“… it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from refection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and force.” A question posed by Hamilton in Federalist 1, but in my opinion it has been answered by many others such as Tocqueville, Gilman, Lippman, and within the Federalist Papers, Civil War, and the conflicts of Washington and Jefferson, though each has done so with a unique and different approach. The foundations of a true democracy and its expectations were set with the first election. George Washington delivered his first inaugural address in April, 1789 in which he expressed his expectations of the American government. He desired a centralized government for America that would serve to be an example for other nations for its morality and principles. A government that treats all with
The long standing debate on whether amending the constitution to allow Naturalized citizens to run for presidency has formed arguments for and against the issue; all arguments stand with valid points. But as a democracy as the United States is, the government must consider the equal treatment of all its citizens including those naturalized. Loyalty to this country does not fall in place according to the country a person was born but by the values they were raised in. Not everyone has a realistic prospective of running for president whatever their background may be; but excluding certain citizens from consideration merely based on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. Kennedy states in his article “It makes second-class citizens of naturalized
2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President. In response to this: this is where the AUMF gives the President the right to use the powers of war implied to him by Congress, through which he is allowed to do within the law of war. Behind this allegation of the Presidentʼs war powers based on Congress, the Judiciary and Political branches support this theory that in need of protecting the country from foreign lands, the President has the right to act with military force without consulting Congress at force, as long as it is within the laws of war. Bradley and Goldsmith go on to say “...in the absence of express congressional restriction, the only limitations on presidential power during wartime were the laws of war.” (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2092) In the court case of Brown v. United States, Brown argued that the laws of war were broken when the President tried to take over some land that was under the ownership of the enemy forces after the War of 1812.
Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
By creating a government divided into the presidential, legislative, and judicial branches meant that no one’s power could come into absolute power. There is however a downside to having three branches of government. If there is a democratic president and one of the branches is a republican run branch they may not agree on some of the same ideas. When we have different branches vetoing bills and not making them laws this in turn affects the citizens who may need the change. Checks and Balances The system of checks and balances is part of our constitution.
Gridlock occurs when the branches of government scrutinise each other’s action to such a point where neither can pass any form of legislation, and the government therefore becomes less able to perform its duties, therefore leading to a less effective government. For example during Obamas presidency he had struggled with the majority of republican opposition in congress, and therefore had trouble to pass any major legislation such as immigration reform, jobs bill, gun control initiatives and etc. On the other hand, others may argue that the government is not ineffective because of the constitution as the checks and balances system do in fact work, as a way to prevent an overly centralised and powerful form of government, which may not stay accountable to the people as much as it does to large corporations who fund them for re-elections and etc.
A state is closer in relationship to the U.S than a territory, but the federal government has more control its territories. State governments share power with the federal government and are allowed to create and enforce laws without approval from them. U.S. territories still have self-government, but they must abide by federal law and whatever laws they create themselves must first be approved by U.S. congress. Also, although we follow the United States and it leaders in office, territories are not allowed to vote. The U.S. many times ignores and leaves out its territories treating them as if they were a completely foreign
And the Judicial branch explains the laws as well as checking to make sure all laws are constitutional. Thus, creating checks and balances which allows all three branches to check the powers of the other branches to prevent any certain branch from becoming too powerful. This limits the presidents’ powers due to the powers of the other branches. For instance, the judicial branch can rule an action by the president unconstitutional, and the legislative branch can over-ride a presidents’ veto at any one
In Boumediene versus Bush case, the court voted that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, because Cuba’s base is technically American territory. Chief Justice Roberts is against the majority vote. His thoughts are that the court is “overreaching” and fears that the decision made by non-political and non-accountable judges might strain the control of the nations on foreign policies. (Greenhouse, L., 2008) The role of the President as commander in chief is to put in force “laws passed by the Congress”. (Levin-Waldman, O.M., 2012, p.48) He also can do whatever he feels is needed to “protect and defend the Constitution”.
Also, when Congress passes a piece of legislation, the do not technically have the authority to enforce this legislation. That remains in the hands of the Judicial and Executive branches. And when dealing with the Legislative branch, you are surrounded by Senators and Representatives whose motives are often not pure, but are tainted by the financial backing of others, and each of their individual constituents. They are not always in these positions to benefit the whole of American society. The Judicial branch is made for the people, all of the people of the United States.