This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.
In what ways has the growth of presidential power helped or hurt the country between 1950 and 2010? I expect to see examples from several presidents, which covers
There is no mention in the Constitution of a cabinet or power over the agencies, but the President is given the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” While the Framers granted the bulk of power to Congress—most importantly the authority over domestic legislation and taxing and spending—it left the outer contours of the Presidency open-ended.
Pennsylvania, for example, had no governor, but a 12-member committee appointed annually by the state assembly, and it was roundly condemned in the Constitutional Convention for having reduced the role of governors to “mere ciphers.” Actually, the Founders viewed all-powerful legislatures as a greater threat to liberty than unchecked executives.
Broad phrasing inevitably became a legal vessel for new powers; as the nation grew and foreign affairs became more important, the President’s responsibilities grew too.
In this debate, James Madison argued that the Constitution’s vesting of “the executive power of the United States” in the President implied an inherent power to fire which could not be controlled by Congress.
In creating the first great departments of State, War, and Treasury in 1789, Congress debated whether the President needed the advice and consent of the Senate before he could fire cabinet members, and, in what has become a controversial decision among historians and legal scholars, recognized the President’s power to fire heads of departments.
At Jefferson’s urging, Madison replied in the press as “Helvidius.” Reversing a position he had taken six years earlier, Madison argued that the President had little if any inherent authority by virtue of his executive power.
In 2015, a constitutional referendum reduced the powers of the President and enhanced those of the Prime Minister. Considering the political implications of this change, it has been observed that it would enable President Sargsyan, who is serving his second and last presidential mandate, to extend his permanence in power by becoming Premier. This blog extensively covered this topic, focusing on the , and the relevant debate in and .
In addition to this prudence in international affairs, an analysis of domestic dynamics also seems to confirm the unwillingness of Mr Sargsyan to quietly retire. While he refrains from declarations about his future, a deputy chairman of President Sargsyan’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), declared that the President should stay in power after the end of his second presidential mandate (i.e. should become Prime Minister), since no other leader could take up such a responsibility.
Even in the midst of the Nixon scandals, the Supreme Court agreed in the Watergate tapes case that the President’s interest in protecting sensitive military and diplomatic information and encouraging candid advice and discussion within the government, justified secrecy over certain information.
Our greatest Presidents—Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, and the Presidents of the Cold War—have built the institution and power of the presidency in coordination with their political parties.
This has led to a minority of Senators staging filibusters of judicial nominees, or protesting the withdrawal from international treaties such as Kyoto without enough “advice and consent.” Conflicts over American entry into the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Strategic Defense Initiative, are all debates grounded in differences in interpretation of the meaning of the advice and consent clause of the Constitution.
Should Presidents include Senators on diplomatic missions, or allow them to choose every other judge?
Yet Jefferson also greatly advanced the powers of the presidency because he was aggressive in his initiation of legislation in contrast to Washington and Adams’s relatively hands-off attitude to Congressional affairs.