Schlesinger

Arthur Schlesinger focuses on the office of the Presidency.  In particular, Schlesinger argues that the Bush administration’s use of presidential power in war tells an old and new story.  The old story is the unilateral warfare and the new is the preemptive war.  Schlesinger states that the preemptive view is extremely dangerous, which is the manner in which Bush has taken advantage of his wartime mandate.  Schlesinger says that the preemptive war is dangerous because the reasons to go to war are not facts.  Schlesinger uses the example in which the Bush administration went to war with Iraq because Saddam was trying to get weapons of mass destruction.  Schlesinger says that this warfare also gets rid of the dissenters.  For instance, President Bush painted the individuals against the war as unpatriotic.  The other view was the unilateral war that President Bush pursued.  Schlesinger makes the point that in the past, previous wars included the assistance of other countries, and in turn became the most effective and efficient.  This is why the war on terrorism is an unwinnable war, because we do not have the support of other countries.  Finally, Schlesinger talks about how Bush expanded his presidential power by using his lawyers to get around certain laws.  However, this is not rare during wartime.  Finally, Schlesinger says that the new Bush doctrine has moved away from the strategy that won the cold war, the combination of deterrence and containment.  President Bush has moved from a policy of prevention of war with preventive war.  All these factors have given the United States a dangerous path for the future.

I agree with Schlesinger on some points that the President has tried to get around certain laws and that fact that this Bush doctrine has taken the United States down a lonely road.  However, Schlesinger makes his points on other historical events, which is significant because today was not 1990.  In other words, times have changed in that the world is technology driven and there are many dangers that did not exist during the cold war for example.  To make his point by comparing past historical events with the war on terrorism are two completely different things.  I absolutely agree that there should be world support and the United States needs its allies.  Nevertheless, I am not sure how realistic that is in this day of age.  The Arab countries have never been fond of America, and these are the countries that are the most important.  There are certain times where we cannot just wait for other countries to get on board before an incident occurs.  

Justice Jackson

Justice Jackson’s opinion gives us great insight into how he views the Constitution.  Justice Jackson explains that the President has power, but it is limited. The President can expand on his power depending on Congress.  Justice Jackson explains executive action into three categories:  those cases in which the President was acting with express or implied authority from congress; cases in which Congress had thus far been silent; cases in which the President was defying congressional orders.   Action within that first category is constitutional, unless the federal government “as an undivided whole lacks power.”  This category gives the President the most amount of power. In the second category, “Congressional inertia, indifference, or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility.”  The third category is the lowest amount of power the President can achieve.  Justice Jackson explains, “courts can sustain exclusive presidential control… only by disabling the Congress from acting from.”  From these categories, we can assume that the President has no significant legislative power and that the President must follow the law.  As for the judicial branch, the court is necessary to keep the President’s power in check and to make certain he is performing within the Constitution.  From Justice Jackson’s point of view, it is Congress that holds the true power, while the court is the President’s oversight.

 All these factors were designed to prevent the President from becoming too powerful and from reading his statement, it seems that the Constitution follows this interpretation for the most part.  From any power the President has, Congress and the judicial branch have an impact.  From the war powers act to appointing judicial officials and to judicial review; one way or the other Congress and the Courts has an effect on what the President does.  There have been instances where the President has circumvented Congress such as George Bush and interrogation methods.  Nevertheless, the implication for this view is that nothing would get done!  The government is extremely slow; therefore imagine if the government followed this view word for word.  I am not sure that Justice Jackson’s strict view is feasible in this day of age.  

