Did our Founding Fathers mess up when they drafted a vaguely-worded Article II? Is it time to fix some of the Constitution's flaws as it applies to the presidency? Read the following article and determine if you'd support any of the author's suggestions.
The Founders' Great Mistake
I agree that Article II is vague, but it is only because in 1787 complete faith was put into George Washington to lead the country so the convention didn't feel the need to put limits on his power. Today that vagueness has created loopholes that presidents can go through to get around congress, but is that such a bad thing? I disagree with the article because I don't think it is. When Washington changed the terms of the treaty of alliance with France, he kept the US out of war. Congress would have sent the US to war, but, as Hamilton said,“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”, we avoided it.
ReplyDeleteThe president should not be elected by the people because often times they are not informed. The President's power should not be changed or limited. His commander in chief role should not be questioned because congress doesn't have the capacity to make those decisions.
On the other hand, I agree with the article when it says "An executive should have some independence, but a presidency that treats the people as irrelevant is not democratic. It is authoritarian". Even though the President has the power to override and avoid congress he should still do it for the good of the people.
Katelynn DeVille p.2
I would not say that the Framers "messed up" while drafting Article II of the Constitution because they did not know any better 200+ years ago. In 1787, the Framers did what was best for the country and could not have ever predicted how their Article II of Constitution could be taken advantaged of in the 2000's. In 1787, the country put their trust into Washington and did not really even think much of the presidential position.
ReplyDeleteWith time, everything changes. Today, Article II of the Constitution is very vague and allows the president to get around the Senate. This just means that it is time to set a foundation for our current government on what the Constitution means and what the President and the other branches are allowed to and supposed to do. Whether it is an amendment or just an implied list that is of general understanding of all members of the government and its constituents, something needs to be established to make the Constitution clear since it is supposed to be like a rule book for our government.
Peyton Geyser
Period 3
The founders cannot be entirely blamed for the loopholes found in the executive branch, considering they had created a unique form of government that strayed the farthest away from the typical form of government. However, the article does point out some valid criticisms on the loopholes found within presidential powers. I agree that the people should directly elect the president, given that the president represents the face of the nation as a whole. However, I do not agree with listing specific enumerated powers in Article II, because there are so many different powers the president has received over time. Although listing specific presidential powers will be helpful to provide explicit details of what the president can and cannot do, directly stating these will limit the president on their already lessened powers. The president does need limits on certain powers, but also leeway on expanding their powers when it is necessary. The author also argues that the president should split their powers with an attorney general, who would be voted in the midterm elections. But now the question is, who would hold greater importance and power, the president or the attorney general? And how would they split the executive branch? Turnout is greater in presidential elections, which means we cannot expect the people to pay much attention to the attorney general's election. This doesn't make any sense, considering they will receive as much power as the president.
ReplyDeleteAnnelise Lee
Period 2
I don't think the Constitution needs to be amended to limit the powers of the president. Limiting the president will weaken our government's decision making. We live in a world where things occur rapidly and handicapping the President will have more negative outcomes than positive ones. It is true that President's have done unconstitutional things but these violations can be attributed to partisan politics and a apathetic population. As long as the people remain apathetic, the president will continue to do as he or she pleases. As long as the people remain apathetic, members of Congress will support the president's unconstitutional actions because it might be in their party's agenda.
ReplyDeleteMostofa Ahmed
Period 2
I believe that the writer of this article puts too much blame onto the Framer’s. It is not entirely their fault for what they did and though our government is not perfect I think they did an amazing job for forming something so unique from everywhere else. In terms of the President I think they did not do a great job at explaining all of his duties and what is expected of him but I don’t see why this is such a problem now. In all honesty I think there are many bigger issues that should be addressed than the powers of the President. I believe that they should remain unchanged so I disagree with the author on this viewpoint as the public has in a way given a list of powers to the President and what he should be able and unable to do so it is not worth the time to create enumerated powers for him especially as of right now with how slow congress already is. I think that this would just lead to more arguments inside congress that will achieve nothing and when it is finally implemented we wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference.
ReplyDelete-Joey Verdugo P.3
The framers did not mess up with the article II of the Constitution. Framers wrote what was important and nesserary in 1787. That why the constitution is vague l. The president was really only supposed to have certain titles. Ithe is not their fault that 200 years later America has changed and now everyone expects the. President to be the problem solver. When in fact he can't hardly get anything done. That why in today's society the president has to find loop holes to get things done because the Senate will either deny or not even look at it because it is so frustrating that everyone is blaming the president when he can only do so much because article II in the Constitution. Which is why the article needs to be changed so things can get done within the government.
ReplyDeleteMaddison Cannon
Period 3
While most of us can agree that the powers given to the President in Article II seem vague, we cannot blame and fault the founders on their choices. Those powers were meant for a new role that the world had yet to see in 1787, and of course are hard to apply to and interpret in today’s government, and the author puts too much responsibility and blame on the Founders for something they couldn’t have possibly foreseen. I believe that the newly attained powers the Presidency has accumulated over the years are not unconstitutional. If the president was forced to follow Article II exactly, he would be nothing more than a figurehead, as many of the powers he has in Article II are already given to parts of Congress. Of course there are Presidents who have went too far and overboard with power, but we cannot expect or say that for all Presidents. Handicapping the POTUS will simply make our government weaker and place more power onto Congress. However I like the idea the author made of creating a unitary executive branch where members of both parties are in the President’s cabinet if their party does not have a majority in Congress.
