The type of representative a president should be is a Politico. They should be a representative that acts as a trustee and a delegate depending on he popular saliency of issue at hand. The president should strive to represent all citizens. Although he was elected by party and constituents, he should try to represent America as a whole.
I don't think people should expect presidents to be descriptively representative. I get how a person could want that and how by definition how that can make sense. But, when being in charge of a country - the president should try to represent the entire country and reflect the needs of the country, and not their party.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Roosevelt v. Taft
Roosevelt used the executive power to the fullest extent in which the Constitution gave him power while Taft used his executive power with undue restraint. Roosevelt puts Presidents into two categories. The first being "Lincoln Presidents" and the second being "Buchanan Presidents." Roosevelt puts himself in the "Lincoln Presidents" category while he puts Taft in the "Buchanan Presidents" category. The main debate between these two is the role of the executive authority. One (Roosevelt) believes that it is a branch of government which plays the same amount of power and authority over the people as do the other two branches. Taft believes that the executive branch is the authoritative branch which keeps the legislative and judiciary branches in check and has the power to keep them in check. Taft sees the executive branch at the leader, and slightly more influential of the branch.
Now in reality, I think that the executive branch acts the way Taft sees it should be acting but I agree with Roosevelt that it shouldn't be acting outside it's designated powers. I believe the executive should stay within its role as given by the Constitution. Whether or not the executive power displays more power and influence than the other two branches is a different argument. The executive branch should remain in checks and balances with the other two branches.
I definitely side with Roosevelt. I do see the argument Taft is trying to make, in that one branch should have authority (the executive) in order to keep the government from a tug-of-war action and to actually progress in certain regards but the beauty of this country is that nothing ever gets done haha. This checks-in-balances system secures the fact that a President won't run the country into the ground.... Although we can all agree with the Bush administration that isn't the case. And that the same administration is a great example of how they acted outside their powers of the executive branch in order to implement their own agenda (Patriot Act).
Are there any situations in which a president with an unwavering commitment to your theory of executive power would perform especially well?
I think the President can perform especially well within Roosevelt's idea of the executive branch powers if they work with the other branches. Of course the President can be more effective with Taft's point of view of the executive but that wouldn't make him/her a good President, just a President who implemented a lot of policy.
There are many situations in which the President could get into trouble with the public under Taft's point of view but the President would probably be safer from public disappointment if he/she acted within their role of the executive.
The Presidency is obviously dependent on the President and their personality and character. There are many variables aside from the power given to the President and how he/she uses that power. The executive branch is dependent on the character of the President and not the powers alloted to him/her.
Now in reality, I think that the executive branch acts the way Taft sees it should be acting but I agree with Roosevelt that it shouldn't be acting outside it's designated powers. I believe the executive should stay within its role as given by the Constitution. Whether or not the executive power displays more power and influence than the other two branches is a different argument. The executive branch should remain in checks and balances with the other two branches.
I definitely side with Roosevelt. I do see the argument Taft is trying to make, in that one branch should have authority (the executive) in order to keep the government from a tug-of-war action and to actually progress in certain regards but the beauty of this country is that nothing ever gets done haha. This checks-in-balances system secures the fact that a President won't run the country into the ground.... Although we can all agree with the Bush administration that isn't the case. And that the same administration is a great example of how they acted outside their powers of the executive branch in order to implement their own agenda (Patriot Act).
Are there any situations in which a president with an unwavering commitment to your theory of executive power would perform especially well?
I think the President can perform especially well within Roosevelt's idea of the executive branch powers if they work with the other branches. Of course the President can be more effective with Taft's point of view of the executive but that wouldn't make him/her a good President, just a President who implemented a lot of policy.
There are many situations in which the President could get into trouble with the public under Taft's point of view but the President would probably be safer from public disappointment if he/she acted within their role of the executive.
The Presidency is obviously dependent on the President and their personality and character. There are many variables aside from the power given to the President and how he/she uses that power. The executive branch is dependent on the character of the President and not the powers alloted to him/her.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)