Changing Role of the Presidency
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The role of the presidency has changed in this century as power has shifted among the branches of government. In the formation of the Constitution and the government it supported, the Founding Fathers sought balance within the federal government itself through a separation of powers, the provision placing different governmental powers in the three branches of government--the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This separation of powers is part of a system of checks and balances. Left out of this formulation is the public, which exercises power through the force of public opinion in the period between elections and at the ballot box during elections. The President comes into office with an agenda which he then tries to get implemented. This can be done in one of three ways: legislation can be introduced in Congress and passed by both houses; some efforts can be made through Executive Orders; and an Administration can pursue changes in the law through the courts by filing suits in the appropriate venue. The best way for the President to implement a domestic policy program is to push legislation through Congress rather than to turn to the courts because doing so creates a consensus and results in a stronger policy, one less likely to be challenged by Congress given that Congress was instrumental in formulating it. The intent of the Framers of the Constitution was that the powers of the Executive and the Legislative branches be balanced (along with the Judicial
. . .
fact that different parties are in control of the two branches, however, for divided government also requires that the parties be so polarized that they cannot come together to form a consensus on issues in order to pass legislation and create and implement policies. Even if the two branches were controlled by the same political party, it might be that they would be unable to agree on certain policies and that there would still be a gridlock. An unpopular president with unpopular ideas might encounter considerable opposition even from his own party, and the result would be the same sort of inaction that we have seen in the Bush Administration. This would not be divided government, however. Divided government implies a polarization of the two political parties. The government is divided between the two parties, and partisan decision-making either is or appears to be the order of the day:
Divided government has produced stalemate over domestic issues under Eisenhower, deadlock on both foreign and domestic fronts during the Nixon-Ford era, and immobility for seven of the eight years under Reagan, even when a consensus existed on the need to address the burgeoning national debt. The same inertia on the budget affected Bush (Tho
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Executive Legislative, Mark Peterson, Pika Watson, Congress Congress, Founding Fathers, Bush Administration, Legislative Branch, George Edwards, Executive Administration, Executive Branch, divided government, agenda congress, build coalitions, pika watson, president congress, own party, thomas pika, political parties, thomas pika watson, executive legislative, washington dc congressional, congressional approval, executive legislative branches, congress divided government,
Approximate Word count = 1524
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Changing Role of the Presidency
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
