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.
I disagree with your use of the term passive to describe Taft's theory and presidency. I understand what you are trying to say, but I just interpreted it differently. Taft believes he can and he will exercise his powers, but they must be delegated to him. He doesn't want to step out of his boundaries set by Congress and the Constitution. That doesn't make him a passive president. He is still exercising power and using those powers effectively, he is just staying within the scope of the explicit powers. For example, Taft's view on foreign affairs in office was far from passive. He did a lot of work while in office and just because he stood within the scope of his powers it seems unfair to call him passive.
ReplyDeleteYou said you favored a hybrid of Roosevelt's and Taft's views on presidential power and I wonder how you think this hybrid would work. Do you think there should be instances where the President always has to appeal to Congress in order to do something and instances where he has free reign? If so, who decides what these instances are? While I think a hybrid of these two theories is probably the ideal, I don't see it as completely feasible to operate under both theories. I think more often than not, one theory would end up taking control and the balance between the two would tip in favor of that theory.
ReplyDeleteLike Emily I am wondering how you think this hybrid system will be run. Do you propose to make an amendment to the Constitution that would outline the instances in which the President is able to exercise extraordinary powers? Does he have to ask Congress for permission? I think this idea of a hybrid model needs to be fleshed out a bit.
ReplyDelete