevent a big war in the future and prevent democracies from falling in the region. Most importantly, our alliance with NATO brought us into action. He explained that NATO agreed to defend Kosovo and we needed to keep this commitment for the sake of the credibility of NATO. Most importantly (and most similar to Obama) is the fact that it isn't "American" troops going into Kosovo; instead we are sending NATO troops, so there is a shared responsibility between all the NATO members for his war. IT won't be directly traced back to America's interests and the blame won't fall solely on the US.
In Obama's speech, he references many similar reasons for deploying American troops to Libya. He explains that our American values and interests are at stake due to Gaddafi's unjust use of his power. He cites Gadaffi's wrong-doings as a major reason why we had to take military action. He explains that innocent people were targeted and killed by Gaddafi's regime without any means to defend themselves. Obama goes on to list nations that are also involved in resolving this conflict. We are acting with them (like Clinton and NATO) and not by ourself. Instead we are acting altogether to bring out Gaddafi's regime. He also brings up NATO and explains that we are handing over our operations to NATO and we will take more of a supporting role in the efforts.
When looking at the possibility of a new doctrine of American foreign policy, it is important to understand the reasons we are going to war. In my opinion, Obama and Clinton have started a new doctrine for US foreign policy. Their main reasons for going to war are, like always, to protect American interests. However, during both of their presidencies, there have been other conflicts that have arose that we didn't get involved in. They were conflicts that had American interests and also threaten global security and human freedom. Obama references human freedoms as a reason for entering the conflict against Libya. So, then how come we haven't been involved in these other conflicts? If they have threatened American interests (like the Egyptian Revolution) and violated human freedom and rights, shouldn't we have acted with military force in these situations too?
Well, in my opinion, there is a new doctrine that has led American foreign policy. Obama and Clinton both adopted this policy. Within this doctrine, America has stepped down in our role as "world police." Acting alone against these conflicts without world support won't work anymore. We need the support of the international community and most importantly NATO if we want to seek out successful operations. We can't act alone. By acting along with the international community's efforts, we are taking a backseat. We are no longer the first-mover. We are no longer taking full responsibility for these conflicts. If we act together, we can split the responsibilities, split the costs, split the losses, and split the victories. So, the new doctrine is based on acting in the interest of the international community by engaging in conflicts that we have back up from NATO or other strong nations. We can't fight our wars alone anymore. The power of the international community is much more threatening and much stronger than that of the US alone.
I like this new doctrine. We are stronger when we act together and it takes the burden off a single country and spreads it across all the nations involved. It is a more economically efficient way of handling conflicts. We can all act together and contribute in some way that we have a competitive advantage in. We've wasted billions of dollars and man hours in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have much support around us. We tried to do everything ourself and we took the burden of all the costs. In this conflict, Obama explained that we are supporting the efforts by providing a few key resources. The main efforts of supporting the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to the larger bodies like NATO (where responsibilities can be split). We will be supplying resources in things we are good at like military intelligence and logistics, search and rescue assistance, and our ability to jam communications within the regime. This new doctrine of American foreign policy has even proven successful in its short life. Gaddafi and the rebels just recently agreed to a cease-fire in negotiations with the African Union. Gaddafi can't handle the pressure of the international community as a whole. Sure, American won't take full credit for stopping Gaddafi and the rebels, but we were a part of the solution. America helped promote peace in the area, along with many other nations, and we should be pleased that we finally reached peace.
In my opinion, we can take action in Libya without taking action in other conflicts like in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria (to name a few). If we don't have the support of the international community, our efforts are going to be seriously hindered. We acted in Libya because we had the support of NATO and other important countries. And so far our efforts in Libya have been able to strip some land and power away from the rebels. However, if we acted alone in these efforts, we would have to fund the war by ourself, use all our resources to fight the war (instead of contributing a few key resources) and still carry out wars in other nations like IRaq and Afghanistan. It is too much to balance. we can't get involved in all the conflicts. We need to choose our engagement strategically and we have done so in supporting the opposition in Libya.
In Obama's speech, he references many similar reasons for deploying American troops to Libya. He explains that our American values and interests are at stake due to Gaddafi's unjust use of his power. He cites Gadaffi's wrong-doings as a major reason why we had to take military action. He explains that innocent people were targeted and killed by Gaddafi's regime without any means to defend themselves. Obama goes on to list nations that are also involved in resolving this conflict. We are acting with them (like Clinton and NATO) and not by ourself. Instead we are acting altogether to bring out Gaddafi's regime. He also brings up NATO and explains that we are handing over our operations to NATO and we will take more of a supporting role in the efforts.