Libya and Kosovo

Comparing the speeches between President Clinton and President Obama drew many similarities.  First, both stated that the United States needed to protect thousands of civilians because it was morally right.  Both Presidents say that by acting, the United States will uphold its values and interests.  President Obama and Clinton also make the point that the Untied States has a compelling interest because if massacre’s occurred in both regions, there could be a spillover in other regions.  Another similarity is that both Presidents made it clear that they were not acting alone.  The United States is acting with its partners and allies.  For example, President Obama states that the Arab league asked the U.S. to enter the fight.  Both Presidents seem to stress throughout their speech on why entering these conflicts matter to America.  While both Presidents state that there would be a spillover into other countries, Obama and Clinton have different reasons.  For Obama, If Gaddaffi overran the rebels and started killing thousands; additional refugees across Libya would flee into other countries that are going through a transition such as Egypt and Tunisia.  Also, President Obama explains that if the United States sat back and watched thousands of civilians die, that would give the impression to other leaders in that region that killing to suppress protests is acceptable.  President Clinton makes the point that if we did not enter, then Kosovo would spill into a wider war, and therefore threatening other democratic nations.  As far as a doctrine from both Presidents, I see that Obama and Clinton act with its allies, and if allies are not involved, then they want no part of intervention.  Besides the allies point I just made, I would say that both Presidents do not really have a doctrine because prior incidents contradict them.  For instance, Clinton would not enter Rwanda when clearly genocide was occurring.  If President Clinton wanted to protect civilians, why not enter that country?  Also, in 1993 why did Clinton pull U.S. troops out of Somalia even though many civilians were being starved and killed?  Shouldn’t he have protected the civilians on a moral ground?  For Obama, he wants to protect civilians and uphold democracy.  If that were the case, then why not enter Yemen?  The Yemen President has been killing more civilians than Gaddaffi?  The same situation with Syria because the Syrian President is killing civilians and on top of that is aligned with Iran.  The father of the Syrian President slaughtered 20,000 civilians in the early 1980s; why should we not think his son would do the same?  If the United States is going to enter Libya (which is not a threat to our national security), I think we should enter Syria.  Syria is a terrorist facilitator and a brutal regime.  If we removed Assad from power, this could shift the balance of power in terms of Iran.   Both actions by the President do not seem to make sense for the reasons I have stated.  Also, there are critics of President Clinton that state he entered Kosovo to keep the attention off the Monica Lewinsky scandal; therefore it could have been politically motivated. For President Obama, there have been many calls for him to intervene earlier, and if he did not, people would look at him as a weak President.  On the other hand, economically entering the conflict would not make sense because of all the debt the U.S. has.  Therefore I am not certain that there were political motivations for President Obama.  Having said all of that, I understand that Clinton and Obama entered these conflicts to protect civilians, and therefore I do believe that our role is justifiable.   However, to try and identify a doctrine is useless and I find both Presidents to be hypocritical for the reasons I have stated above.  Frankly, both Presidents leave me confused about what role the United States should have throughout the world.     

Judicial Nomination

The federal judicial nomination process first begins with the President; he must send a nomination to the Senate.  However, there has been a tradition of bipartisan consultation before a nomination is made, between the President and the Senators who represent the state in which the judge will serve.  In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, the President will probably consult with the Chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Once received the Senate refers the nomination to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nominee.  The hearing is the primary opportunity for members of the Committee to explore the nominee’s qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.  The Senators will then debate and even filibuster the nomination, which is significant because this is a check on the executive branch.  The final stage of the committee consideration is meeting where the Committee decides if and how to report a nomination to the full Senate.  The committee can report a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendation at all.  Then the Senate will vote and confirm or reject the nomination.  I am happy with the nomination process because this method allows a check on each branch.  Also, I do like the consultation the President has because this is important to make sure that the judges are indeed qualified.  When you have multiple opinions for judicial nominations, usually the most qualified judge will be picked.  Therefore, we are getting the caliber of judges we ought to expect.  As I stated, the Senate can filibuster and reject a nomination, and the President gets the nomination power, which means that the Senate is given a check.  This is the only efficient way to select a judge and therefore I am happy with it.  Having said that, it is not feasible to have an independent judicial appointment.  No matter what method is invented, judicial nomination will always be political.  There is no question that judicial nomination is becoming more and more political.  Today, I do not think there is a question of whether judicial objectivity exists.  Judges rule on their philosophy; in other words their political beliefs.  A good example is the recent Westboro Baptist Church case with freedom of speech came into question.  Samuel Alito, a conservative justice who was the only dissenter in the ruling that was in favor of the Church.  Conservatives seem to have a stricter view on freedom of speech than liberals, even though it was clear that the Church did not violate the law.  The only role the President can take in suppressing the myth is showing the judge’s qualifications.  Many individuals believe that President Obama did not do a good job suppressing this myth when he nominated Elena Kagan.  Kagan had never been a judge before, so there was no track record, and Obama made her Solicitor General.  Therefore, we knew she was someone who followed the same beliefs as Obama, yet her qualifications to some may be questioned.  Presidents over the years have tried to prevail the myth of judicial objectivity by noting the qualifications, but it is obvious that nobody buys it.  Judges are nominated by their political beliefs, and that has always been the case contrary to what the founding fathers wanted. 

