Starting out the class, it surprised me by how much focus there was on limiting the president’s power as opposed to granting him enough. I hadn’t realized that the main concern was to avoid making the president resemble a monarch. In certain aspects, it seems frustrating that his power is so limited as compared to a monarch, but it makes sense when I look back to the situation that the founders were in, attempting to avoid monarchical and perhaps tyrannical rule. Nothing like this had ever been created before, so I think that it speaks volumes when we look at the U.S. today and see how the presidency has endured, without having so much power that it leads to a tyrannical ruler while at the same time having enough to accomplish the things that are necessary.

The fight between Congress and the president intrigued me as well and in fact did so enough that I wrote a blog post on it. When looking at how the legislature was designed to be dominant, and in control of what legislation is passed, it is interesting to see that that has changed to be quite different than it once was. Part of that I think is the expansion and the addition of states to our Union and the growth of Congress which makes it more difficult I think that choose a clear direction and to follow a clear vision as there are many different people, all fighting for the needs of their own constituents. It is interesting to me that Congress once upon a time, used to control who was nominated for president and seemed to effectively control the presidency and then to compare that to presidencies like that of FDR when he was able to do whatever he wanted because he was in control of Congress. Since the founders left so much open to interpretation, I think that it is only natural that things like this happen.

It is fascinating to see how the president’s power has expanded and contracted over time based on the circumstances and the person who occupies it. I definitely think that the person in office can have a strong effect on how much power the position has and will have when he leaves office. For example, Harding thought the president should have less power and wanted to pull it back to what it had been in the 19^th century.  And then there are presidents like Abraham Lincoln and FDR who took as much power as the needed in order to accomplish their goals. Arguably, Lincoln may have crossed the line into doing things that weren’t constitutional, but he was doing it for the sake of the country and was able to bring the Union back together. In that case, it is likely that the founders would have been horrified. FDR’s amount of power may have even been too much for the founders as Jefferson thought that buying the Louisiana Territory was out of his constitutional power.

In looking at the presidency now, and the amount of power that Obama has as compared to what the office looked like at its creation, I think that it is obvious that Obama has much more power than George Washington did. Although Washington was probably better liked, for better or worse, the office of the presidency has changed to grant the president more power. I think (and the founders may disagree with me) that this change is acceptable. Life and change was slower 200 years ago, and was expected to be slow. Today, people expect things to be done quickly so that they can get on with their lives and do their own things. People don’t like waiting.  With this I think goes the expansion of the president’s power. People want rapid change done now and in order to do this, and to keep the president effective, I think an increase in power is needed.  I think that this tension between the legislature and the president will always exist, but the nature of those tensions will vary based on who is in office and the time and state that our country is in.

Originally, I think that the founders main focus was to keep the presidency from having too much power and to limit the president’s power over legislation and the enactment of laws as much as possible in order to keep the president from being like a king who both enacts laws and carries them out. So, they made the president’s only job the execution of the laws that Congress passes (yes he has other powers, but I am only specifically focusing on powers related to legislation and execution of laws).

Regardless of what was intended, that is obviously not the case today.  The president doesn’t just make sure that the laws are executed, he attempts to influence the passage of new legislation that is in accordance with his vision and often times, seems to propose legislation. He works to convince constituents that new legislation is needed and also works to build cooperation in Congress so as to speed the process of creating legislation along.  Yes, it is Congress’ job to pass the legislation, as the president cannot do that.  The question is whether or not, it is only Congress’ job to work on and influence the passage of legislation. Is the legislature completely separate from the executive? I would say no. The founders designed the branches to check each other so naturally that have to be related in some way and cannot always be completely separate.  So because of this, I think the president should have the ability to influence the legislature to some extent. I don’t necessarily think that he should control the legislature though or guide their actions completely. I think that it is the president’s responsibility to instead build cooperation among members in Congress to motivate action on certain issues instead of telling them in which direction to head.

Unfortunately, because Congress is so large and often divided by partisan interests, I think that it would be very difficult for Congress to take action and create the monumental change that is needed in our country. The founders did indeed design the system to be slow, but with today’s quickly changing world, more rapid change is needed. Without a leader, I think that it would be very difficult for Congress to decide in which direction to head, to decide which legislation needs to be passed first. That direction I think is what needs to come from the president.  I think that it is the president’s job to provide the vision, to decide which issues to tackle because if he didn’t, I think that much less would get done than does now. In doing this, I don’t think he should force anything to happen but merely build consensus and try to steer Congress in the direction that he believes to be the best for the country.  It is possible that Congress would be able to overcome the partisan divisions in order to accomplish things on its own but I think that that would require even more time than the process takes now.  I hesitate to say that the president should expedite the process as it is meant to be slow, but I think that sometimes, the current change that is needed needs to happen sooner and not later and should be pushed along by our president.