When looking at the possibility of a new doctrine of American foreign policy, it is important to understand the reasons we are going to war. In my opinion, Obama and Clinton have started a new doctrine for US foreign policy. Their main reasons for going to war are, like always, to protect American interests. However, during both of their presidencies, there have been other conflicts that have arose that we didn't get involved in. They were conflicts that had American interests and also threaten global security and human freedom. Obama references human freedoms as a reason for entering the conflict against Libya. So, then how come we haven't been involved in these other conflicts? If they have threatened American interests (like the Egyptian Revolution) and violated human freedom and rights, shouldn't we have acted with military force in these situations too?
Well, in my opinion, there is a new doctrine that has led American foreign policy. Obama and Clinton both adopted this policy. Within this doctrine, America has stepped down in our role as "world police." Acting alone against these conflicts without world support won't work anymore. We need the support of the international community and most importantly NATO if we want to seek out successful operations. We can't act alone. By acting along with the international community's efforts, we are taking a backseat. We are no longer the first-mover. We are no longer taking full responsibility for these conflicts. If we act together, we can split the responsibilities, split the costs, split the losses, and split the victories. So, the new doctrine is based on acting in the interest of the international community by engaging in conflicts that we have back up from NATO or other strong nations. We can't fight our wars alone anymore. The power of the international community is much more threatening and much stronger than that of the US alone.
I like this new doctrine. We are stronger when we act together and it takes the burden off a single country and spreads it across all the nations involved. It is a more economically efficient way of handling conflicts. We can all act together and contribute in some way that we have a competitive advantage in. We've wasted billions of dollars and man hours in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have much support around us. We tried to do everything ourself and we took the burden of all the costs. In this conflict, Obama explained that we are supporting the efforts by providing a few key resources. The main efforts of supporting the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to the larger bodies like NATO (where responsibilities can be split). We will be supplying resources in things we are good at like military intelligence and logistics, search and rescue assistance, and our ability to jam communications within the regime. This new doctrine of American foreign policy has even proven successful in its short life. Gaddafi and the rebels just recently agreed to a cease-fire in negotiations with the African Union. Gaddafi can't handle the pressure of the international community as a whole. Sure, American won't take full credit for stopping Gaddafi and the rebels, but we were a part of the solution. America helped promote peace in the area, along with many other nations, and we should be pleased that we finally reached peace.
In my opinion, we can take action in Libya without taking action in other conflicts like in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria (to name a few). If we don't have the support of the international community, our efforts are going to be seriously hindered. We acted in Libya because we had the support of NATO and other important countries. And so far our efforts in Libya have been able to strip some land and power away from the rebels. However, if we acted alone in these efforts, we would have to fund the war by ourself, use all our resources to fight the war (instead of contributing a few key resources) and still carry out wars in other nations like IRaq and Afghanistan. It is too much to balance. we can't get involved in all the conflicts. We need to choose our engagement strategically and we have done so in supporting the opposition in Libya.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Supreme Court Justices
In the past, the judiciary was very different from the modern judicial branch. Specifically, the nomination process has been changing. Whether these changes are for better or for worse are an important question to answer. By answering this question we can explore the nomination process and understand the benefits and costs of the modern nomination process.
In the past, simply put, judicial nomination was a more political process. Individuals would come from other political branches and be placed by the president and later approved by Congress. The latter part of the process has stood the same but the former has changed. Instead of having politically experienced judicial nominees, this process has evolved to get rid of the public, political aspect of the candidates. Nixon was the first president to set precedent in this area. He wanted his judicial appointees to be "professional" judiciaries. By "professional," Nixon wanted his judges to be career judges. Judges who worked their way up the ranks in the federal court system. The courts lower than the Supreme Court would be training grounds or testing grounds for future Supreme Court justices. So, most of the new justices would be pulled from the lower courts. Furthermore, justices are expected to be more apolitical now. When Bush nominated Elena Kagan, a new trend was highlighted. Kagan didn't have many published political opinions on controversial supreme court rulings. Nobody knew how she felt about some modern issues. The basis behind this is that there won't be any reason (because there is nothing published) for critics to expel the candidate. Some argue this is a good thing but others argue apolitical justices aren't good for our court system.
In my opinion, I am happy with the way the judicial nomination process has evolved. The professional aspect of the justices is very important. I feel like in order to be a judge in the Supreme Court, you need to have experience in the field. We need people who are familiar with the law, have proven that they can make educated decisions on the basis of law, and aren't afraid to make a ruling and stick behind it. Furthermore, the justices shouldn't have much of a published opinion when nominated. I don't like the reasoning for this, which i explained in the paragraph above, but I have my own reasoning. The president should be separated form the judiciary. There should be a separation of powers. However, when we know and the president knows how the justices will vote on certain issues, it is somewhat breaching the separation of powers. If the president can choose a justice that will go along with his ideology, he is breaking the lines of separation between the executive and the judiciary. I know these two ideas are conflicting. It would be hard to find an experienced judge who doesn't publish his opinion, because his opinion is always published through his court's ruling, but there needs to be a balance.
