I'm beginning to be concerned about the increasing power of the President in American politics, based on the things I've been learning in my class on the presidency. Basicly, the executive branch has grown waaaaaay beyond the parameters defined by the constitution, starting with Roosevelt in the 30's, though he merely followed a president set by Lincoln in the Civil War. Basically, the constitution limits the president to overseeing foreign policy (though he is not allowed to start wars), preventing legislative tyrrany (veto power), and appointing supreme court justices (in othert words, hes just a third check to prevent deadlocks between the Supreme Court and Congress). For most of our history, thats what he's been. Lincoln stands out among the 19th century presidents because he broke from that role and went against the constitution in a time of crisis, though one can hardly fault him for that. Roosevelt did the same thing during WWII, finding ways around Congress's declaration of neutrality in order to help Britain and France prior to Pearl Harbor and American intervention. He also bullied congress and the Court into passing his new deal programs. Again, we can hardly fault him for either, since America was in a time of crisis. The problem is that throughout history, great leaders who sieze power in times of crisis in order to save their nation unintentionally pave the way for those who would later abuse that power. Augustus pulled Rome together when it was split by civil war, and they named him Emperor (A position which he intended to do the same thing as the presidency, in that it was meant to prevent the legislature from getting out of control). He used his power to initiate a vast program of social reform, including such things as the world's first public fire department. Yet in doing so, he paved the way for the Neros and Caligulas, who abused their power horribly. (I personally like to think that GW is America's Nero, especially...

I'm beginning to be concerned about the increasing power of the President in American politics, based on the things I've been learning in my class on the presidency. Basicly, the executive branch has grown waaaaaay beyond the parameters defined by the constitution, starting with Roosevelt in the 30's, though he merely followed a president set by Lincoln in the Civil War. Basically, the constitution limits the president to overseeing foreign policy (though he is not allowed to start wars), preventing legislative tyrrany (veto power), and appointing supreme court justices (in othert words, hes just a third check to prevent deadlocks between the Supreme Court and Congress). For most of our history, thats what he's been. Lincoln stands out among the 19th century presidents because he broke from that role and went against the constitution in a time of crisis, though one can hardly fault him for that. Roosevelt did the same thing during WWII, finding ways around Congress's declaration of neutrality in order to help Britain and France prior to Pearl Harbor and American intervention. He also bullied congress and the Court into passing his new deal programs. Again, we can hardly fault him for either, since America was in a time of crisis. The problem is that throughout history, great leaders who sieze power in times of crisis in order to save their nation unintentionally pave the way for those who would later abuse that power. Augustus pulled Rome together when it was split by civil war, and they named him Emperor (A position which he intended to do the same thing as the presidency, in that it was meant to prevent the legislature from getting out of control). He used his power to initiate a vast program of social reform, including such things as the world's first public fire department. Yet in doing so, he paved the way for the Neros and Caligulas, who abused their power horribly. (I personally like to think that GW is America's Nero, especially in relation to my theory on the imminent collapse of America and the beginning of a second Dark Age, but that's another story, and one best told to someone who has a moderate knowledge of both Roman and American political history). So, though Roosevelt siezed power from congress in order to save the congress, none of the Presaidents that have followed him has had the graciousness to return it. to the contrary, they keep grabbing more. The last time in the 20th century in which America declared war was WWII. "But how can that be? We've fought lots of wars since then!" All other wars have been presidential operations, done without congressional edict. To go by that logic, all of these wars were, in fact, unconstitutional. The constitution states (Article 1, section 8) that Congress and ONLY the congress has the power to declare war. Add to this the Preident's ability to rally his party in support of his own domestic agendas (some better than others), and suddenly we realize that we have, in effect, an elected dictatorship. A contradictory term? Perhaps in the literal sense, but that is really how it works. Especially in the example of george Bush and the Patriot Act. He has already abused the wiretapping priveleges it gives law enforcement to pursue non-terrorist targets, it would be naive to think that he or a future president will not abuse the ability to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" and detain them without habeus corpus or trial or any of those silly rights that prisoners are supposed to have. And if that happens, what exactly would be the difference between the President and a dictator?