However, the Supreme Court has gained more power over time through actions by the chief justice and as it has established law based on its rulings. Perhaps the most significant power that it established is the power of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to strike down laws that it finds to be unconstitutional. This power however is more related to the legislative branch. It is designed to check the legislative branch in order to keep it from passing unconstitutional laws that violate the rights of the citizen of the United States and really has no bearing on what the president does or doesn’t do. Sure, it could declare a law unconstitutional which could affect the president, but it would (likely) only affect him the same as everyone else.  However, it could affect the president in a care directly related to him as in the case of Nixon, but that is more related to Nixon as a person and les Nixon as a president. It seems, then that the judiciary has little or no power over the president.

As far as the president having power over the Supreme Court, it would seem that he has the ability to have much more influence on the Supreme Court than it on him.  Although the president has no direct power over the Supreme Court, it is he who nominates and appoints judges and also has the ability to appoint more judges than the nine that exist today. IN this way, as FDR threatened to do in order to get his way, the president would have direct power of the judicial branch assuming Congress was on his side and would be wiling to agree to his nominations. Currently I don’t think that it would be possible for Obama to add more justices as he doesn’t have the support and I also don’t think that ne needs to as the Supreme Court doesn’t seem to against any of his proposed plans as of right now. But if he or any other president were to, I think that that action would directly violate what the founders intended. Although the president might get his way and the system might run more smoothly, that isn’t what was intended.  Even though, it is within his ability and because of that isn’t unconstitutional, a president doing that would be seen as very problematic and almost monarchical by the founders. They attempted to avoid creating a monarchy and if the president has control of the legislature as well as the Supreme Court, the president’s does seem as if it would be approaching the level of a monarch indeed.  Fortunately, as I stated before I don’t think that it is very likely to happen, but the fact that the possible is interesting considering how painstakingly the founders attempted to eliminate that possibility from the system.

With the four-year presidency, I think the president is made more accountable to the people and is forced to making sure that what he does meshes with what the public wants because if it doesn’t he likely won’t be reelected. He is forced to build cooperation quickly in order to pressure the quick passage of legislation within his four short years. The president is forced to focus on the few things that he wants to accomplish, which often times isn’t enough as our system is designed to be so slow. The good news is that if the president is doing a good job, he has the ability to be reelected and to be rewarded for what he is doing. The down side of this is if the president starts to wear out and is becoming old news by the end of his second term, he is very rarely effective. Also, the president has to start worrying about reelection shortly after being elected and has very little time to focus on the issues that he wants to focus on.

The six-year presidency of one term certainly seems enticing, as it would allow the president to focus on his work for the entire time he is in office. The down side to it is that he would no longer be as accountable to the people. Certainly there is the option of impeachment by Congress, but for the most part, I think that what the president would choose to do while in office wouldn’t be an impeachable offense, but instead might be something that just goes against what those who elected him want. I hesitate to think that most presidential candidates would promise things and do completely the opposite, but it really is a very real possibility.

The other side of it is that if what the president does during his term is unfavorable he is ineligible for reelection anyway.  Or, if what the president accomplishes during his term is very well liked, then hopefully he has been in power long enough and has built cooperation effectively enough to complete most of his vision. Also, the six years that he is in office would be close to equal the amount of time presidents now have in two terms as current presidents have to worry about reelection.

It seems that this longer term, would give the president more of a chance to build cooperation between the two parties, which would create the opportunity for more rapid change to occur. But even if he is able to attain cooperation from all sides and support for the policies he wants Congress to enact, Congress is still ultimately the decider. In the end, the president doesn’t have the final say on what passes and what doesn’t. Congress does.

If this six year presidency were instated, it might not be as the founders wanted it, but there are some things that need to change that likely aren’t going to change quickly enough under the current system, unless the majority of the people want it which may not happen until it is too late. Sometimes I think that our system is too slow, and that some of the change is too long in coming and that it would be much more beneficial and healthy for our country to enact that change sooner which won’t happen unless there is collaboration and cooperation. So, I am in favor of the longer presidency as I think that there would be a greater possibility for change to occur in our system, change that is sorely needed. Or was sorely needed, a while ago.

I hope this doesn’t sound like I think that the president will have a lot more power although he will have some, I think.  What I mean for it so say is that having a longer term in which the president doesn’t have to worry about anything other than the issues at hand, and doesn’t have to worry about reelection or offending his party (much), he will be in a more centered position from which to govern, over the parties, not apart of them. He can be more of a non-partisan leader that I think will have an easier time to build consensus on issues and therefore will have an easier time accomplishing his goals and carrying out his vision.