We are getting the caliber of justices we need, because of the precedent of federal judicial experience. Where else are you going to get a better judge of federal law than from the people already making decisions based on federal law? I feel like this is a good precedent and a professional precedent. People shouldn't be able to have Supreme Court Justice as the first job they had where they had to make judicial decisions.
Furthermore, the justices have been generalized as being apolitical. In theory, this would be a good practice, but in reality it is too difficult to have a justice be apolitical. The justices shouldn't be looked at as apolitical, if we want them to make informed decisions. Politics is a part of everyday life, and justices shouldn't be removed from this part of life. If we try to take them away from politics, you are further removing them from the American people. Their decisions won't be as reflective of intentions of the law, if they get too far from the people. However, a justice should be able to try to put their political ideology beside them and make decisions based on the law and its intentions. Therefore, I agree with objectivity in the judiciary when they start to practice, but in reality it is too difficult to actually nominate a justice who is apolitical. This is a confusing idea, but it will make more sense after the understanding my next paragraph. The justice being nominated should be objective once they assume their new position, but when trying to nominate an apolitical justice, its too difficult to find someone who meets the criteria.
The president knows the justices have political underlinings and ideology, and he is able to take advantage of that. Political game theory, as explained in Morris's The American Presidency, suggests that the president does take political underlinings into account when choosing a justice. In my opinion, the president should promote an objective judiciary, instead of packing his court with justices who support his ideology. This goes back to the idea of separation of powers. If the president could pack the courts to support his ideology and programs, then how separate is the judiciary really from the executive? Luckily, even though presidents try to play a political and strategic game, this usually proves ineffective. When the appointed justices start their job, I feel like they stray away from the politics. For example, many justices have still go against the president even though he appointed them. Presidents have their appointees rule against them often. For example, Nixon had many of his appointees rule against him in Nixon vs. US, even though he had given them their job. So, even though the president tries to pack the court strategically, he is often appointing justices who are objective and rule based on law rather than their political ideology (even though their political ideology does exist). Its difficult to remove yourself from political ideology, but its important to be an objective ruler once you assume the position of Supreme Court Justice. As long as the judicial decisions aren't influenced (in any way) by the executive, then we have a fair and justifiable separation of powers. So, even though there are some political underlinings we need justices who will make objective decisions and not take their political ideology into their court room decisions.
In the past, simply put, judicial nomination was a more political process. Individuals would come from other political branches and be placed by the president and later approved by Congress. The latter part of the process has stood the same but the former has changed. Instead of having politically experienced judicial nominees, this process has evolved to get rid of the public, political aspect of the candidates. Nixon was the first president to set precedent in this area. He wanted his judicial appointees to be "professional" judiciaries. By "professional," Nixon wanted his judges to be career judges. Judges who worked their way up the ranks in the federal court system. The courts lower than the Supreme Court would be training grounds or testing grounds for future Supreme Court justices. So, most of the new justices would be pulled from the lower courts. Furthermore, justices are expected to be more apolitical now. When Bush nominated Elena Kagan, a new trend was highlighted. Kagan didn't have many published political opinions on controversial supreme court rulings. Nobody knew how she felt about some modern issues. The basis behind this is that there won't be any reason (because there is nothing published) for critics to expel the candidate. Some argue this is a good thing but others argue apolitical justices aren't good for our court system.
In my opinion, I am happy with the way the judicial nomination process has evolved. The professional aspect of the justices is very important. I feel like in order to be a judge in the Supreme Court, you need to have experience in the field. We need people who are familiar with the law, have proven that they can make educated decisions on the basis of law, and aren't afraid to make a ruling and stick behind it. Furthermore, the justices shouldn't have much of a published opinion when nominated. I don't like the reasoning for this, which i explained in the paragraph above, but I have my own reasoning. The president should be separated form the judiciary. There should be a separation of powers. However, when we know and the president knows how the justices will vote on certain issues, it is somewhat breaching the separation of powers. If the president can choose a justice that will go along with his ideology, he is breaking the lines of separation between the executive and the judiciary. I know these two ideas are conflicting. It would be hard to find an experienced judge who doesn't publish his opinion, because his opinion is always published through his court's ruling, but there needs to be a balance.
We are getting the caliber of justices we need, because of the precedent of federal judicial experience. Where else are you going to get a better judge of federal law than from the people already making decisions based on federal law? I feel like this is a good precedent and a professional precedent. People shouldn't be able to have Supreme Court Justice as the first job they had where they had to make judicial decisions.
