Schlesinger's War and The American Presidency

While Schlesinger talks of many different topics as far reaching as the electoral system, his main point is of the dangers of two war strategies.  These two are that of preemptive war and fighting unilaterally.  He explains the great dangers of these war policies and how they should not fit in the American democratic system.   
 
   First, he talks of the dangers of preemptive war.  He cites it as dangerous because many times the reasons involved are not concrete facts.  He uses the occupation in Iraq as his example of how the U.S. went in with the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction.  Whether Bush and his cabinet really believed that or were just trying to find reasons to go after Suddam, going to war without responding to an offense is a bad policy according to Schlesinger.  He believes this kind of policy also ignores the failures of the past.  One of his take away points at the end of the book is that so many bad decisions can be adverted by simply looking in the past at similar situations.  This review of history would show someone not to rush to judgement and pragmatically think through their plan.  He goes on to say this is a part of the dangerous Bush Doctrine which he feels is wholly undemocratic.
     While his problems with the doctrine include such aspects as intense interrogation and the way it gives the president as disproportionate amount of power, he mostly takes aim at the way it suppresses dissident.  In a democratic society, especially at times of conflict, other views must be heard so we can make sure we going forward in the best manner possible. Bush created wiretapping measures that sparked fear in citizens and generally rode the wave of patriotism after 9/11.  He feels this kind of environment punishes those who are against the war and chastises them as  unpatriotic.  Bush did this by increasing his powers to levels that Shlesinger felt were unprecedented. 
    He also takes aim at George W.'s unilateral war plans.  He charts all previous U.S. war engagements in the 20th century and notes how the most effective ones were when we were assisted by other countries or came to the aid of others.  Although not unprecedented given our unilateral history, a war like the war on terrorism is bound to fail according to Schlesinger because it has so little world support.  This could be a combination of other countries not agreeing with the motives of the war or not feeling the war has a chance of succeding.  I think another way Schlesinger uses the term unilateral is to talk about the president not staying within his circumscribed powers when waging war.  He talks of the president using his legal counsel to try to get around laws and help him implement his war strategies in the middle east.

I agree with the dangers Schlesinger lists and how it is easy for a president to get around laws that we believe should be followed.  Though, I do feel it is not always a serious offense as the president is supposed set a goal in the nations best interest and it is human nature to go about accomplishing it by any means possible.  While, I ultimately believe it is preferable to go about it legally, one can not be faulted for trying too hard to as long as they have the nations best interests in mind.  Of, course Bush is the prime example of why this is a tricky matter. 
   I also agree that especially during times of war and other big national issues, the media and citizens should be looking to welcome all views.  We want to the decision correct and the only way to do that is to understand all the options and then come to your conclusion.  This clearly did not happen well during the weeks and months after 9/11.  It also is a step Bush did not take as he was sitting on Wolfowitz's doctrine and leapt at the opportunity to invade the middle east.

Quick note one journal right below this

For whatever reason I referred to Justice Robert Jackson with feminine pronouns.  I do not want to go back in and change it because then the post could be perceived as being late.  I do realize Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female supreme court justice.