ReplyDeleteJett Colot .P.3
I don't think that the Framers should be to blame for the problems that our country has faced. Yes, the powers outlined in Article II are vague and maybe it would seem like the wise thing to do, but that would essentially limit the powers of the President and not allow them to do what they need to do. Why should every president pay for what other presidents have done? Also, back to the Framers, they shouldn't be held accountable to something they did 200+ years ago when they had put so much trust into Washington, having faith that he would know what to do, leading to the vagueness of Article II. However, the author does prove valid arguments against the Framers and the loopholes caused by Presidents, but limiting them would not help. Yes, maybe directly elect the President but don't outline his powers. They are meant to be vague and to guide, not restrict. We should put in faith that our, hopefully directly-elected, President will know what to do and to not lead us astray.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Jimenez
period 3
The author is correct in saying that the powers that the president is given in Article II are vague, but the Framers do not deserve to have all of the blame put on them. They had no way of knowing what the office of president would become and how the changing times would cause it to become the way it is now. I also agree with the author's statement that Article II needs to be clarified in regards to what powers, both enumerated and implied, it is giving to the president: the same way the Constitution listed the powers it was giving to Congress. We have to keep in mind that no one had any experience with this new office, and that the Framers were mainly operating out of fear of the unknown. But at the same time, there are changes that could be made to help make the role and the rights of the president more clear to both candidates and normal citizens.
ReplyDelete-Sonya Sexton p.3
I agree with the author that the presidency has evolved into almost a dictatorship instead of a democracy. However, I do not agree that this is the fault of the framers. There was no way of knowing that this would happen when the COTUS was drafted. I agree that change must be made. One point I especially like is the idea of a compromise between the POTUS and the Congress led by the other party. Not only would this promote the passage of more bills, but it would also prevent the POTUS from exercising his "executive power" as frequently because the POTUS uses his executive power to get things done when Congress isn't cooperating.
ReplyDeleteThe article seems to only expose the negative aspects of Article II. However, many conflicts have been avoided because of the POTUS's quick judgments and calls without consulting Congress. These would no longer be possible if Article II was changed and may even cause more conflicts in the future. The POTUS' limited power along with a COTUS-POTUS deadlock could cause nothing to happen in times of crisis, in which case the reforms would backfire.
Finally, the article neglects the fact that Constitutional reform would be almost impossible especially on an issue that people are so against changing. Attempting to change the powers of the president would be futile because it would be vetoed if were to be passed as a bill and would not be ratified by 3/4 of the states if it were to be passed as an amendment. In conclusion, although presidential reforms may be desired, sadly they will almost never be passed, and even if they do, they may backfire.
-Daniel Salib
Period 2 :D
Modern interpretation, contemporary issues, and twenty-first century influence combined with vague language meant to establish a unitary executive office without resembling that of a (dare I say it) monarchy has ironically turned Article II into a game of Congress vs. the President. This article is absolutely correct in that reform must occur. On Friday, when we were taught that presidents issue “executive agreements” to make deals with other heads of states without the consent of Congress and “executive orders” to bypass the legislative process and make policy rather than enforce it, I was taken aback by how this seems like something that can only be done by a monarchy. One could argue that modern-day Presidents are only doing this because our Congress is stalled, but if so then where are the checks and balances? How the President is able to constitutionally stretch his powers as “Commander-in-Chief” is beyond me. As stated in the article, the Framers possibly constructed an unclear frame of the executive office because they were fearful of 1) a “runaway presidency” in which the President is too dependent on his Congress and 2) an executive who will leave the office “feet first”. (Also known as a KING) It is not at all surprising that Article II is the most amended article of the Constitution. I agree that action must be taken to define and enumerate executive powers and rights.
ReplyDeleteHowever, politically speaking, I realize that this is highly unlikely.
Jordana Cruz
Period 3
wow, after reading that long article, im enlightened. What particularly rang true to me is the authors proposal to an attorney general elected MID- term in between presidential elections. If congress is going to allow the executive branch to hold so many unenumerated, why keep one man in charge of it? Congress was made to be the head branch, playing the most important roles in America, but the presidents unenumerated powers are making him/her more powerful and influential than congress! The author uses history impeccably, and proves how his mid term attorney general proposal could have saved America a lot of regret. Also, he talks a lot about the interregnum that exists in between presidents and this shows an essential point too; it seems to me like this interregnum is the time for a walking out the door president to leave his last mark in America by doing whatever he/she pleases. In the case of daddy bush, why didnt he end troops to Somalia before his interregnum? The crisis in Somalia had already been ongoing, but him and his administration chose to write up a quick and sloppy plan to attack Islamic Somalians on behalf of the ethopians. Overall big picture is that 18 american soldiers died, and 73 were wounded in vain, as we retreated once Clinton came into power. If this interregnum was abolished, those lives could have been saved. i personally really enjoyed this article.