Furthermore, the justices have been generalized as being apolitical. In theory, this would be a good practice, but in reality it is too difficult to have a justice be apolitical. The justices shouldn't be looked at as apolitical, if we want them to make informed decisions. Politics is a part of everyday life, and justices shouldn't be removed from this part of life. If we try to take them away from politics, you are further removing them from the American people. Their decisions won't be as reflective of intentions of the law, if they get too far from the people. However, a justice should be able to try to put their political ideology beside them and make decisions based on the law and its intentions. Therefore, I agree with objectivity in the judiciary when they start to practice, but in reality it is too difficult to actually nominate a justice who is apolitical. This is a confusing idea, but it will make more sense after the understanding my next paragraph. The justice being nominated should be objective once they assume their new position, but when trying to nominate an apolitical justice, its too difficult to find someone who meets the criteria.
The president knows the justices have political underlinings and ideology, and he is able to take advantage of that. Political game theory, as explained in Morris's The American Presidency, suggests that the president does take political underlinings into account when choosing a justice. In my opinion, the president should promote an objective judiciary, instead of packing his court with justices who support his ideology. This goes back to the idea of separation of powers. If the president could pack the courts to support his ideology and programs, then how separate is the judiciary really from the executive? Luckily, even though presidents try to play a political and strategic game, this usually proves ineffective. When the appointed justices start their job, I feel like they stray away from the politics. For example, many justices have still go against the president even though he appointed them. Presidents have their appointees rule against them often. For example, Nixon had many of his appointees rule against him in Nixon vs. US, even though he had given them their job. So, even though the president tries to pack the court strategically, he is often appointing justices who are objective and rule based on law rather than their political ideology (even though their political ideology does exist). Its difficult to remove yourself from political ideology, but its important to be an objective ruler once you assume the position of Supreme Court Justice. As long as the judicial decisions aren't influenced (in any way) by the executive, then we have a fair and justifiable separation of powers. So, even though there are some political underlinings we need justices who will make objective decisions and not take their political ideology into their court room decisions.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Rational Ignorance
The President, in my opinion, is the most important role in the US government. Towards the beginning of the presidency, the role of the president was more easily defined by the Constitution. But as the political process started to complicate itself (for better or for worse), it became unclear as to who the president should actually represent. Should he represent only his political party? Only the people who voted for him? The electoral college?
Well, in my opinion, the president should represent all the people in America on both domestic and international affairs. When the president travels to another country to sign an international treaty, he should be representing the interests of all the people in America. When he proposes a bill to Congress on a fiscal issue, he should be trying to better the country as a whole. He can't just represent the interest of a certain group (i.e. his own political party), because he needs to have the country prosper as a whole. If he were to act only in the interests of one party, then only about half the country would feel the benefits of his actions at any given time.
Furthermore, he should be a politico representative by sometimes acting as a trustee and sometimes acting as a delegate. Like in Canes-Wrone and Shotts article, based on the issue at hand, he should be either a trustee or a delegate. In economics, most people are classified as "rationally ignorant" through the political process. This doesn't sound too nice, but it has practical implications in this situation. First, people are ignorant and don't take time to inform themselves about the political situation because it is too costly to them. They have other things to worry about and other things to devote their time to. It would be too costly to them and waste too much of their time to actually learn and inform themselves about ALL political issues. They only need to inform themselves about situations that affect them and when the benefits of being informed outweigh the costs. So, in a rational sense they are ignorant, because they have better uses of their time. This idea translates perfectly into Canes-Wrone and Shotts article.
The people are going to be informed about issues that affect them directly. So, policies that they are familiar with that directly affect their everyday lives should be left up to the people to decide. In this situation, the president will use his flexibility as a politico to act as a delegate of the people. The people will be able to make the decision on the policy, perhaps because they are more familiar with the issue. They might be more familiar, because the President is usually distanced from the life of everyday Americans by being in office. Therefore, he should let the people make the decision, because they are more informed and understand the situation better and what needs fixing. On the other hand, the American public will not now as much (if anything at all) about other issues. For example, fiscal and monetary policy or international affairs are much more distanced from the American public. The average American won't be able to understand the implications of foreign policy, because this requires expert analysis (and we don't have the time and resources to inform ourselves about these issues and acquire the expertise needed). So, the president should use his flexibility as a politico to act as a trustee in this situation. He has the knowledge and expertise needed (or i would hope so) in these fields to make the best decision and most informed decision.
In the context of my analysis, the term represent is going to be difficult to define, but i will do my best to help you understand what I consider represent to imply. In this context, represent is going to mean acting in the best interests of ALL Americans. So, based on the situation or policy at hand, he is going to have to always act in the best interests of Americans. If acting in the best interests requires him to understand and seek what the people want done, then he should go out and find what the people want. If acting in the best interests requires him to use his knowledge and expertise and consult other experts, then he should do so. So, to me, represent means utilizing the people who know the situation the best and most directly to make the best possible decision for his constituents.
