"What Factors contribute to a 'Failed' presidency? Illustrate your answer with examples from the period 1961-2004"
AMERICAN POLITICS "What Factors contribute to a 'Failed' presidency? Illustrate your answer with examples from the period 1961-2004" On the surface, the most straightforward way of deciding who can be deemed a successful president is whether they complete a second term of presidency by gaining a victory upon re-election after completion of their first term. The biggest 'failure' of a president is surely not being victorious in election for a second term of power, or worse still not being elected in the first place. More crucial is to establish the key 'factors' as to why a particular president 'failed' to successfully fulfil two terms of power. It would be to simplistic to state that, in recent times, Presidents Johnsen, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush have all been successful for they have all completed, or in Bush's case set to complete, two terms of Presidential power. In many cases Presidents have been extremely competent in some areas while systematically failed in others. It is also important to be aware that there can be polarising opinions, by different factions, as to whether a President has been a success or failure. The President is represented as a symbol of American people for the simple reason that he is the only solitary official of America, excluding the vice president, that the whole country elects. The presidency, as with any imperative
Examine the Causes and Consequences of the changing balance of power between the federal and state governments since 1980.
Examine the Causes and Consequences of the changing balance of power between the federal and state governments since 1980 In the years preceding 1980 the balance of power between the federal and state governments had been evolving and changing. This was due to both the changing times in America and the differing philosophies of those men in the famous oval office who had different ideas about how little or large a role the federal government should play. This role has been basically decreasing since 1980 with recent US president's adhering to Nixon's idea of 'new federalism' although the federal government still does have a lot of the power that it gained in the years leading up to 1980 as a result of revered president's such as Franklin Roosevelt increasing this power. Those presidents who took the view that the powers of the federal government should widen mainly did so because decisive federal action was needed at the time to ease America's problems. Since 1980(with the possible exception of September 11th) America hasn't faced such difficulties, which has meant that the Federal government hasn't had to do so much and therefore its powers have decreased. For example in the early 1930s when the USA was ruined by the great depression and the laissez-faire politics advocated by the republican president Herbert Hoover a new approach was needed. Roosevelt supplied this
US constitution and reform
'The Constitution is in fundamental need of reform'. Discuss. The fact that the Constitution has survived for over two hundred years without being fundamentally altered shows that its essential strength. It has adjusted to the diversity and complexity of contemporary American society. It is striking that few commentators believe that the Constitution requires radical change and even those most critical of the current political system still claim that the principles it embodies remain valid. The relevance of the Constitution's principles associated with democracy remain resilient. The survival and strength of the Constitution may also be attributed to the amendments it has adopted and the Supreme Courts role in interpreting it. In order to assess the constitution we must look at the goal set by the 'Founding Fathers'. The founders set out to create a government that would be effective but limited. It would be efficient in undertaking its responsibilities, but would at the same time respect and protect both the citizen and the states. Subsequent debates around the Constitution have examined the extent to which these goals have been achieved. Whereas some assert that the federal government is relatively powerless, others claim that it has become overbearing. Some argue that the government lacks effective power; critics argue that the checks and balances in practice have created
This paper aims to examine Mabini's political stance for the Filipino Nation.
Introduction The years in which the Malolos Republic came into existence was a time filled with controversy for the Filipino People. It was a time of transition for the Philippines in terms of colonial masters - from Spanish rule to American rule. Much tension was happening within the country's own government with different leaders trying to assert their own positions, at whatever cost. Some were eager to adopt the American democracy while some were convinced that the Philippines needed time to ground itself before anything else. Many debates were held with regard to beliefs regarding the country's readiness for a democratic government. Many wanted to cling to the United States due to the support they expected the Mother Country to give, believing that this would result in a lifestyle of peace. Meanwhile, others, like Apolinario Mabini, believed that the reason for the country's inability to achieve peace and order was the nation's apathy and unwillingness to work. He was one who looked far into the country's future making present historians come up with the conclusion that the era that Mabini lived in, unfortunately was not ready for his ideas. This paper aims to examine Mabini's political for the Filipino Nation. Next, it will study the Malolos constitution and compare it with Mabini's standards and the American constitution. Finally, it will seek to enumerate
Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?
Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and, as such if it decides which laws are constitutional or not. This means it must have some political element since it is so to speak making law rather than just ruling on it (such as in Roe Vs Wade 1973). This however is not necessarily a negative thing.
To what extent could the USA still be described as having an "imperial Presidency"?