ReplyDeletejulian narvaez p3
It seems as though the author wants to switch the American Presidency over to a European Prime Ministry. For this new--if it can be called new--system to work, we would have to first consider the success rates of these new restrictions or powers. For issues like choosing a cabinet before being elected, the new powers would not have that much of an effect; candidates could decide their own cabinet members before being elected now. However, to limit reactive powers like Commander in Chief can have drastic effects on the United States' ability to respond to actions taken by other countries to threaten or impede US foreign affairs or the US itself. To put the president's face on the entire federal government system is a mistake and not true; the misunderstanding of the nation is contributing to the president's lack of action. What the nation doesn't understand is that the president has no authority to promise to change economic policy or limit carbon emissions without Congress' approval. Should the blame be put on Congress instead? Probably. The president's powers are not inherently strong by themselves and to say that there should be two elected officials in the executive branch is to contribute to the further lengthening law-making process. The author's points are valid and have potential to fix the system, but, macroscopically, changes will end up creating their own problems and to change one branch to the extent that the author speculates would mean changing how the other two branches interact with the newly reformed executive branch. We already know how long it will take for the changes to come. It could be decades before the system is even close to being right. The framers of the Constitution attempted to protect the nation from a tyrannizing figurehead--which they did--and the majority of the blame for an overly strong president falls on Congress' inability to restrict him or her.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Hamilton, Period 2
It seems that people think the worst of the Framers and what they had created is completely illogical. I think the president has appropriate powers given to him because they aren't too strict but also aren't too lenient as well. The president needs certain powers in order to get things done as we have learned, Congress takes a good amount of time to get things done. When the Framers made the powers of the president they were very much afraid of a tyrant but also had the example of George Washington with whom they had immense trust in. They had no example of this new and fresh position they were molding together, nor did they expect a future president to try and manipulate his powers given to him. Changing the POTUS’ powers doesn't need to happen in my opinion because even if the powers are limited even further, the public may begin questioning what the point is in electing a president if they have no executive powers and will just be a face to put in the position.
ReplyDeletePr.2
With what we have learned about the president using executive orders and executive agreements that bypass Congress, I agree with the author of this article that the presidency has turned into more of a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. If the president is allowed to circumvent Congress' approval, then what is the point of checks and balances? The author is correct when he states that there needs to be reform in order to ensure that the president will not abuse his or her power in the future. Voters electing the president directly is a form of true democracy instead of using a sieve on the people and only having some of the votes count. Also, there should be "a specific and limited set of presidential powers," because Article II was created to say what the president can do, but not what he or she cannot. However, I do not agree with the author that the Framers of the Constitution are to blame for effects and modern translations of Article II. They were creating a foundation for a new nation that was vulnerable and in need of stability.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Marella
Period 2
I find it refreshing to see such drastic proposals brought being brought up by a professor of Constitutional law himself. A line I like in particular is when Epps says that "while George W. Bush may have been a particularly bad driver, the presidency itself is, and always has been, an unreliable vehicle—with a cranky starter, an engine too big for the chassis, erratic steering, and virtually no brakes. It needs an overhaul, a comprehensive redo of Article II." I too think that we should start calling the Presidency for what it is. Different duties are expected of the Presidents of today than they were in the days of the last Constitutional Convention. We know now that even though we got President Obama, even he has his struggles dealing with this clunky car and as a result most of his expectations fell short. The entire car should itself be overhauled to meet what works best for Modern day Americans or whatever bourgeois manage to lobby for the next Constitutional Convention. I also like the proposal to divide the executive branch into two elected officials as a means of having them check each other. However, none of this will ever happen because nobody cares enough for any meaningful reform to happen. Unless state legislatures manage to get riled up enough to call for a Constitutional Convention, there is no way there will ever be any substantive reform and we'll be stuck with piecemeal reform such as new brakes or a make america great again bumper sticker.
ReplyDeleteJason G
Period 2
I don't think we need to amend the constitution in order to reduce the president's powers. Really, the power the president has is necessary in order to keep the country safe. If a country decides to strike us, then the president can act fast on the matter without having to discuss the matter with congress or even an attorney general, which the article suggests we should include. If the president can't make a decision quickly in times of need, then the country won't be secured. There needs to be some leverage for the president in the constitution in order for the country to succeed.
ReplyDeleteAnnette Campos period 2
I want to say that I disagree with the idea of constitution being amended. The presidents position doesn't need any more restrictions on it. If the executive branch would happen to get the power of making treaties with the legislative taken away then it would weaken the executive branch and make it harder for them to carry out foreign policy. Article 2 in the constitution is a very broad passage on what the president can do but author of the article is sending us the message that the presidents powers are too broad and unnecessary. What if we were to add more restrictions and limits on the presidents powers threw out the constitution if we did amend it? Would it weaken Obama's ability to clean up the mess former president bush had left behind or make it almost difficult if not impossible to veto unlawful acts from congress? Overall I think the President of the United States has the necessary and proper proportion of power in order to do his job and to amend the constitution would to add limits to article two's broadness is unnecessary.
ReplyDelete-Christian Gonzales p.2
I agree with the author that Article II is ambiguous, but if we think about it from the founder’s perspective, when they thought of the presidency their mind set was that Washington would best fit this position, and so his powers were neither specific nor limited. But they could not anticipate what the meaning of the presidency would lead to in the future. Now, more so then ever, presidents are becoming more creative in how they stretch their powers or get around them so that they can bypass congress. This practice can be good or bad. For one thing the president should have some independence from the other branches, yet should not always be able to ignore the people’s branch. However, if reform was ever possible to the presidential powers, I honestly think it would not happen because it would be too difficult to decide what exactly the president can and cannot do, and frankly I don’t feel that the government and the people are very concerned with this issue.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra c. p.2
The author of this article is very convincing in saying that Article II should be amended to control the power of the executive branch. However, if we decide to limit the power of the President that would only handicap the President when it comes to new events that do not give enough time to go through all the reforms that the author suggests. I want a President that can act quickly for the benefit of this country instead of being held back by rules. G. W. Bush had to stretch the meaning of the words of Article II because he needed to protect the nation from new dangers that were not present during the time the Framers were writing the Constitution. The Framers can not be given all the blame because they would have never been able to perceive how the world would change in 200 years. The Framers actually did at least one good thing and that is to create a Constitution that has stood in place since 1787 when it was signed. I say stop blaming the Framers for all the problems of today and instead focus on how to change those problems.