With my analysis, the president has the ability to change from being a trustee or delegate based on the situation. So this gives him the flexibility he needs in office to accurately represent the people. The only problem I see arising from this kind of representation is the president's understanding of when to act as a trustee and when to act as a delegate. Some presidents might classify different policies as needing a different type of representation. Or for that matter, some presidents might be more experienced in one area or more familiar with one situation that they think they should act as a trustee as compared to delegate. For example, if a president grew up on a farm and claimed he knew what was in the best interests of farmers because he grew up on a farm, this may be an inaccurate representation. If he acts as a trustee in that situation, he might not accurately represent what the farmers want (even though he thinks he is). The problem is that it is too difficult to define when a policy should be implemented through a trustee representative or through a delegate representative. We just need to leave it up to the American people to step and make sure their voice is heard when it needs to be heard. If a policy affects a certain group, it is going to be up to the people to voice their opinion and make sure they influence the legislation's formation.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Roosevelt vs. Taft
The role of the president has been ever-changing, since the presidency was crafted up by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution. Furthermore, the role of the president and the powers he should be allowed to exercise have been debated throughout history.
Roosevelt considered himself to be a "Lincoln" president and adopted Lincoln's stewardship theory. Basically, Roosevelt believed that the president can exercise any power he thinks is necessary unless it is explicitly restricted by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. He even said it is in the "...interest of this Government to strengthen and give independence to the Executive..." He feels the exec. should be given the powers to achieve what he wants in office, and it will turn out to be better for the people. On the other hand, Taft believed the president can only exercise powers explicitly given to him by Congress or the Constitution. Taft was worried about an individual president getting too strong in office and it could lead to social injustice. He even advised the people to be against the expansion of presidential powers because it seems like he feared a president with too much power.
Taft's idea of the presidency seems very old school and conservative. The strong points that come out of his view are that it works well with the Constitution and Congress. It is easier to follow. The only powers the president can exercise are those explicitly given to him. It will be easy to identify when the pres. steps out of line and uses unnecessary powers. However, since his powers will be so limited, it would prohibit the exec branch from helping the American people. We need the executive to use his powers effectively. A lot of the powers the pres. uses are informal. The American people trust the president and want him to perform in office. By taking away his informal powers, you would be stripping him of his ability to help the citizens. For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president the power to look over the economy. However, this is an important role for him. Congress takes too much time to pass legislation that would help improve the state of the economy. So, the president usually tries give the citizens the confidence they need to proceed. He does suggest reforms in Congress (like budget reform), but that is a power granted to him by the Constitution. So, to work effectively I feel the president needs both formal and informal powers.
Roosevelt's idea also has weaknesses. As Taft pointed out, a president without restrictions on the scope of his power can be dangerous. The president can exercise too much power, which eventually would cause social injustice. Allowing the president to get that strong shadows the powers of a monarch more than an executive branch. There is no telling how much power he can obtain in office and what extent he will exercise those powers. Its just a scary thought if the president does get too strong because of his popularity with everyone. However, this theory does allow the president to satisfy the American people. He is going to have the ability to help the American people more directly, and not have to go through the long and excruciating process of passing a bill in Congress. It can make the executive more effective and efficient because he will be able to move quickly. If something wasn't working he can change it and not have to go through Congress's process. So, basically, it will be giving the president a more direct link to his constituents.
In my opinion, Roosevelt's theory could lead to a more effective president and executive branch. By allowing the president to get more power, you can strengthen the effectiveness of the government. To me, Congress is too inneffective because of the lag between the proposal and passing of a bill. By giving the president this power, it doesn't mean he will abuse it. In my opinion, if Roosevelt's theory was used effectively, it wouldn't cause any problems. We should give the president the tools necessary to effectively run government. By giving him all these tools, he will have more resources available to help the American people more quickly. I feel that the president won't unnecessarily exercise these powers. If we give them to him, he should use them only when necessary. If a certain situation calls for an executive order, then he should use one. The president, when he feels it is necessary, will choose which power or resource to use. It will not only give him the ability to act and respond quickly to the needs of America, but also make him closer to the citizens. If we do give him this all powers except if it is explicitly restricted, we will expect him to use these powers. So, he will have to understand the American people more and actually respond to what we want.
Obviously, critics of this theory are going to say giving the president all this power would be dangerous to our country. However, I would argue this differently. Not only do I trust the president (based on the fact that he is the most publicly looked after person in the country) but also there will still be a system of checks and balances in place. First off, this theory suggests that any power explicitly restricted by Congress should be stripped from the president. So, Congress will have the ability to start to limit these powers once they seem like they are too much of an abuse of power. Not only is there Congress, but more importantly there is the American people. If we allow the president to take all this power, then the American people will always have an eye on the president. Once he steps out of line with his power, the American people will hopefully check that power. The media is going to have extra coverage of the president to keep the people informed on his exercising of powers. So, we will understand what's going on and be able to check his power when he over does it. I believe the American people as a whole are a lot stronger and more influential than the president alone. We need to trust the American people to be able to check the president on his powers when he gets "too strong."