To what extent could the USA still be described as having an "imperial Presidency"? The presidency can still be called an "imperial Presidency" to an extent, because there has been a growth in the president powers and how they use them. Thing like how the president is able to go to war with out congress declaring war, or how con do things when congress is out off session, and they escape the constraints imposed by checks and balances. When you look at what president have done with congress knowing or with out the agreement of congress, things like in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by congress, which was the only authority that they had to go to war in Vietnam, which led to 58,000 lives lost, they had no declaration of war only this resolution. This only came out by an alleged attack on American vessels by North Vietnamese forces, which was something that LBJ cook up so he could get the backing of congress to go to war. This is how an imperial leader would work, but just doing no matter what. There have been other cases where a president has used forces with out congress agreement. In 1983 when US marines occupied Grenada and removed the left- wing regime from power, rapid military success and widespread public support for the invasion enabled the Reagan administration to keep members of congress relegated to
Whether Amendment of the Constitution is a Political Question and not Justifiable?
Whether Amendment of the Constitution is a Political Question and not Justifiable? Article 107 is a provision for introduction of a Bill and the passing thereof by the House of the People and the Council of States. Article 111 relates to the presentation of such a Bill to the President for his assent. The Rules of Business of either House provide for authentication as to the passing of the Bill and the assent thereto by the President. Article 122 of the Constitution says: "The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure." Indeed the fact that the Bill appertaining to Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 was duly introduced and passed and the amendment obtained the ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by resolutions to that effect passed by those legislatures before the Bill was presented to the President for his assent, and such assent was given thereto by the President, is clear. All the above functions are Federal functions. They are necessarily political questions. In a case appertaining to the Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America, Hughes, Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court remarked: "We think that in accordance with the historic precedent, the question of the efficacy or ratification by State
Why did the Founding Fathers create the Vice Presidency?
Devlyn Brisson The Presidency Dr. Fistek Why did the Founding Fathers create the Vice Presidency? It appears to me that the vice president serves little or no significant purposes in the American political system. When I think of the role of vice president, the only thing that comes to mind is the fact that if the president dies or is not able to hold office it is the job of the vice president to take over as president. I am sure I share this ideology with many others; however, the role of the vice president is far more complex than that. In this paper, I will discuss the position of the vice presidency and the role of the 25th amendment. The Framers devoted little attention to the vice president's duties when designing this role. They provided that "he shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be evenly divided" (U.S. Senate). I feel that when the Framers sat down to debate the powers of the presidency, they were fearful of a powerful executive that would in any way resemble in its powers of the King of England. Therefore, in order to avoid this, they had to put the concentration of power in the hands of more than one so they considered a multi-person executive (This Nation). Although the Framers finally settled on the Executive Branch being led by a single individual; they remained concerned about the amount of power the President
'Examine the reasons for change in the balance of power between the federal and the state governments since 1980'
Vanessa Bowen 13FA Mrs Sharman 'Examine the reasons for change in the balance of power between the federal and the state governments since 1980' When evaluating the causes of reform in the balance of power since 1980 among the federal and state governments, one needs to concentrate on several key factors: the reasons why states increased their power, the reasons for growth in federal authority and an explanation for the change which took place. Each federal system is unique in the sense that the relationship between federal [national] government and state [regional] government is determined not just by constitutional rules, but also by a complex of political, historical, geographical, cultural and social circumstances. Both central government [the federal level] and regional government [the state level] possess a range of powers that the other cannot encroach upon. These include at least a measure of legislative and executive authority and the capacity to raise revenue and thus enjoy a degree of fiscal independence. However, the specific fields of jurisdiction of each level of government and the capacity of each to influence the other vary considerably. The basic principle of federalism is fixed in the Tenth Amendment [ratified in 1791] to the Constitution which states: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
Do constitutions really matter?
Do constitutions really matter? A constitution sets out the formal structure of government specifying the powers and institutions of central government. It also defines the balance between Central and other levels of government. A constitution will specify the rights of citizens, therefore creating limits of duties for the government. Nations need and use constitutions in order to help them put the workings of government into practise, whether it is a codified or uncodified constitution. Many factors, social and economic as well as the countries political culture affect whether a constitution will work and therefore matter to that country. 'The age of constitutions was initiated by the enactment of the first written constitutions, the US constitution in 1787and the French Declaration of Rights of Man and citizens in 1789'. There are several different types of classifications. Although every constitution is a blend of written and unwritten rules, the balance between them varies. This is why the classifications of codified and uncodified came about. Within these classifications, different definitions have come about as well. A codified constitution is itself authoritative in that it constitutes the higher law. It binds all political institutions and establishes a hierarchy of laws. The US constitution was the first written constitution, consisting of just 7000 words,