ReplyDelete-Alejandro Martinez Per. 2
The only thing I can agree with the author on is the fact that the presidency has evolved into an entity that has grown around its checks and balances. However, the way the author proposes we go about making amendments to Article II didn't exactly appeal to me. I strongly believe that the Executive branch should still be headed by 1 main individual and not have as many limitations as this article suggested. I think that most issues concerning Presidential "abuse" of power stem from foreign affairs, so I think that is where the reform should be taking place. I think there needs to be a legal definition of an informal war, to help limit the President from getting involved in countries where we really shouldn't. Once the President crosses the threshold of troops, he must receive Congressional approval to go through with his plans. That suggestion aside, I still want the President to maintain his/her right to exercise discretion and respond to pressing issues at hand
ReplyDelete-Nick Knowles P.2
I think we can all agree that Article II is pretty vague but the Framers just can't be blamed for it being written that way. They were only doing what they thought was best for the country and little did they know that 200+ years later the world would be almost entirely changed. Obviously, they knew mostly of what they were doing because they were trying to create something different and were afraid to make a mistake and not create anything different at all. The author argues fairly in sayin that Article II needs to be amended as a whole but I don't agree with him because I believe the President should have the power to act on issues that are relevant in today's world. I think people should stop focusing on what the President can or can't do and focus on what the President should or shouldn't do. The world keeps changing which is why it is beneficial in a way for Article II to be so vague so that the President can make decisions based on what is RIGHT to do NOW. I wouldn't want a President with limited powers because then what is the point of having a leader after all? I do agree that the POTUS' powers should be more defined but yet how can something be defined so clear if times are always changing. I think the POTUS is already limited as much as it is and reforming the executive powers would only lower his/her position.
ReplyDeleteCynthia Mora
per. 3
After familiarizing myself with the Constitution, I can agree with the author that Article II is too vague. However, how could the framers have predicted how things would be like 200+ years later? It wouldn’t be fair to say it’s the framers’ fault for Bush’s catastrophe. With that being said, yes, the formal powers of the president should be regulated as the decades pass. The system may be flawed, but I don’t think that the people’s power to choose the President should be revoked. The ignorance of others doesn’t matter as much because the candidate for the presidency must win both popular/electoral college votes. Overall, the author has valid points but I think it’s silly to put all of the blame on the people that built our current system from nothing.
ReplyDeleteKayleigh McWilliams P.2
The only point i agree with that the author makes is that the position of POTUS has grown to something never expected. However, i do not think it is right to put blame on the framers because they wrote Article II to fit the circumstances that they were in. If so many limitations were put on the president then nothing would get done. This is because checks and balances and bipartisanship slows things down and prevents things from getting done and passed. The only limits should be regulation of foreign affairs, specifically an identification of what qualifies as informal war--which is where most questionable presidential decisions occur.
ReplyDeleteAriana Martinez
Period 2
The author makes some good points on the vagueness of the powers appointed to the President in the Constitution but I don't completely agree with trying to amend it. Although there may be loopholes, I feel as if trying to make the powers of the President more specific and limited can actually hurt us in the future because giving the President the freedom and room to work within the broad boundaries set can be beneficial in situations that call for rapid and important decisions. Besides, the President doesn't have many powers designated to them anyways so trying to limit them can just weaken the executive branch. Giving the Framers all the hate is not necessary because their ability to foresee the future and how humans would be like 200 years later is a far stretch and is expecting too much from a group of people. I think it is actually amazing that something they created still stands today and if they left us with a blueprint on how to run this country, then it should be up to us to build on that.
ReplyDeleteJoanne Park
Period 2
The author of this article makes many claims to support his main idea. The author's main argument of changing article II in the constitution seems a little far fetched and flawed even though it is LOGICAL. As a previous article we read argued... Things take time, and as a nation we are VERY impatient. If bush wasn't such a bad driver this three car pile-up of a situation could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteJustin Acuna P.2
I agree that Article II is fairly vague, but should not be blamed on our Founding Fathers because they did what was best for our country back then. They had no idea that our future presidents would abuse their power for their own benefit without talking with Congress first. In addition, limiting the president’s power would not help either because everything happens quickly so he wouldn’t have time to act if everything had to be checked by Congress. Especially since the people blame EVERYTHING on the president, I don’t blame him for finding loop holes to help the people and get the job done.
ReplyDelete-Anani Sandoval Per. 2
I honestly don’t think our Founding Fathers messed up when they drafted a vaguely worded Article II. If anything it was a smart move because it allowed room for change as time went on. For example, now that it is the 21st century the president has the opportunity to act accordingly instead of being forced to follow some strictly enforced rules that was meant for a country who was terrified of being overthrown. In today’s time, we are not consciously worried about anyone coming over to invade, so therefore by having space to act appropriately, we don’t have to waste time later on amending the Constitution to benefit our needs. Although with this freedom, they had no idea that future presidents would abuse their power and allow destructive loop holes to be beneficial for them legally. I don’t think it’s time to change the flaws of the Constitution regarding presidency because I believe it wouldn’t be beneficial to both the president and the people, especially since both Congress and the president would be on lock down. It would have to be either the president or Congress with vagueness regarding their powers and because it’s always been the president with leniency, there’s no reason why it should change since it’s been working for this long. It’s more balance if one branch of government is, in a way, more restricted than the other because they would then be complimenting each other. In my opinion, our Founding Fathers had a strategy and should not be criticized for being smart with that strategy.