Unofficial, but Understood Powers of the President

Suffice Justice Jackson's opinion to say that she is not happy with the ways of Washington.  She feels the president has taken too many powers away from Congress, and Congress is allowing this to happen without putting up a fight and sometimes even approval.  She notes that the constitution is more of an outline of Government and has some ambiguity in it's broad statements, but the current system is a far cry from the constitutionally vested powers.
    As it relates to the case, she notes that such emergency eminent domain powers have dangerous precedents in other countries when left up to one person.  First, she notes that  Germany after WWI gave their leader many powers to curb citizens freedoms in dire situations and this led to the catastrophe of the Third Reich ruling.  The French Republic did not vest the emergency laws in their leader, but they must be gained as a parliamentary measure.  Great Britain also successfully fought both world wars with parliamentary approval of emergency laws being given to the prime minister.  Through these three examples she finds that parliamentary control made emergency powers compatible with freedom.  If one person has all these powers there is greater chance that corruption can lead to disastrous results for the country.
   She notes what Diclerico also found, that Congress has made few attempts to gain this power back from the President.  Because the president is understood to be the leader of the political party that a portion of the members of congress are a part of, there is not as severe of a reprimand on the President for overstepping his bounds as there maybe should be.
   The justice feels that the only time the president should have his maximum powers is when he has been given approval by congress to act.  She also says that if under these situations his action are deemed unconstitutional than the entire system lacks power.  In other words, there should be very few of those situations.  This is the only time the president can say he has "inherent" or "implied" powers.  The justice even acknowledges some wiggle room when the power is not clearly defined by policies.  But, in the case of the steel mill there are set policies the president ignored.
    Justice Jackson wisely says that the purpose of the constitution was not just to define powers, but to keep power from getting out of hand.  In this she sees a clearly defined set of checks and balances.  She has observed a history of presidents pushing the limits of these powers and thereby taking away power from the other branches, even the judiciary which is not barely mentioned in her opinion.  This is very similar to DiClerico finding that presidents look for every possible way to circumvent the law in regards to war powers.  They try to keep the true details of the troops activity confidential for as long as possible because the 60 day clock will start as soon as everyone realizes the president authorized fighting without congressional approval.  DiClerico also shows how presidents don't even acknowledge that the war powers act restrains them from acting unilaterally.  The presidents speak with Congress because they want to advise them and not because it is their obligation.  Clearly, people need to honor and obey the law for it to be an effective law.
  Those who oppose the war power act cite that the president can't use his veto on a congressional vote and that it gives congress the right to implement the laws, a role given to the president.  But, when considering the dangers of not having the act, the acts implementation is the lesser of the evils. 
   While Justice Jackson's conceptualization of a democracy is highly unlikely, because everyone is looking for loopholes and bargaining for more power, she does lay out a good case of a well run democracy.  The most possible step that can be taken to that end would be further isolating the branches, but beyond that it will take a while to restore some of the powers the president has taken away from the other branches.

Compare and Contrast: Libya and Kosovo

    When comparing the speeches to the nation given by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in regards to Kosovo and Libya respectively, there are many similar themes and reasons outlined.  They both cite efforts as humanitarian more so than war.  They both try to justify it to the skeptics by pointing to it being a NATO lead operation and that the U.S. will have to invest less resources and manpower in the fight.   Though, a difference is that while Obama explicitly stated that there would be not troops on the ground, Clinton made no such promise.  With both being NATO operations, the presidents were basically forced into action with the fallout making the US look like a self-serving outlier.  Some of the broader justifications they both made were that the countries unrest had the potential to cause further problems in the region as a whole.  Clinton said that this could get out of hand and spill into other countries and that a unified Europe was key to U.S. interests.  Obama pointed to the many potential revolutions  in the middle east and that if the U.S. and NATO did not stand up to the governments dangerously trying to suppress the revolutions, they would be giving the current leaders a free pass and no fear of repercussion for their actions.  Clinton also made that point in regards to NATO and a previous NATO peace agreement.  They both state that refugees could become a problem as people try to flee the country.  Only Clinton had a history with the country and the obligation of honoring a prior peace agreement in the country as a reason for bringing in U.S. troops.  But, perhaps the biggest point both were trying to impress upon Americans during their speeches was that the U.S., and the other powerful countries of NATO, had an obligation to stop a mass killing like was happening in both of these countries.

    It is on that note that they both somewhat propose a doctrine for helping countries in humanitarian crises, but not in all cases.  Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda, and many of the reasons he went into Kosovo could not be made for Rwanda.  Rwanda was a fairly isolated incident with little NATO interest.  This could make you come to the conclusion that the president needs more than just humanitarian reasons to bring in the troops.  While Clinton now regrets not taking action, as the president he did not see a demand for action when it comes to the US's interests.
  
    Obama has had many possible events recently to put manpower to, but has not seriously considered any besides Libya.  This is probably for an opposite reason, that U.S. interests and allies keep us from even making strong reprimands on the leaders of the countries.  And, clearly it was a good thing we did not put troops in Egypt, as the rebellion was successful and was also able to stay authentic without and outside forces.  Though, we still are not sure what kind of government will come into power in Egypt, just as we do not totally know who the rebels are in Libya.  This is one of the dangers and probably a reason Obama is not taking such steps as supplying them with weapons.  More egregious government actions are taking place in Bahrain.  The problem there becomes that they are being partially committed by the Saudi military, a key US ally.  Clearly, even as a world superpower with the feeling that we need to protect those less fortunate in the world, there are many variables that keep us from intervening.  After all, as Obama stated, we do not have the resources to police the world.  While true, that does not mean we should not try to help in any instance where U.S. interests are not badly interfered with and even at risk, as is the case with Libya and Kosovo.

