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.