ReplyDeleteKourtney
Period 3
Does it seem as thought the POTUS can get around checks and balances? Yes. Should Article II be amended because of it? Not necessarily. The Constitution was made in a time where the POTUS had time to ask Congress to declare war because the enemy had to sail across an ocean and was fought face-to-face. The Framers would have never imagined the wars of today with missiles, drones, and the ability to kill without ever looking at your enemy. If Article II were to be amended to make it more specific, it could hinder the POTUS by making it harder to react in situations that require quick action. People suggest wording it so that it allows the POTUS to react to a dire situtaion concerning the safety of the US, but it would be hard to cover all the if possibilities. As is, the POTUS can make decisions that he believes is best for the country with his executive powers. If worst comes to worst, Congress can impeach him and the next President can choose to ignore all the unwanted executive decisions.
ReplyDeleteSophia Landaverde
Period 3
The article makes some good point of the president because our problems that we have today with the president whether the separation of power is totally different from what the framers created. Even though it does bug me, personally how the president uses his power and take bits of pieces o f Article 2 and make his on definition. But for amending the constitution I'm on both sides. Yes because since the constitution doesn't up to date since it's pretty old. But amending it won't be easy because not every American is well known to this situation , not to be rude. Also again seems that the president is getting out of hand making now the congress seemingly weak and not doing their job. Which is another counter argument that its on the congress for not being as strong as it once before, they not really as passionate to peoples opinion. The president seems now as if its his right to do what people want since we put him in the office. Now with all this confusion, I believe that we should at least of some restriction to the president but not up to where he looks like he is a weak leader. He should have rights to do some situation under his control because the congress seem to do nothing. Lastly I believe situations like this happen the most especially with different ideology branches in the nat'l government.
ReplyDeleteHilary Velasquez p.2
I think the Framers made some mistakes with Article II but to be completely fair, they were pretty much making it for George Washington and I don't think any one of them would have wanted to put forth a motion like "Alright so we need to make sure the president can't do [blank] because we don't trust him" because that's like if all the students gathered in a big meeting room on the first day of school and said "Alright we have this new teacher coming in called Mr. Cavanaugh and he has experience and comes with good recommendation but lets make sure he adheres to our guidelines and he follows our rules because we don't trust him to teach us well" while he was in the room; You simply wouldn't put forth motions like that, especially when they trusted him to do his job exceedingly well in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThey made the (what I believe to be) intentional "mistake" of leaving it ambiguous because if the president was to lead then he would need some sort of power; nobody here is going to say "Well wait Mr. Cav you can't push the test back that's not optimal and you don't get to change that" because no, the leader is meant to lead and they'll lead based on their expertise.
All things considered, in the modern era of being the shiny new POTUS we've created, the President does have some large leeway with the reigns, and as with any position of power there will be those who call for more restraints, and there will undoubtedly be presidents who are simply Food-Fallen-On-The-Ground yeuck and abuse their power.
Let's not forget that the other branches try to nab power where they can too, and as any kid on Halloween would they'd want to take as much candy they can;
Let Article II stay as is, it leaves it open for future presidents to grow and evolve with the times; and lets face it if a president really screws up- like *big time* screws up (Like invade Russia during the winter with summer clothes level screw up) then the people will be in such a rage and fury that reform will be unavoidable. I suppose the counter would be "lets not wait for the POTUS to do this and lets restrain him now" but why restrain the possibility of great administrations because you're afraid of a bad one.
Gavin Deguzman
Period 2
Although I agree with the author on certain points, there are both negatives and positives to both sides of this argument. The presidency has turned into somewhat of a dictatorship as the president is allowed to interpret article II and manipulate it for his own means. To put this blame on the framers is plainly unfair. At the time that they were developing this position they did not realize how much it would change over the years, as this new government was a new experiment in itself. They were also forced to not pay much regard to this decision as it would’ve seen as disrespectful to Washington. The author does present a few points that would effectively overhaul article II, which would then in turn provide a “better” president. I do agree that some actions of the president can be changed for the better, such as the president’s executive power by which he is able to sidestep congress. The author’s point of another implementation of the attorney general is the strongest point he presents as I believe this would be the option to reach the results required. These reforms would be difficult to implement, as they would have to go through the president although that could be bypassed. Overall I believe that the author presents a strong argument.
ReplyDelete-Peter Sandhu
P.2
Overall, I loosely agree with the author's reforms to article two referring to the executive powers. I believe that voters should elect presidents directly to avoid presidential interregnum. By avoiding this 11 week period of danger, the nation is more secure and less likely to be struck with sudden international dangers. Next, I loosely agree with the reform that the president should obtain a specific and limited set of presidential powers. The executive branch should hold a specific set of powers to eliminate debate on which branch deals with what issues. By being responsible for a specific set of powers, each branch can handle their own business, handily. I disagree with the part of the reform that dictates a "limited" set of powers because immediate situates call for quick response. If the executive branch is limited to certain powers, then the nation will be in danger to surprise attacks due to the sluggish response. Lastly, I strongly disagree with the reform implying the importance of more than one individual in the executive branch. If more than one individual is in charge of so much power, the executive branch may begin to mirror the judicial branch, given the circumstances. The executive branch may also be full of disputes due to controversial issues, which can harm our country in the end. The president may be a behemoth, but it is apart of the job.
ReplyDeleteNone of the holes in article two may be blamed on the framers of the constitution. As time has progressed, new issues have arisen calling for new powers. They made an excellent call when demanding a checks and balances system.
In conclusion, our government really is out of balance. The main problem is that the president is simply trying to be a leader, but congress is perceiving leadership as authoritarianism and demanding reform.