I know that many mew programs demand and require more money than the government has, but much of this extra cost I think is because many of the old ways of doing things are costly and inefficient. I think that the bureaucracy of the U.S. is too large and that it just adds expense to anything that is trying to be done. It’s time for a cleaning out of the system. If someone was to make the hard decisions and eliminate the positions that needlessly add to the expense of our government, I think that our country would be in better shape. Part of this I think is Obama’s responsibility. I know that he his a proponent of a new health care plan which will cost billions of dollars and has pushed Congress to pass a bill in order to stimulate the economy but I think he needs to do more. He does want to pull the U.S. out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which costs the U.S. billions of dollars per week, but I think that there are more things that can be done. I think that he needs to promote fiscal responsibility. There are hundreds of things that money is wasted on, things that even though the may be small add up quickly to be a source of expenditure that is needlessly too high.

I don’t think that it is necessarily all his responsibility though. I think everyone needs to practice financial responsibility. Part of the problem, perhaps the main reason for the recession and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were because of irresponsible borrowers and lenders. At the state level too, our leaders need to slow their spending on wasteful things and to stop spending more money than they have. Hard decisions need to be made. It is time for the age of responsibility in which everyone pays their debts and saves instead of spending, spending, spending. I know that it is part of the American dream to buy all of these great things, but that doesn’t work out very well if you can’t pay for what you purchased. I think that it is up to Obama, as our head of the nation, to call for more responsibility, as I don’t think many people will choose it unless they are asked to. It is up to him to call for it in our government as well. Too long has our government been complacent about accumulating debt and for too long it has done nothing about it. If anyone has the ability to create change, I think that Obama does, as I think he has a strong vision, which will enable him to guide others. Andrew Jackson was the only president to have finished his term with a national debt of zero.  I know if my be a little unrealistic to get it to zero, but if no one every attempts to reduce the national debt, then it will never get done. So I hope that someone takes the lead on fiscal responsibility, whether it is Obama or a future president. Either way, it needs to be done.

For Obama, who has a very strong vision of what he would like to accomplish, and who was elected because the people wanted a change and wanted him to accomplish something, I think that it would be good to do both.  Part of the problem he faces is the fact that he tries to make everyone happy. He wants to do everything while at the same time make everyone happy. I don’t think that that is possible unless he guides popular opinion.  As Michael said in his blog post, Obama will continue to face criticism from both sides of the aisle if he tries to befriend Republicans and Democrats with the same policies.  Obama sure came in with a lot of support form the left but that support seems to be dwindling as many feel that he isn’t doing enough, quickly enough. He promised all sorts of change as soon as he was elected but very little has been seen, or at least insubstantial change has been seen. The right hasn’t supported him very much, and so with the fading left, he seems to be loosing his support base all together. Without it, I think it will be very hard for him to do much of what he would like to do, as he won’t have the popular mandate of the people anymore.  So, I think that Obama needs to work harder at maintaining support from his own party and to focus less on trying to gain everyone’s support on all issues. It just isn’t going to happen.  Perhaps later he can focus on the conservatives that don’t support him, but for now, without change occurring as quickly as many would like, he needs to act quickly to prevent his support from being eaten away by the tide of time.

Many of the changes what Obama wants to implement I think are sorely needed in our country. I think that he has a good plan, but without being able to guide the public and maintain support, very little of it will he be able to accomplish.  I think that Obama should take on Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt as a role model and work towards influencing public opinion. Of course it takes a special kind of person and a certain time, but with the growing need for change within this country, and the amount of hope that our country has in Obama, I don’t think it would be a stretch to say the he is capable of doing it. If he were to focus on what he wants to accomplish, and were to work at convincing the public that that is exactly what needs to be done, I think that he would be a more effective president and would be able to enact the change that our country needs. He then wouldn’t need everyone’s support initially and would gain it as he gained popularity and became the leader of public opinion.

Obama has taken a huge step in encouraging the creation and passage of a landmark piece of legislation, the health care bill, which seems to be on its way to being enacted. On running for office, Obama promised to get a health care bill that would guarantee health care for everyone, one that would help to improve the health of America. Although it hasn’t passed yet, I think that the fact that it is currently being debated in the Senate is a very hopeful sign of what Obama is doing. Nothing this huge has been passed in many years, so when and if it does pass, its passage will be a huge testimony to Obama’s action.

