The pluses to Roosevelt's theory is that he could be a very involved and vocal president. He could be a President that gets shit done. Roosevelt could use powers that aren't specifically denoted in the Constitution and use them to unilaterally to advance his agenda. Unfortunately, the downsides include mostly a very very thin stretching of the Constitution and a possible public backlash for being much too strong and being "out of touch".
Taft on the other hand, had a few pluses as well, including the fact that he allows himself to work within the check and balance system. There would be a lot of advising between the government branches going on and the government would probably be making compromises left and right. Negatively however, Nothing that Taft truly wanted to get done would probably ever get done because the power specifically enumerated to the President is few and far between.
My personal thoughts on this matter are more in line with Roosevelt although on a few issues I agree more with Taft. When it comes to Legislation, I believe that the President should have a bit more of a role in attempting to pass bills because a President's agenda and how he gets elected is big face of our Government and I believe the President doesn't have enough power to fulfill his promises and enact his agenda. When it comes to military control however, I believe that the President should exercise less power in their control. Troop usage should be primarily left up to a wide body of people and voices (in this case, Congress) and the President should stick to his constitutional duties under this issue. My overall view then perhaps is a hybrid between the two view points as, on most issues, I would really prefer a very very strong executive but on a few issues, especially where lives of people are at stake, I prefer to have a weaker executive in these areas
Way to straddle the fence, Matt. To quote Stephen Colbert, "Pick a side, we're at war." (Also, it would make it easier for me to comment if you picked a clear side).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I would want to know when you think it's better for the president to act more like Roosevelt suggest and when you would prefer he act like Taft suggests? I personally think the only time he could act as Taft suggest when Congress wasn't divided and was of his own party (and it would help if the world was filled with sunshine and rainbows for those four years), and still, I would expect him to set the agenda.
You talked about military control, so just to be a devil's advocate, wouldn't it be useful for the president to exercise more control in times of war? I would think wartime would be the time the president would need to exercise more power, because that's one of the times decisions need to be made quickly. I see your point, but it's something to think about.
I would have to agree with what Julia argues when it comes to military control. I understand that it can seem almost a little tyrannical for one man to be in control of the armed forces, but in reality this isn't always the case. For instance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the military officials (the Joint Chiefs) had ulterior motives and were sidestepping JFK doing what the felt was right. Because of that I believe that the executive should exercise more power, just to ensure that the proper orders are followed.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the President doesn't have enough power to ensure that their promises are followed, but I believe that this is where the branches should work together rather than have more power for the executive. That's just my $0.02
I think you raise a good point when you touched upon the president's military power. I do see where Jon and Julia are coming from, but I would have to agree that I would be more comfortable with the idea that many voices decide our fate in a war, rather than just one man. While some decisions do need to be expedient, I think the power to send and withdraw troops, as well as draw out a war, needs to be up to "the people." If that is even remotely possible.
ReplyDelete