Federal Judicial Nominations

The process of selecting judges for federal courts starts out with the president nominating a candidate.  Then, it is up to the senate to approve the candidate.  Senate hearings and a questionnaire help the senate learn more about the candidate.  Many presidential nominations are held up due to differences in ideological views, and thus it is not uncommon for a nomination to be in limbo for months on end.  For instance, there has been a federal circuit court of appeals vacancy since 7/8/2009.  This is also clearly not a dying strategy as Obama recently lambasted the senate for what he called unprecedented obstruction.
   I do not think this is a process that the writers of the constitution intended for and they would probably hate the way it is politicized.  Clearly, judges are supposed to be unbiased and simply interpreters of the laws and rights of U.S. citizens.  But, we know this is not the case and that many judges have shown to have records that would reflect the democrat or republican stance on the issues.  So, with this in mind you can't really fault the senate for twice politicizing this process.  It would be better for the U.S. if they voted based on who was the most qualified for the position, but I think we know politicians well enough to realize they will never give up some of their power. 
    When we get to to the point where the opposite party of the president holds up the nomination of a judge, the president has the option to pick a less partisan judge or wait it out and hope the senators budge.  A president can appoint a judge during a senate recess, but when the senate is controlled by the part opposite of the president they typically shrink recess to prevent this from happening.  This could have a different effect if the case where that the president was nominating an unqualified judge.  In this case the senate confirmation could serve its best purpose.  Unfortunately, it seems more times than not the system is used for the wrong reasons. 
   An unfortunate effect of this slowdown of the nominating process is that the current judges have had to take on more work.  The senate just this week approved of two judges for the district court of central Illinois.  This was necessiated by the one judge working this court being told by his cardiologist to decrease his workload and thus his stress.  Being a judge is a prestigious job that many people go into after a successful career.  Lets continue to attract the best judges by keeping the job attractive and not a big burden. 
   The president could throw a wild card into the nominating process by choosing someone, like Elena Kagan, with very few publicly stated opinions.  Two things are bad about this.  First, this would give the president incentive to pick someone who has never been a judge before, and thus devaluing experience.  Also, it would be allowing the political nature of the process to take complete control.  I think a president should nominate the judges they believe are best suited.  They should do this even with the knowledge that the person might not be approved.  Though, ultimately this is a question of who is playing more games with this process, the senate or the president.  And, the more we play around with the process, the more we get away from the core values this country was founded on. 
  On a final note, it is important that if we ever were to change the way judges get confirmed that we always keep in place the lengthy review process.  The lifetime term could be a poison pill if the judge turns out to be unqualified.

Who does the President Represent?

During the year-plus campaigning phase, presidential candidates try to make connections with the American people.  They do this by trying to keep their ideas as non-polarizing as possible (center on the political spectrum) and pandering to swing states and key demographic groups.  Once elected though, does the president really care about these people anymore?  Clearly nobody will do a complete 180 and admit to having lied their way through the campaign, but to what degree do they return to their base and their ideological ideas?  This is the reality, but in an ideal representative democracy who would the president support?  The answer clearly is the people, but it is much more sophisticated than that.  Clearly a far right wing conservative will not suddenly see it as his obligation to consider much less act on the views of a left wing liberal.  But, then the question becomes whether they should take into account the views of the independant citizens.  If they are up for election, they are probably more likely to pander to these people.  Otherwise the only time they need to consider views different than theirs is if they need to negotiate with a congress majority of a different party than them.  This is probably not ideal, but unless you hold elections every year, there is really know way around it.
    Throughout history we have seen different presidents have various styles of representing Americans.  Some have seen it as their right to obey the wishes of the American people and allow their agendas to be influenced by the people's opinion.  Others reject this theory and set their own agenda.  Then, some switch back and forth depending on whether the issue is of particular relevance to Americans.  I see merits in all of these positions.  The first would have the president being a trustee and it makes sense from the standpoint of the people elected them to make the decisions in the first place so they have full reign.  While possibly butting heads with the American value of equality, the president is hopefully a wiser person than the average American and should be able to make a sounder decision than Joe Schmo who has limited information and in some cases wrong information.  This is especially true in regards to national security where the public does not and should not have very much information.  The positive to a trustee is that the public opinion is constantly evolving and the public views that got you elected as far back at almost four years ago might have changed.  At the very least, you would hope the president is as dynamic as the general public and can adapt his views when in office.
      Such a president who adapts their views and does so in correspondence with the American people would be a delegate president.  One reason a president would want to be a delegate is they would probably be setting themselves up best for a reelection run.  But, then the question becomes if the views of the people are those that will make America most successful.  My answer to this would be most of the time Americans are wrong.  There are definitely times when the American people have a overall view that would be unsuccessful yet is popular because it seems right.  But, this is where the president must use his intelligence to make the best decision.  If it works out the president is applauded for for being a strong leader, and if it fails it is up to the president to plead his case to the American people as to why he chose the rout he did.
   The third route a president can take is that of a politico.  This is when a president cares about representing American views when they are hot button issues and otherwise reserves the right to make his own decision.  This makes sense from the standpoint of reelection as you can't go against too many popular opinions and be elected.  There are, however, popular topics in which the president should probably reserve the right to make up his own mind.  This is generally a hybrid of the two previous presidential types and therefore I don't see it as a horrible route to go.
      Other factors to consider in regards to who the president represents begin and end with who elects him.  Until many demographic groups start voting it is reasonable to assume that most presidents will somewhat disregard their needs.  This gives a larger amount of power to those groups that do vote.  This could change if a situation came about for descriptive representation.  In this situation the group this presidential candidate would represent would most likely come out to vote.  But, I am not in favor of making the presidency into a tool for social change.  The person best suited to lead this country should be elected president. End of story.  It is bad if 50 years from now the only thing we remember about Barack Obama is that he was the first black president.

