I personally say that strength is not given but earned by what you do to get others to approve your intensions. In other words, strengths and weakness depends on a personal capacity to influence the conduct of those in government. Power seems to be based on how influential or persuasive one can be. However, I also think that no matter how much the President tries to get what he wants during his term, the President will never be the most powerful man in the country. He is always sharing his power due to the checks and balances system.
With all other powers off limits to the federal government, they didn’t get too powerful. It was Theodore Roosevelt who became president in 1901 who had an immense impact in changing this outlook. He took a stand saying that the power not forbidden, as well as not granted to the federal government should be in their hands. With individuals such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B Johnson, Roosevelt spread his claim. From here the clash of the power struggle deepened.
Therefore it is assumed that Big Brother’s downfall could not have happened because of a more powerful government took over, since all three nations are equal in power and cannot take over the other. This possibility is then discarded and cannot be valid. Oceania is controlled by the government. They provide the masses with “accurate and updated” news about the never-ending war against Eastasia or Eurasia — as how Big Brother and The Party see more fit to be at war with at
However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
The new king had real power and was in control of the army and he would also personally select the prime minister and all the individual ministers meaning the people had no real vote; they could vote in a person as a minister only to have the king turn him away. In parliament there was a huge lack of political parties. Politicans were linked by family and local interests rather than political principles. This gave the king more influence and made room for him to manipulate people through his favorite prime minister to support a certain ministry. This way of running government became known as
Indecisive people can pass on their responsibilities and “pass the buck,” and advisory people can propose their concepts and lobby for acceptance, but the President can ultimately turn to nobody else. Presidents must make the hard decisions. It is a heavy mantle to bear on those presidential shoulders. It is lonely at the top. President Johnson’s “wise men” possessed depth in their areas of expertise beyond that of the President, who was a master mover of legislation to accomplish domestic social programs but very much out of his league in military matters and international relations.
As America’s hero from the Revolutionary War and first president, Washington was given many responsibilities for the new nation. As our first president, Washington had many difficult decisions to make with no precedents to turn to for guidance. Many men would have become corrupt or tried to seize as much power as possible if placed in Washington’s shoes, but George was noble and had the responsibility to respect the constitution and do his job to best serve the country. Washington made no attempt to become dictator, to establish a monarchy (though he had no heir), nor to retain power for too long. After his second term he stepped down from president setting a precedent himself.
On the other hand, the single-issue parties, they only focus on only one public policy matter. The chapter also talks about President’s party is almost always more solidly united and better well-organized compare with other major party. However, competition often caused the leadership group in the party out of power. Federalism is a major reason for the decentralized nature of the two major political parties and also the nominating process is also a major cause of party decentralization. Often, the parties will fight with each other and compete with each other within their party during the nominating process.
With the onset of the Second World War, the US stepped out as a world super power and the executive gained exclusive jurisdiction over foreign policy which in the 21st century now acts as a big role which the executive must be active in. Due to the fact the constitution doesn’t refer to foreign policy it has led to the president becoming very powerful in this role as the constitution bodes no constraint on it, meaning he can do ‘what he pleases’ as there is no check on the presidents over sight process. This exposes another flaw in the constitution written and devised in the 18th century, as once again it disregards some major governmental policies which have only recently come about. In addition, when the US constitution was written there were only 3 sectors in office ‘war, office and treasury’ this has now changed dramatically and the executive now has many sections – once again the constitution has not taken these into account and therefore doesn’t work on a ‘government’
This power went directly to the people, not only that of the upper class. In America, citizens are accustomed to their government having the responsibility of serving their needs rather than people serving their rulers. Originally, the king could take rights away without question. In contrast, the American Constitution limited power of the government over the individual, The Bill of Rights even protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority. The three branches of government make America immune from too much power to one individual.