I do agree with the author that the executive branch does hold too much power, but I do not agree that the framers are to blame for this. The constitution is very old and it would be very hard for them to predict that the changes to come in the future. America has become a super power with a divided government. It is extremely hard for anything to pass with a divided government, so the POTUS is going to try to bypass congress anyway possible. This has caused the POTUS to use executive orders to further his agenda. However it seems that executive orders give the President a little to0 much power because congress cannot overturn it; the best they can do is to pass a law that cuts it funding for implementation. Executive orders cause there to be an imbalance in the checks and balances of each branch. I do like some of the author's ideas to limit the President's power, such as dividing the executive branch. I do not agree with the idea of enumerating the President's powers because it would be very hard to list what the President can do to make sure the law of the land is faithfully executed. It would be extremely difficult for congress to come up with a definition to clarify what the constitution means when it says to make sure laws are faithfully executed, only the framers would know. The sad things is that these ideas are not going to see the light of day because amending the constitution is very difficult and the party that has the President in the White House is surely going to vote against it. The citizens of the United States are not going to press congress for an amendment to limit the executive branch unless this becomes a huge ordeal. The Framers created a unique government with the ideals in that era. There is no way that they could have had the foresight to see any possible problems in the modern era.
ReplyDeleteEthan Groenow
Period 3
ReplyDeleteI think that that the Founding Fathers made the right decision because it was the best that they could do at the time. The way our society and government evolved is something that they could have never predicted, and I think it is because of the vagueness of the Article II that we were able to have multiple conflicts of interpretations to get to where we are now. However, if it needs to be amended for adjustment to our processes, then I agree that it should be changed. But the Founding Fathers are precisely called that way because they set up our government, not because they found the key to the perfect government and perfect society.
Chenney Kang
P. 3
The author was very persuasive, but after a little thought I realized that our Framers used the vagueness in Article II as somewhat of a safety net because they knew times would change and they hoped that their Article would last. I love the vagueness of Article II because we elect the President for a reason and if we were to amend the Constitution to add restrictions the Executive branch I feel almost as if we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. If we were to add restrictions it could become harder for the President to make rapid decisions that might in fact be better for the country than taking these decisions to Congress. The Framers did a hell of a job in writing Article II and although there might be some flaws I believe that the pros of Article II far outweigh the cons. Cristian Zuniga Period Dos
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of the article that Article II is very vague, but I don't think the Framers should be blamed for the vagueness. Since it was written 200+ years ago, I don't think the Framers could have ever predicted the condition of the country in right now. As time has gone by, we have faced many different issues which were probably unpredictable at the time the Constitution was written, which is why many new powers are necessary(checks and balances). With that being said, I believe that although past presidents have taken unconstitutional actions, his or her powers shouldn't be limited because it might lead to a weaker government and might have more cons than pros when it comes to foreign affairs.If the executive branch were to be limited and another country decided to attack us, we might be in extreme danger due to the speed of response.
ReplyDeleteMadhumitha P.
Period 2
I do agree that Article II is vague, but i do not agree it is the Founding Fathers fault. They made the Article to help them during that time, they cannot tell the future that it willl not work in the modern day and that they will be many interpretations of it. It is very different in the back of the old days as it was really long to go to war and the pres. can talk to the congress, while now they are missiles and nuclear weapons that there is no time for talking. In other words, the president does have a lot of power due to this and their should be a amendment or restriction, but the pres. can interpret many things in the constitution since it is old.The founding fathers made the government for their time, not for ours., so should we change it or keep it?
ReplyDeleteAdriana Napitupulu
per. 3
I can say I agree and disagree with Brodners opinion, I agree witht he fact that the Framers werent aware of how many implied powers or non emumerated powers the exectuative branch has. But i disagree with the framers making a "mistake". I can say that they werent aware. Bodner stated, "...the executive could do literally anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid." Its true. It was seen during Bushes presidency and the traditions have carried on or have been to fix Bush's mess. Personally I think the framers were simply not aware that the less enumerated powers they put for the President of this entire country, the more ways the president can find their way into getting what they want. The vagueness of the constitution explains how the president is uniquely powerful and to prevent another Geoge bush presidency the first steps are to reform the constitution excective branch.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Cabrera
P.3
I agree with the author that article II is vague and needs at least some sort of refining - but the author isn't clear on what the president's new and specific powers should be. And with amending the constitution, some serious precautions must be taken, and the author acts as though changing the 225 year old document will be a walk in the park.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a side note, the checks and balances system is an intelligent and well thought out process, so we must remember to give the Framers credit for that.
But aside from all of that, I do strongly support the author's argument in changing the amount of time it takes for the newly elected president to take office. 11 weeks is far too long and is just asking for something controversial to happen within that time period between the old and new presidents.
Mikayla Connell
period 2
we are all human. no one is perfect and no one can tell what the future will. bring the author blamed the framers a lot. but i believe he should cut them some slack. they were humans just like us they had no idea what the future would be like when writing our constitution. but i do agree that article 2 is very vauge and the it should be made more clear and elaborate on the operational definitions of some words so that people cant turn them into any means they want. i honestly dont believe that amending the constitution will be a good idea. many people dont know much about the government and once they see that people are trying to take power away from some one they will feel like it is being put somewhere else. maybe like i dont know, congress. i think doing that will raise hell and they will have am even bigger mess to clean up not that is mess is even large at all. even though the president goes under and around certain things checks and balances always have brought him back to where he should be in his little circle of power.
ReplyDeletetazari per. 3
I agree with the author that the executive branch holds too much power (because of the vague powers outlined in the Constitution), but all the blame shouldn't be put on the Framers. At the time, they didn't really know what our nation would become and just set aside broad outlines. It is pretty obvious that the our constitution is outdated and needs some heavy reforms. As time goes on, it seems as though if we don't make reforms the constitution will rot and so will our nation.