Representative Presidency

I believe the President should be a trustee in terms of how he runs the country.  The President has the difficult job of representing the country as a whole.  When the President discusses treaties with other countries, he does not represent the state of Michigan or the Midwest region; he represents the United States.  Therefore, the President has to make decisions for the country as a whole. Congress should be delegates because they are voted by their constituency and have their interests in mind.  While Congress does have national interests to consider, their primary interest is to the benefits of the people who vote for them.  This is why there are 100 senators and 435 House of Representatives; which is significant because it brings all the issues around the country into “one big pot.”  The President has different concerns than what a delegate may have.  For instance, the President has more concern with the middle class throughout the country while the governor from Indiana is concerned about the middle class within his or her state. As for the politico representation, I have never seen a President who represented this point of view.  Presidents are not career politicians; therefore reelection is not always on their mind.  Having said that, they do need to please their political party at times in order to pass a bill, but it has never dictated how they run the office.  Pros to running a trustee government is that the President will get things done.  The Executive office is the action arm of the government, therefore if the President is worried about pleasing a certain group of people, or pleasing their political party, nothing will get done.  There are too many people in the United States to please everyone, therefore the President needs to be focused on the national issues of the country and let Congress and state officials worry about other domestic concerns.  A con to this form of government is that the equal branches of government are not so equal.  The President will have to make some decisions without Congressional approval, and therefore he has more decision making power.  I do not think people should expect Presidents to be descriptively representative because I think people vote for someone based on substantive issues.  There are people who vote for Presidents who are descriptively representative, but not the majority.  Individuals vote for Presidents based on substantive representation.  For example, Ted Kennedy was well known for fighting for the poor, even though he grew up wealthy.  Presidents have switched in representation styles, particularly when they are running for elections.  President Obama would go into poor neighborhoods to show that he was “one of them,” but then switch styles and speak about the substantive issues that matter most.  Usually, the lower class involves the black community, so when they see President Obama walking around, they will vote for him.  In the 2008 election, President Obama received 96% of the black voters (politico.com), so in that case a descriptive representation worked.  I think this is a significant statistic because it’s hard to believe that 96% voted for Obama based on substantive issues.  This gives me the implication that there are certain parts of the country that are not as knowledgeable, and so they vote based on descriptive representation.

Roosevelt v. Taft

Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft differed greatly on the use of executive power.  Theodore Roosevelt declared that the President has a “residuum of powers” to do anything not specifically forbidden by the Constitution.  Roosevelt believed “there inheres in the Presidency more power than in any office in any great republic or any constitutional monarchy in modern times.”  Roosevelt transformed the Presidency with popularity and empowerment greater than in the past.  William Taft was the opposite in that he was a passive executive.  Taft viewed Roosevelt as too aggressive, however they did have some similarities such as intervention in foreign affairs.  I believe in a hybrid of both Roosevelt and Taft’s view on presidential power. I do agree that Congress should be involved in the critical decisions regarding the nation; however there are instances where the President needs to make a decision without approval.  For instance, when the 9/11 attacks happened, the President had to make a lot of decisions that some would argue were stretching the executive powers.  Unfortunately, the government is very slow at making decisions, therefore, in cases of emergencies the President must have the power to make decisions quickly, and therefore expand the power of the executive branch.  There have been other cases where the President has used a far too aggressive approach to power.  For example, warrantless wiretaps and enhanced interrogation tactics could be seen as an abuse of power by President Bush.  Therefore, there needs to be a balance of when expanding executive power is necessary.  There are situations where this theory could be trouble because there is always someone who is absolutely against broad executive power, even in cases of emergencies.  As far as characteristics of a President, someone who is very liberal may disagree with this hybrid.  Someone like Jimmy Carter would probably disagree with me because he was a passive President, and therefore there are certain characteristics a President must possess in order to exercise expansive executive power.  

State of the Union

President Obama's State of the Union speech took a positive tone in which he focused on innovation and education.  The President put an enormous emphasis on investing in education and infrastructure.  The President spoke about past instances where investing has proven to help this nation's way of life.  Investing in green energy, and new education programs will help improve the future because innovation will evolve.  As a result of education and innovation, the economy will grow. The other major point that President Obama addressed was the deficit.  The President wants a discretionary spending freeze and a ban on earmarks to help with the deficit.  The President exercised his power to persuade and to take it "public."  The State of the Union is one of the biggest platforms a President can have, and therefore is trying to convince the public that his agenda will be the best for the country.  I believe the President was only using his power to persuade because he did not go into details about certain activities.  In fact, the President spoke mostly about what could be if we do this and that.  He is obviously calling on Congress for money to invest, but he is really trying to get the public on his side.  The speech sounded more like an election speech than what our current state of the union is.  I do not believe that the President used his power effectively because he did not talk a great deal about the "tough" topics that we face today and in our future.  For example, he only briefly mentions foreign affairs, without ever mentioning Iran or only briefly mentioning afghanistan.  I think education and innovation are extremely important, but the deficit, economy, and foreign affairs are the real tough topics he should have gone into great detail with.  With over 40 million people watching, he could have tried to convince others to get with his agenda.  Objectives he can receive are money, and perhaps a future reelection.  Most of his speech was on investing in education and technology, therefore he wants Congress to give him money to invest.  I find this ironic because he wants to cut the deficit, yet he talks about investing in education and innovation.  I do think that his goals will require extra-constitutional activities because the President had two goals. First, to get the public on his side, and second, for Congress to give him money.  The first goal will not require extra activities, but the second will.  I say the second goal will because he needs Congress to give him the money to "invest," however he is dealing with a Republican Congress.  Therefore, the President will most likely have to negotiate some "back-room deals" in order to achieve his goals.  I'm not sure the Framers wanted these behind the scene deals that give the President an enormous amount of power.