If the country was facing hard economic times, this theory would allow the president to react quickly without going through Congress. American people would be more satisfied, and it will make the country better off. A lot of economists believe that public policy, especially economic policy, can be ineffective because of the time it takes for laws to be passed. By the time the bill is passed and by the time it takes for the bill to be in full effect, the economy has already started to change (for the better or worse) and would need different legislation. Once again, letting the executive act quickly in this situation will help the economy recover more efficiently without the lag that Congress has. In my opinion, my theory doesn't depend on the personal characteristics of a single president. Actually it depends more on the people to keep an eye on presidential power. Even if a president does try to abuse power in office, there is room for the American people and Congress to reform those powers. So, in a perfect hypothetical situation, the American people and Congress will have the ability to check and limit the powers of the president. This lets them adjust the power of presidents based on their hunger for power, their personal characteristics, or the situation they face. Different situations and different president will call for different restrictions of their powers, which will let the American people and Congress adjust for different political, economic, or socials situations. Some situations already call for extended powers. Like wartime presidents can usually exercise more powers. Hopefully, my idea would work something like that.
Roosevelt considered himself to be a "Lincoln" president and adopted Lincoln's stewardship theory. Basically, Roosevelt believed that the president can exercise any power he thinks is necessary unless it is explicitly restricted by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. He even said it is in the "...interest of this Government to strengthen and give independence to the Executive..." He feels the exec. should be given the powers to achieve what he wants in office, and it will turn out to be better for the people. On the other hand, Taft believed the president can only exercise powers explicitly given to him by Congress or the Constitution. Taft was worried about an individual president getting too strong in office and it could lead to social injustice. He even advised the people to be against the expansion of presidential powers because it seems like he feared a president with too much power.
Taft's idea of the presidency seems very old school and conservative. The strong points that come out of his view are that it works well with the Constitution and Congress. It is easier to follow. The only powers the president can exercise are those explicitly given to him. It will be easy to identify when the pres. steps out of line and uses unnecessary powers. However, since his powers will be so limited, it would prohibit the exec branch from helping the American people. We need the executive to use his powers effectively. A lot of the powers the pres. uses are informal. The American people trust the president and want him to perform in office. By taking away his informal powers, you would be stripping him of his ability to help the citizens. For example, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president the power to look over the economy. However, this is an important role for him. Congress takes too much time to pass legislation that would help improve the state of the economy. So, the president usually tries give the citizens the confidence they need to proceed. He does suggest reforms in Congress (like budget reform), but that is a power granted to him by the Constitution. So, to work effectively I feel the president needs both formal and informal powers.
Roosevelt's idea also has weaknesses. As Taft pointed out, a president without restrictions on the scope of his power can be dangerous. The president can exercise too much power, which eventually would cause social injustice. Allowing the president to get that strong shadows the powers of a monarch more than an executive branch. There is no telling how much power he can obtain in office and what extent he will exercise those powers. Its just a scary thought if the president does get too strong because of his popularity with everyone. However, this theory does allow the president to satisfy the American people. He is going to have the ability to help the American people more directly, and not have to go through the long and excruciating process of passing a bill in Congress. It can make the executive more effective and efficient because he will be able to move quickly. If something wasn't working he can change it and not have to go through Congress's process. So, basically, it will be giving the president a more direct link to his constituents.
In my opinion, Roosevelt's theory could lead to a more effective president and executive branch. By allowing the president to get more power, you can strengthen the effectiveness of the government. To me, Congress is too inneffective because of the lag between the proposal and passing of a bill. By giving the president this power, it doesn't mean he will abuse it. In my opinion, if Roosevelt's theory was used effectively, it wouldn't cause any problems. We should give the president the tools necessary to effectively run government. By giving him all these tools, he will have more resources available to help the American people more quickly. I feel that the president won't unnecessarily exercise these powers. If we give them to him, he should use them only when necessary. If a certain situation calls for an executive order, then he should use one. The president, when he feels it is necessary, will choose which power or resource to use. It will not only give him the ability to act and respond quickly to the needs of America, but also make him closer to the citizens. If we do give him this all powers except if it is explicitly restricted, we will expect him to use these powers. So, he will have to understand the American people more and actually respond to what we want.
Obviously, critics of this theory are going to say giving the president all this power would be dangerous to our country. However, I would argue this differently. Not only do I trust the president (based on the fact that he is the most publicly looked after person in the country) but also there will still be a system of checks and balances in place. First off, this theory suggests that any power explicitly restricted by Congress should be stripped from the president. So, Congress will have the ability to start to limit these powers once they seem like they are too much of an abuse of power. Not only is there Congress, but more importantly there is the American people. If we allow the president to take all this power, then the American people will always have an eye on the president. Once he steps out of line with his power, the American people will hopefully check that power. The media is going to have extra coverage of the president to keep the people informed on his exercising of powers. So, we will understand what's going on and be able to check his power when he over does it. I believe the American people as a whole are a lot stronger and more influential than the president alone. We need to trust the American people to be able to check the president on his powers when he gets "too strong."