ReplyDeleteIt was mentioned in the article that the constitution grants the president “an unenumerated executive authority.” Presidency should be changed. The author first brings up the point about letting the people directly choose the president. I don't really agree with this proposal because it is already rare that the president wins without the popular vote. I feel like the focus should be with his other proposals that I do happen to agree with. These include Article II changed to include a specific and limited set of presidential powers, a required compromise between the rejected president and the new Congress where the president should be forced to form the equivalent of a national-unity government, and dividing the executive branch between two elected officials. A set list of orders and powers for the president would greatly solve the problem of abuse. He or she will be able to lead our nation, but with more of a "balance".
David Lee
Per. 3
The Framers of the Constitution are not to blame for the problems this country faces. In 1787, they were creating a foundation that was best for our nation at that time. The author argues that Article II needs to be amended to control the power of the executive branch. However, I believe the president needs to have powers to get things done, and needs the independence to make certain calls in certain situations. He should be able to make quick decisions that will keep our country safe. Amending the constitution and limiting the power of the president, would only cause more chaos in our government because the President would not be able to act quickly for the benefit of our country. Who wants a president who has no authority? More importantly, what is the point in having a president if they don’t have any power? I must agree that the President’s powers should be more clearly addressed, but, it is critical for people to understand that reform will only create a bigger problem because the world is always changing; and different problems will always occur.
ReplyDeleteRhiannon Mergaert
Period 2
i dont believe the constitution needs to be ammended in such a way that further limits the powers of the president. The president has enough leniency to be able to attend to immediate situations involving foreign affairs and i think if we extract the vagueness of the constitution that allows them to do so, we will be limiting ourselves of efficient protection. If per say, the president had to make decisions regarding his commander in chief role, by first allowing congress to provide approval, the process of protection would take far too long in emergency situations. I think the president has the best intentions with this leeway and the Framers certainly did not make a mistake.
ReplyDeletePer. 2
I think that we can all agree that Article II is very ambiguous, but when it was drafted vagueness was necessary for our country. Our Founding Fathers had created a new position that they were wary of due to their previous experiences with a monarch, so they gave the president vague titles that could be interpreted and could allow for growth. I do believe that the author brought up some interesting points for debate, but I do not believe that Article II needs to be completely redone. That is far too drastic and realistically would never happen. That only reform he suggested that I believe would be beneficial is to allow the people to directly elect the president, rather than having the electoral college as a middle man that will sometimes select a president that the majority of America doesn't't want. Our president needs to have room to be flexible with power, due to how long it takes to accomplish things in Congress, the unpredictability in how the nation may change over time, and to react quickly in emergency situations. We do not need to change the article completely, perhaps we just need better presidents in office. It felt like the author was just frustrated with Bush's presidency and decided to shove the blame onto how our Founding Fathers wrote Article II, rather than stepping back and looking at the big picture.
ReplyDeleteDarian Kuhn
period 3
I wholeheartedly agree with the author that the executive needs reform in the Constitution. It's clear that the vagueness of the Constitution has allowed presidents to abuse and expand their power, and that change must be put in place to fix this. However, I feel that some of the proposals made by the author went too far in limiting the power of the Executive.
ReplyDeleteHeath Isley
DeletePer 2
Most people at the time, including the framers, thought Washington a good man and thought very highly of him. The authors of article two may have thought that the presidents would be highly commendable, experienced and trustworthy men such as Washington, so they gave the president a vague set of powers. If your president is a mostly universally respected and liked man why would you feel the need to tie him down with specifics and rules? However if the framers thought this, they were incredibly wrong. Politicians are as much actors now as they are politicians and they will do anything to get the vote (Like change their views every 10 minutes *cough Hilary cough*). So we don't always end up with trustworthy and respectable Presidents (Cough Nixon cough) and i feel that the vagueness of this article could end up screwing us over when we get someone in office who uses its vagueness to do something drastic. God forbid a president decide to fight an "undeclared war" and end up starting a third world war because he sent troops into the wrong places at the wrong times. Checks and Balances is greatly lagging when it comes to presidential power and i feel congress needs to crack down on this. Limit the Presidents power before one comes and makes an incredibly stupid decision, stop the bad from happening before it happens; congress needs to step up and act, not react.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who believes the Executive Branch's powers are both beneficial and understandably warranted, I have a few problems with the article's argument. The first with the author's several suggestions to adopt English and French policies. While borrowing from other political systems to improve our own seems like a good idea, a valid comparison would require that England or France"s political system resemble ours. In a government where the constitution was written with an intention to deviate far from European governments, it is naive to think any of their European ideals could be or should be applied to America.
ReplyDeleteSecondly. the author suggests limiting the executive branch's power under the heavy assumption that these reforms are possible because Congress is capable of picking up the president's "abused" responsibilities. Unfortunately, this is just not the case. Today's congress is weighed down by far too many inner agendas within its rankings, causing such a constant atmosphere of halted progress that to suggest it is capable of taking on even more responsibility is counter-intuitive. A seen in both the Obama and Bush Administration, a vast majority of executive decision result out of response from congressional inaction. Government shut downs and weak legislature are prime examples of how constant bickering in the two houses of Congress lead to incapable management of their own responsibilities. How can one suggest Congress take partial executive action from the President when it is incapable of properly executing its own function and role?
