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.  

Executive Branch

The executive branch holds an incredible amount of power in today's society.  Powers I believe should be changed include the nomination of public servants such as judges or department heads.  This should be changed because Presidents nominate individuals based on "politics."  Judges base their decisions based on politics, therefore  the President has too much power in this instance.  As a result, I think the Senate could also nominate powerful political figures in order for the process to be more fair.  However, if we changed this process, the nomination would take so long that it would not be feasible. Another power I would alter is the veto power because if a bill passes both the Senate and the House, I think that it should become law.  I would keep the veto but make some changes because it is too difficult to override a veto, and therefore it is unfair.  However, I understand that this would create a significant problem in the checks and balances process.  The last power I would change is the use of executive orders because I feel that this is a way to bypass certain rules in order for the President to push his agenda.  If there was no executive order, taking action in those circumstances would take much longer because the Senate and House would have to be involved, therefore this would never happen.