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.