Representation

There has been much debate about presidential power within our country for decades. Not only is the limit of the executive’s power under scrutiny, as seen in the Taft v. Roosevelt debate, but the type of representation that the president should provide is also a complex issue. I want the president to act as a politico, rather than a trustee OR a delegate, because if the president is a politico you are able to get the best of both worlds.

Since a politico acts as both a trustee and a delegate depending on the popular saliency of the issue at hand, he is able to make decisions that the people are pushing for, but is also able to step in and make decisions that he thinks are best for the people. The findings in the Canes-Wrone and Shotts piece provide a good example as to when the president should act as a delegate. Issues that constituents think about routinely such as crime, education and economy should be represented by a delegate who will take into consideration the will of the people, since they are the ones who are the most directly effected. Things like the federal reserve, nuclear energy and foreign policy should probably not be up to the popular will of the people and should be looked after by a trustee who will make more informed, conversant decisions.

However there are some cons to this type of representative. If the executive is acting as a politico, according to its definition he is supposed to act in accordance to the popular salience of an issue. Sometimes a representative’s constituents may push for a popular policy to be passed but is it really always the best decision. Sometimes people are blinded by their own opinions and while appeasing the majority is always a popular thing to do, it may not be what is always best for the country. He should strive to represent all citizens, but that’s not very realistic. He should definitely represent just the electorate, but maybe an aim at all citizens with a stronger focus on those in his political party. While I’m sure there are some people of the opposite political party who voted for the president in power, it is largely due to his political party who elected him. 

In the case of the president, I do not think he should be expected to be descriptively representative. Descriptive representation should be present in congress, but isn’t a president supposed to try and represent the will of all constituents? Just because a president is from Tennessee doesn’t mean that he should give special interest to his constituents in Tennessee. Therefore, the president should probably use substantive representation. His constituent’s political needs should always be placed somewhere in the forefront of his mind. While they may not always need the things that are best for them, he should still keep in mind what is important to them and try and act in their best interest.

Roosevelt vs. Taft

Theodore Roosevelt's "stewardship" theory was based off the idea that the president could do anything that the Constitution did not forbid. He believed the president to be a "steward" of the people and "to do all he could for the people." By exercising this type of power Roosevelt believed he was able to do what was necessary for the country and what it demanded. To watch out for the "common well-being" of the nation, Roosevelt believed this type of informal power had to be utilized.

William Taft's "literalist" theory was based upon the idea that the president could not do anything that the Constitution did not permit. He believed that a president's "jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional" provisions, or else those powers do not exist. Taft argues that by giving the executive informal powers is not only limitless, but also unsafe, creating the potential to invade upon private right.

Both Taft, and Roosevelt, make valid points in their views on presidential power. I think that many people would flip flop between the two theories depending upon the president that held office, but in a general sense, I would tend to side with Roosevelt's argument. Certain circumstances call for certain actions which could not have been fathomed by the Framers, so by limiting executive power to that of which only resides in the Constitution would be an unwise call. Times of emergency, like war or natural disaster, call for hasty actions that may not be constitutional provisions. By giving the president room to move outside of the Constitution provides for a better working democracy. Everything the people demand is not going to be within the limitations of the Constitution.

Going back to Taft's argument, I believe that a president's informal powers must be limited as well. Since there is no clear definition of what the common good is, how can anyone really know if a president's actions are in accordance with this ideal? For example, presidents like Richard Nixon, who obviously overstepped their boundaries and abused executive power, need to have some limitations, but it's hard to draw the line where. If a president's power is too limited people may be unhappy with the government's abilities, but if it is loose it runs the risk of being too powerful. I think overall it is a tough question as to where to draw the line.

Ultimately, as I said before, Roosevelt's argument probably makes the most sense, of course with certain limitations. Just because something falls somewhere in between what is legal and what is illegal doesn't always make it right. There can be deviance without having broken laws.

State of the Union Address

In President Obama's State of the Union address given last night he hit many important points and set some pretty ambitious goals. The state of the union address is not only to set the agenda for congress, but to inform and please the public about the goals he hopes to achieve. By going public with his agenda, Obama has the potential to get the approval of both congress and the American public.

 I think the overall tone of his speech was about boosting the economy, but how could it not be after the recession that we have been through? He began by addressing innovation, infrastructure and education. He made the message clear that we need to be supporting new research and innovations equating this goal to a modern space race. We must invest in things like biomedical research and clean energy technology. By doing such things, Obama points out that we will not only be strengthening security, but creating countless new jobs. Along the same lines he makes the point that this all starts by restoring educational values, we can only achieve such innovations and new technologies if people are hard at work learning and creating ways to do such things, and not just those who are already educated, but people of all ages must work towards these achievements. He says that by eliminating the taxpayer's money that goes to oil companies and redirecting it towards research in fuel and electricity, hopefully we will have cleaner air and a million electric cars on the road in the future. Then Obama turns the focus to the problems in our businesses. He says that by doing things like keeping business within our borders and by creating a small business tax credit, more jobs will be restored to hard working Americans. Obama also hopes to freeze government spending for the next three years. The last main point Obama makes is to end "don't ask, don't tell" and allow those who are gay/lesbian to serve their country.

Many of the things proposed by Obama in his agenda would be achieved through informal power. He does assert his formal power when he threatens congress that he will veto and hopefully end all earmark legislation. Other than his veto power, the other aforementioned goals would either be achieved through informal powers and through congress. Not only does he exercise informal powers through his address, but his overall role of "agenda setter" is an informal power.

While Obama's speech was one of optimism and hope, we all know that the agenda may never actually be put into action. Many of his goals will go unattended and those that do begin in congress will most likely die there as well. Since many of the goals set my the president last night are vital to our economy and out overall success as a nation, I will try to remain as Obama was last night...hopeful.

Changing the Constitution

I believe the Constitution is something many Americans are familiar with, yet have little idea of what it actually means. I have read it many times and done many assignments about it, but yet I'm still a little confused by some of it's language myself.

If I was given the power to change Article II, I would begin in Section 1. In this section it is stated that, "No person except a natural born citizen," may obtain the position of President. This seems absurd, especially in today's society. I can see why the Framers would have made this distinction when they were creating the Constitution due to the fear of British rule/influence, but today it seems that any citizen should be able to become president. If they have gone through the process of becoming a citizen, it shouldn't matter if they are born here, a citizen is a citizen. Personally, I would want the person that it the most well qualified governing the country and such things are not dependent on where some one is born. I do agree that there should be a requirement for age and years of residency, but leadership is not only found in America. I'm 100% sure that there are far more qualified people out there, who are not American, that could run this country better than many of our past presidents. 

But is there really any hope that the Constitution will be changed any time soon, if ever? I do hope so, although I'm not too optimistic. Other than changing the citizenship requirement i do not have too many other problems with Article II. I do think there could be more specification of the crimes eligible for impeachment. It states that a president can be impeached for "other high crimes," however I'm not quite sure what these "high" crimes are. I guess I'll go ponder that now...