If the country was facing hard economic times, this theory would allow the president to react quickly without going through Congress. American people would be more satisfied, and it will make the country better off. A lot of economists believe that public policy, especially economic policy, can be ineffective because of the time it takes for laws to be passed. By the time the bill is passed and by the time it takes for the bill to be in full effect, the economy has already started to change (for the better or worse) and would need different legislation. Once again, letting the executive act quickly in this situation will help the economy recover more efficiently without the lag that Congress has. In my opinion, my theory doesn't depend on the personal characteristics of a single president. Actually it depends more on the people to keep an eye on presidential power. Even if a president does try to abuse power in office, there is room for the American people and Congress to reform those powers. So, in a perfect hypothetical situation, the American people and Congress will have the ability to check and limit the powers of the president. This lets them adjust the power of presidents based on their hunger for power, their personal characteristics, or the situation they face. Different situations and different president will call for different restrictions of their powers, which will let the American people and Congress adjust for different political, economic, or socials situations. Some situations already call for extended powers. Like wartime presidents can usually exercise more powers. Hopefully, my idea would work something like that.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
How Far Have The Presiden'ts Powers Come?
Since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there has been an evolution of the presidency. The president has gained many informal powers and must exercise these powers frequently and efficiently to make sure he achieves what he promised to the American people. When watching President Obama's State of the Union address it is obvious that he is and is willing to exercise these informal powers.
In Obama's speech, he tried to steer American people and Congress in the right direction. He explained to the American people, through many specific examples, why we are the best country in the world. He used examples of actual everyday citizens achieving the unimaginable to persuade the American people that we are still the smartest country out there. When he spoke to Congress, he was trying to push his own agenda. Obama wanted Congress to work together, without being bound to party standards, to make sure we can pass effective legislation. He wants to invest in American technology, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, Obama wants to rewrite tax laws, reduce the budget deficit, end the Iraq War and reform government to make it more efficient. He sets goals for the American people domestically and the international community regarding conflicts.
When looking at his speech, he promises and wants a lot of things from the American people, the international community, and Congress. When looking at what he says, the US Constitution does give him formal powers to achieve some of the goals. For example, he is the commander in chief. So, when he spoke about ending the conflict in Iraq, he is exercising a formal power provided to him. When he talks about traveling to "...Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances across the Americas," he is exercising his power to make treaties. Finally, his last formal power he exercised was acutally addressing Congress in a State of the Union. But, when you think about it, those are the only formal powers he exercised in his speech. So where do these other powers come from? How does he plan on reducing the deficit or reinvesting in America? They come from his informal powers
In Kernell's theory of presidential powers, he concurs that the presidency has evolved and given rise to informal powers. The informal power that the theory highlights is "going public." The president needs to go public about the policies he wants to influence the American people to agree with him. Once the people agree, then Congress will be forced to continue with the legislation. Just by the simple fact that he is addressing Congress and Americans through this widely televised speech is an example of going public. He is trying to excite the American people about the new legislation that he will be proposing, so they can force their Congressmen to vote the law into effect. Furthermore, in this State of the Union, he is pressuring Congress directly by going public to the people. He is pushing legislation to restructure the federal budget, but surprisingly says "...and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible." This is way beyond any formal powers vested in the Constitution, but instead he is using his informal power of going public to ensure that the legislation he wants passed does get passed. Even further from his formal powers, he pushes to restructure government and explains " I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote- and we will push to get it passed. That is far beyond his powers, and as Kernell would explain he is threatening the Congress to pass the legislation. He is threatening them with one of his most exercised powers, going public. He plans on Congress passing the bill, but if they don't he is ready to go public with the issue again.
When looking at Neustadt's theory of presidential power, it is apparent that Obama was exercising his informal power to persuade. Throughout the speech, he is explaining what he will be proposing to the Congress. However, he doesn't just say what he is proposing. Instead he explains why he is proposing the legislation and what good will come out of it. For example, he wants to pass legislation to restructure government in a more efficient way. He starts off the topic by explaining inefficiences in contemporary government, by saying "There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy." He explains the situation we are facing right now by revealing to Congress the inefficiences that he noticed. Then he goes on to reassure the American people that we can tackle this problem, becaus we have done so already in other fields. We just need to apply it to government now. Then, finally, he explaisn that he will propose a bill to Congress to restructure government. All the talk leading up to the proposed bill is just him trying to persuade Congress that the bill will work. He explained we have done it before but just not in government. Throughout the speech, he explains the amazing things American have done. In my opinion (and Neustadt will probably agree), this is a form of persuasion directed toward Congress. He wanted to reassure Congress that the American people are still working hard and being very effective and it is just Congress that isn't performing. With the right tools from Congress, America will prosper and he is trying to persuade Congress to give him these tools (legislation).
