The United States
Question 1
In the formation of the United States, several issues were discussed at length to create a free and fair nation. One of the issues of contention was the powers of the state versus the presidency. The society had suffered immensely under the strict leadership and oversee the power of the King in England. As a result, the formation of the country requires to establish the power of the people and the distribution of power. In the immense debates, federalism was viewed as the ideal system by the majority of the founding fathers at the time. As a result, most powers in the nation was placed on congress rather than a centralized leader. The system of leaders thus has presented several benefits over the decades as well as challenges. The system of leadership where the states have more power than the president presents many pros and cons despite the balance of power remaining titled to congress in modern society.
The first benefit of more power being with the states over the president is the protection against tyranny. As expressed in the third chapter of American Politics, “federalism can provide a check on national tyranny. Competitive federalism ensures that Americans have a broad range of social policies, levels of taxation and regulation, and public services to choose from” (96). The advancement of the state governments allows the local communities to have a say as compared to a centralized leader making all the decisions for the community. Secondly, having more power on the state level is essential as it allows the will of the people to be expressed more. The local governments are closer to the people thus the will of people from all over the nation can be well-represented. Thirdly, an increase in state power is beneficial as it allows easy access to political systems for the people. At the state level, people can reach different representatives and express their challenges in a given system. Finally, the advancement of state power offers an advantage in the establishment of democracy. People on the state level offer innovative and diverse opinions which when applied offer an essential aspect in modern society. Overall, the increased power of the states creates more power for the people and reduces the development of tyranny. On the other hand, increased power in the state governments compared to the central government several cons.
The first con is the unequal distribution of resources to all parts of the nation. Giving more power to the state such as budget control limits the progress of the states with fewer resources as compared to the rich states. As illustrated by the authors, “The resource problem becomes more acute when dealing with national-level problems that affect different areas differently. For example, pollution spills across state lines, and the deteriorating public infrastructure, like the highway system, crosses state boundaries” (97). The advancement of state power causes a challenge in dealing with infrastructure and national challenges based on the resources of each state. Moreover, the rise in the power of the states over the federal government causes unequal protection of civil rights. Different states have expressed different outlooks on issues of equality such as the end of segregation in the south and north. As a result, more power in the states will ensure the extensive beliefs and actions of the state governments are allowed to prosper. Finally, the increase of state power has the disadvantage in which all states want to race to the bottom in terms of taxes and expenditure. The race to the bottom thus causes disadvantages to the poor who require certain exceptions and welfare programs.
Currently, the states still possess more power as compared to the central government. The modern presidents starting from Reagan have revolutionized the presidential office by seeking avenues to expand their power. However, congress still possesses more power. Despite the public support, the presidential proposals have to go through congress to vote and determine their validity to the people. The central government to use indirect means to overpower the states in the majority of decision making such as relying on the majority vote and lobbying. Overall, the debate on the balance of power between states and the central government is not simple to describe as different aspects are at play. Nonetheless, the system created y the founding fathers has been beneficial to the people by offering closer access to political systems. Nonetheless, the systems can cause a problem in the passing of popular votes and demands.
Question 4
The stipulation of the powers of the president in the US constitution, the powers of the president were extremely limited. The executive branch of government was developed to ensure ease in diplomatic interactions with the rest of the world. The powers of the president were illustrated in article 2 of the constitution. The article states that the powers of the president are to sign or veto legislation, oversee the armed forces, receive ambassadors, oversee the convenience, and adjourning of congress. Similarly, the president has power over the granting of pardons. The overall powers of the president were limited from controlling the budget and legislative aspect of the government. However, the powers of the president have been contested over the decades especially concerning wars. As a result, the powers of the president have transitioned over time from purely presidential roles to influence the development of the legislature and the main appointments in the government. The powers of the presidency have increased since the founding of the nation and ought to improve in the future.
The powers of the president have improved over the years. The presidential powers have increased over time based on the use of unilateral action. The unilateral action as defined in the text illustrates, “Any policy decision made and acted upon by the president and presidential staff without the explicit approval or consent of Congress” (442). The provision has allowed the presidents in modern times to have their way in different issues that can be defined within the unilateral law. The law has allowed presidents such as President Trump in 2018 to bomb Syria under the war powers act. The presidents over the years have devised ways of using the powers within their disposal to ensure they can take actions that do not involve the approval of the congress. Similarly, the presidential powers have been improved in the recent past through the advancement of the unitary executive theory. The current and former president has made use of the theory in the war actions. The interpretation of the law and use of the executive powers has allowed the presidents of the US to have more power. Similarly, the power of the presidency has been influenced by the view of them as politicians. Prior to the general elections, the party elections are essential in the election of the party leader that runs for the presidential post. Being a party, the president then is the unofficial leader that represents the party interests and ideologies. As the authors explain, “The president needs support from members of his or her party in Congress to enact legislation, and the party and its candidates need the president to compile a record of policy achievements that reflect well on the organization and to help raise the funds needed for the next election” (447). In the capacity of the party leader, the president has increased power especially when the party has the majority number in both houses. The representatives in the party thus advance the interest of the president hence giving him power. Moreover, modern presidents have received most of their power from engaging the public. The engagement of the public has allowed leaders to have more powers in modern society as it influences public opinion. The engagement of the public by George Bush allowed hid war on the middle east to evoke different public opinions. The current president has actively used social media to ensure his ideologies are passed to the supporters. The invoking of public opinion has allowed modern presidents to expand their powers. Although the powers of the president are still limited progress can be viewed in the modern era.
The office president should have less powers. The distributed power to make essential decisions for the nation is necessary as it allows the actions taken by the nation represents the opinion of the people. The president is a party leader and also looks to appease only the percentage of people that voted for them. Thus, different issues that are not agreed upon by many can easily be passed when the president has more power. For instance, President Trump has advanced the building of a wall in the southern border with is one of the most contested issues in the current era. If the president had more powers, the wall would be built and almost half of the nation would not be in support. Increasing the powers of the president is a threat to democracy as the president will not consider the feelings of all in the development of laws. As a result, the sustenance of democracy demands the lowering of the presidential powers.