Another thing that Obama has done is set a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Although Bush entered us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and planned to set a timetable for American withdrawal, he failed to do so. On running for office, Obama promised to remove the U.S. from the war and to do it in a timely fashion. This he appears to be doing. Even though he hasn’t actually pulled the U.S. out of the wars, he recently set down a timetable for doing so. He is taking steps toward that end, and even though it may not seem that he is doing anything definitive, I would argue that he is.  I think that even small steps in the direction of American withdrawal qualify as action, even if it isn’t the immediate action that the American people might expect. I’m sure he has reasons for not expediting the withdrawal and so I think that we nee to trust that he is doing it as fast as he feels he is able even if it doesn’t seem to be the action that we expected.

Another thing that he promised was to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and in doing that to stop Iran from acquiring them. Even though he hasn’t decided to invade Iran to forcefully stop them from enriching nuclear material, I would argue that even the diplomatic talks and threats of sanctions are actions in themselves toward slowing Iran. Also, his gaining support of China and Russia on the issue of stopping Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is progress in itself. Again it may not be the action that we expect, but it is action and progress.  So, I would argue that Obama has indeed accomplished things, but it may just not be in the way that we expected.

First, as an item on Obama’s ticket, he stated that he was a proponent of finishing the war as soon as possible. He spoke of pulling the U.S. out of a war that we never should have started. Many politicians promise that they will do things that people want them to do in order to get elected but this promise, I think was one that Obama intended to keep.  So, in order for Obama to keep his promise of removing the U.S. from the war in a timely fashion instead of escalating it, Obama needs to take action soon. If Obama decides that sending 30,000 more troops is what it will take to secure a lasting victory, then that is his decision. I am merely saying that Obama needs to do something in order to finish the war soon in order to keep his promise. There are other factors that will affect his decision as to how fast he can do it, but I think what ever he decides should coincide with his original beliefs and statements about the matter.

The second reason that I think the U.S should pull out of the war as soon as possible is that the American people and soldiers can only take so much. Sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, wives, mothers, friends, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and children are all dying in a war that seems to have no end. It is a huge emotional strain on the people of the United States; one that is made especially tough because many people don’t believe we should be involved in the war in the first place. It is also a huge drain on the United States’ finances. Billions of dollars each year are spent in order to maintain the war effort and at a certain point, the United States can’t afford to spend any more to money to sustain the war.  Also, many soldiers are struggling with tour after tour of fighting in Iraq and many are suffering from PTSD. For the health and lives of many, I think that the war should be ended as soon as possible.

The third and final reason that I think that Obama should pull the United States out of the war is that there are many other things that he could he could focus on. The United States is in a tough spot right now, attempting to recover from a financial crisis while at the same time deal with a huge deficit and a possible health care bill that would increase it even more.  I think that Obama should focus more on domestic issues, that it is time for a little internal improvement. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan distracts from Obama’s ability to focus on these perhaps more pressing and important issues for the people of the United States. If Obama were to be able to end this war quickly, I think that he would have more money and much more time to focus on issues that perhaps he and the American people find more important. After many of the domestic issues have been resolved, I think then, Obama should work on international issues. I don’t think that Obama shouldn’t work on international issues at all, what I mean to say is that the ending of the war would benefit the United States and Obama as he will be able to make those other changes that he promised.

The second thing that has happened that is a testimony to his progress is China’s and Russia’s agreement to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment program. Both countries have agreed to pressure Iran to stop its program, which I think is a major step. Both countries, especially China, have strong economic ties to Iran and have seemed hesitant to agree to put pressure on Iran. Fortunately they have agreed to side with Obama on this issue which seems to be an affirmation of what Obama is doing in the world to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists.

The third and final thing that I think serves as a testimonial to Obama’s progress is China’s agreement to set a hard target for emissions that is to be reached by 2020. China recently passed the U.S. in its level of emissions that it emits each year and seemed to be resistant to slowing its emissions as it has experienced very high and rapid levels of growth, which would likely be reduced if it were to focus its energies on reducing emissions as opposed to maintaining growth. China is currently the leading country in levels of emissions in the world and is potentially contributing the most to the continuation of global warming and so having this western resistant country that is focused on growth at all costs agree to slow emissions is a big step towards slowing global warming worldwide. Now, I don’t think that this is automatically going to make things better or that it will improve the health of the planet instantaneously but I do think that it is a step towards improvement and further agreements in the future.

Obama has been working very hard during his first year in office and I think that these agreements and affirmations of his efforts are good things that could motivate him and encourage him in what he is attempting to do. I think that if he keeps working this hard to do what he sees fit and accomplish his goals, and uses these victories as motivation and evidence of change, he will be able to accomplish much of what he plans.