When have thinking about it, Obama was promising to exercise a lot of formal and informal powers. His informal powers seem to overlap though. As Neustadt woudl explain, he was trying to persuade Congress into passing his proposals. However, it seems to be a combination of both Kernell's theory and Neustadt's theory. In my opinion, Obama tried to not only persuade Congress but also persuade the American people. By persuading the American people, he is in a sense going public. He combines these informal powers to make a stronger statement to Congress and the American people. He is effectively using his powers to pressure Congress to get things done, in my opinion. He has a lot of tools and powers (both formal and informal) at his fingertips and he is willing to use them to do get what he wants done.
In Obama's speech, he tried to steer American people and Congress in the right direction. He explained to the American people, through many specific examples, why we are the best country in the world. He used examples of actual everyday citizens achieving the unimaginable to persuade the American people that we are still the smartest country out there. When he spoke to Congress, he was trying to push his own agenda. Obama wanted Congress to work together, without being bound to party standards, to make sure we can pass effective legislation. He wants to invest in American technology, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, Obama wants to rewrite tax laws, reduce the budget deficit, end the Iraq War and reform government to make it more efficient. He sets goals for the American people domestically and the international community regarding conflicts.
When looking at his speech, he promises and wants a lot of things from the American people, the international community, and Congress. When looking at what he says, the US Constitution does give him formal powers to achieve some of the goals. For example, he is the commander in chief. So, when he spoke about ending the conflict in Iraq, he is exercising a formal power provided to him. When he talks about traveling to "...Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances across the Americas," he is exercising his power to make treaties. Finally, his last formal power he exercised was acutally addressing Congress in a State of the Union. But, when you think about it, those are the only formal powers he exercised in his speech. So where do these other powers come from? How does he plan on reducing the deficit or reinvesting in America? They come from his informal powers
In Kernell's theory of presidential powers, he concurs that the presidency has evolved and given rise to informal powers. The informal power that the theory highlights is "going public." The president needs to go public about the policies he wants to influence the American people to agree with him. Once the people agree, then Congress will be forced to continue with the legislation. Just by the simple fact that he is addressing Congress and Americans through this widely televised speech is an example of going public. He is trying to excite the American people about the new legislation that he will be proposing, so they can force their Congressmen to vote the law into effect. Furthermore, in this State of the Union, he is pressuring Congress directly by going public to the people. He is pushing legislation to restructure the federal budget, but surprisingly says "...and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible." This is way beyond any formal powers vested in the Constitution, but instead he is using his informal power of going public to ensure that the legislation he wants passed does get passed. Even further from his formal powers, he pushes to restructure government and explains " I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote- and we will push to get it passed. That is far beyond his powers, and as Kernell would explain he is threatening the Congress to pass the legislation. He is threatening them with one of his most exercised powers, going public. He plans on Congress passing the bill, but if they don't he is ready to go public with the issue again.
When looking at Neustadt's theory of presidential power, it is apparent that Obama was exercising his informal power to persuade. Throughout the speech, he is explaining what he will be proposing to the Congress. However, he doesn't just say what he is proposing. Instead he explains why he is proposing the legislation and what good will come out of it. For example, he wants to pass legislation to restructure government in a more efficient way. He starts off the topic by explaining inefficiences in contemporary government, by saying "There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy." He explains the situation we are facing right now by revealing to Congress the inefficiences that he noticed. Then he goes on to reassure the American people that we can tackle this problem, becaus we have done so already in other fields. We just need to apply it to government now. Then, finally, he explaisn that he will propose a bill to Congress to restructure government. All the talk leading up to the proposed bill is just him trying to persuade Congress that the bill will work. He explained we have done it before but just not in government. Throughout the speech, he explains the amazing things American have done. In my opinion (and Neustadt will probably agree), this is a form of persuasion directed toward Congress. He wanted to reassure Congress that the American people are still working hard and being very effective and it is just Congress that isn't performing. With the right tools from Congress, America will prosper and he is trying to persuade Congress to give him these tools (legislation).
When have thinking about it, Obama was promising to exercise a lot of formal and informal powers. His informal powers seem to overlap though. As Neustadt woudl explain, he was trying to persuade Congress into passing his proposals. However, it seems to be a combination of both Kernell's theory and Neustadt's theory. In my opinion, Obama tried to not only persuade Congress but also persuade the American people. By persuading the American people, he is in a sense going public. He combines these informal powers to make a stronger statement to Congress and the American people. He is effectively using his powers to pressure Congress to get things done, in my opinion. He has a lot of tools and powers (both formal and informal) at his fingertips and he is willing to use them to do get what he wants done.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)