Jason Plascencia
P2
The author jumps into the topic at hand, with what I believe to be a fairly pessimistic view of the executive branch. Although I do agree that through executive orders, the president sometimes over extends his legal reach, I do not think it fair to blame the founding fathers for this interpretation of the constitution for it is this same piece of legislation that has led the US to become a superpower of the world. The founding fathers, present over 200 years ago, can hardly be put to blame for predicting this rapid succession of power, much less predict that a man with less caliber of Washington would ever be allowed to control such a nation. Furthermore I believe it very dangerous to enumerate the allowed powers of a president. Such restrictions act symbolically as handcuffs on an individual that in the simplest of words cannot afford to be handcuffed. However, I do believe that further checks should be applied to the executive branch in the form of judicial branch review. Because congress and the president carry heavy biases to control govt power, I believe the solution lies in the Judicial branch. It is in this branch that perhaps the SCOTUS may hold quarterly conferences to ensure that both POTUS and congress are acting accordingly to the constitution. As compared to waiting until it is too late in a court action lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteChris Plascencia
P2
I do not believe it is necessary to alter the 2nd article of the Constitution. Of course, while the author's suggestion of electing the president directly from the people is an appealing one, we have learned that the people cannot be held accountable to better the nation when far too often personal agendas and beliefs can cloud the greater good. It is no coincidence that the Framers predicted this, and for that reason the people unfortunately simply are not fit to play such a direct role in government. While it is true that the American government is a different one from the one our Founding Fathers predicted, the author's suggestion are far too bold to be successful. With a constant bickering between all corners of the American political world, attempting to amend the second article would be impossible to do in today's day and age.
ReplyDeleteJulian Dela Cruz
P3
I agree with the first point of the author about getting the new president into office asap because waiting weeks is pointless and doesn't seem to have any real reason beyond it. Plus I like the idea of actually knowing who the president is working with behind the scenes even if we don't know what they're working on exactly.
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't agree on all the limiting of the other powers of the president. Vague isn't always a bad thing and there's a broad range of possible events the president must take action on. We elect our presidents into office on the basis that they'll change America for the better yet people want their power to be so limited. The executive branch doesn't need to be rendered powerless in order to the country to make progress. Article II is vague but I don't think the Founders did anything wrong since they were literally writing up the blueprint for a country they didn't know would end up being so huge. Maybe there needs to be changes to the president's powers such as limiting the allowed amount of executive agreements, but I don't think constricting the president's power too much is a good idea. They are the president after all. I don't want tyranny but i also don't want the president's position to be merely a title in the future.
Dylan Riggio
Period 2
I see the author's point but I would not completely put all the blame onto the Founding Father's they were doing the their best they could considering the time period. Their current situation was one desperately in need of a properly working government so what they did was quite an accomplishment. All that mattered was that it successfully functioned back then, they never could've imagined that it would still be used today or in this case abused. Therefore it is not entirely the Framer's fault for making Article II so vague, in my opinion it has to be that way. With too specific directions and rules the president may not be able to commit an action that would overall improve and benefit the country. For example you could compare this to a student doing a project; If you put too many rules and restrictions onto the project with specific guidelines on how it's supposed to be done, there will be no room for creativity or diversions form the guidelines. Sometimes a little creativity can be better than a bunch of the same exact copies of each other. However, how the president chooses to yield this power is up to them. Therefore I think the president would be at fault as well because the article stated how if it is not listed in the Constitution that the president can't do that then technically he can do that. But just like a lot of other things just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should. The president should take responsibility for their actions and only do things that would benefit our country not just whatever they feel like doing. Overall I think all three factors of the Founding Fathers, the vagueness of Article II, and the president's choices all come together to contribute to the dismal American governance. I felt that the blog was a little biased because it opened by slamming George Bush and then praising George Washington demonstrating how the system only worked successfully back then.
ReplyDeleteChristina Dang p.3
REPOST:
ReplyDeleteWhile I do feel like the author is very biased against the executive branch, the author does make good points. When the Framers were deciding the fate of the executive branch, many of them would have been focused on the anticipated future President (GW). With such a great leader being a shoe in for the presidency, it is very possible that the Framers would be vague in order to not offend GW. But in this modern age, I believe that there should be reform, especially in the Constitution. Many of the issues that the Framers feared do not exist anymore, while new issues crop up. I feel that this in itself is a reason for Constitutional reform, especially since the supreme law of the land is over 239 years old ( yes I did google this) and the Framers were never planning for the Constitution to last that long.
Eric Yang
Per 3
America was founded on the headbutting of different ideas. It will take some more effort on our part and more time, but America’s potential to accept change and embrace the America we have today. Though difficult enough already, maintaining this unity even with the obvious additions of culture, can be achieved. It's expected that there will be backlash against major changes in America. Therefore, it would be easier to ease this change on people rather than a sporadic instant. The article speaks of the approval of gay marriage, disrupting the normal routine of American society. Despite the disapproval, an accepting American society and its ability to adapt. Our similarities as a society are greater than our differences and we should learn to accept change rather than dismiss it.
ReplyDeleteAngie Perez Per 3
I agree with the statement that "if states are to disregard federal laws they don't like, then our entire governmental structure is at risk" because in this case there is a conflict that deals with a substance that has been ordained illegal due to its abuse and ambiguity in the United states. I also sympathize for the neighboring states that are suffering the effects of Colorado's actions to create a law that does not coincide with that of the national government. while I do agree with the case against the law on pot i also do believe that it is important to realize that the issue is an issue at all due to the federal government's attempt to ban the substance under the basis that it had no significant medicinal use which has been combated and contested until recently in many other states as well. The states do hold a right to create laws that do not violate any constitutional rights and no where in the constitution are drugs mentioned; i believe the case should come to some type of resolution out of respect for the other states but completely preempting Colorado's pot law does not appear to be the best resolution.
ReplyDeleteIsaac Addai P.3