The Powers of The President

When William Taft criticized Teddy Roosevelt for interpreting his presidential powers as being too far reaching, they were having the same kind of argument that our founding fathers had over  a century before them and we are still having a century after them.  Taft argues that Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party was using government intervention in too many foreign and domestic ways.  Taft, on the other hand interpreted his powers to be much smaller and welcomed the checks on his power that congress brought.  The contrast in the back to back presidents is a great example and starting point to debate the powers of the presidency.

 Lets start by exploring the Taft type of president.  The first and biggest point about this kind of president is that it would help to have a majority in the house and senate.  Otherwise, you would have little success getting your agenda across and few other avenues to turn to.  Of course, the argument here is that the president should be going through congress because they are of equal power and just as congress can make bills, the president can veto them.  This more law abiding president would have fewer foreign relation issues as it is less likely that any act that would be considered imperialistic would get passed if it went through congress.  Prime examples of such acts would be the Iran-Contra Scandal and the overthrowing of the Shah.  It is these secret agendas that are clearly illegal acts by the president.  

   On the Roosevelt side, an act like the Panama Canal could be seen as a time when the president acts in an imperialistic way, yet does more good than harm.  It is these kinds of act that lend credence to asserting all your possible powers when president.  It could be argued that with the understanding that the president can take advantage of far reaching powers within reason, it is up to the American people to vote for someone who will use those powers wisely.  This is not to condone those who abuse the powers for personal betterment, but to suggest that perhaps the founders gave this lack of clarity because there are certain times that the president must act swiftly to serve the needs of the people.  Such times would be in response to an attack from another country or maybe if a situation like Egypt escalated and the group about to assume power turns out to be a terrorist organization.  In these situations, even if congress was on recess, you would need a strong figure to assume responsibility.  

  Overall, I fall on the side of Roosevelt because the framers didn't leave the powers open ended because they couldn't decide what powers the president could have.  They wanted the president to mostly have checks and balances, but be able to assert themselves at certain times that the situation called for it.  I do understand the dangers, but something like Bush wiretapping is an action that has protected out country during a time of immense danger while doing very little harm.  Yes, that and the whole deal with the NSA was an impeachable act by him, but by the time such an act got through congress, who knows what kind of preventable act could have happened on our soil.  I understand the corruption of many politicians, but I feel we have no choice but to risk giving the president the ability to protect us in most every possible way.  Even now, it is understood the president has the sole power to shoot off our nuclear weapons at other countries.  If we give the president this power, we must trust him with others.  It is up to the voters to choose people they feel will not harm these privileges.  It is true that congress has the American peoples best interest in mind.  But there are plenty of situations regarding national security where a swift decision means acting as quickly as possible.  And yes, I do draw the line somewhere.  But, I feel this line will be drawn by the American people.  If the president does something possibly impeachable and egregious to Americans, there will be insurmountable pressure  on mostly congress but also the justice department to press charges.  I think historically Americans have taken exception to few presidents and thus you can count the impeachments on one hand.  Yet, this could be a larger number if secrets got out about presidents actions during office.  This I do not condone, but there is not much we can do about this.  But a transparent agenda that aims to serve the American people should be welcomed if it passes muster of the majority American people.  It is for the best of the people that we give the president these powers.