Rudalevige examines the ways in which the executive branch of government has evolved since it was first constructed under the founding fathers. He has found that the executive branch has become much larger and dramatically evolved since it was first created in the eighteenth century (Rudalevige, X, 2). Undoubtedly some changes were believed to be for the good of the country. At times these changes and expansions have proved to be fatal for the American citizens who were promised to be represented in the Legislative branch of government through the constitution. The creation of president’s dealing in “secrecy”, “deceit”, and “careless exercise of power” certainly developed through time (Rudalevige, 5). The legislative branch would hope to take
…show more content…
The executive branch however, did not gain power over night (Rudalevige, 35). When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, the tragic turn of events began to occur in the way in which the executive branch would gain power. Rudalevige points out however that not all presidents were as prominent in the role of taking more power away from the legislative branch (Rudalevige, 40). While this is true, some presidents promoted a larger executive branch, the Nixon presidency proved that the executive branch had overstepped the bounds that had been set in place by the founding fathers in the constitution. With soldiers overseas in Vietnam and the United States in the chaos of the anti-war movement, Nixon had to be careful of what was to be said about the war. In the same time period the Cold War was also being fought, and leaks from the white house were becoming public news, Nixon knew for the public safety something had to be done (Rudalevige, 73). The small executive branch had now become an authoritative branch dictating to congress what would and would not be done; it had become “repressive” (Rudalevige, …show more content…
The Congress is seen as lazy, slow, and tends to deal with issues that are not important. According to Rudalevige this also occurred prior in history, they seemed uninterested in the War efforts during World War II, and the reorganization period there after the war, many of these duties fell to the executive branch to accomplish (Rudalevige, 55). After Watergate congress realized they had given up much of the rights they were given, and strived to take back what they had once had control of (Rudalevige, 100). While wars were being fought, and the President had taken over they had the power and opportunity to exemplify their rights, but chose not to (Rudalevige, 141, 206). In modern history the legislative branch has not been involved in intelligence spending, which is arguably one of the most vital rights the legislative branch has above the executive branch (Rudalevige, 205). Many have taken notice of Congress’ failure to appeal to their rights over and with the executive branch, Cheney addressed them and stated that the country should not have to “be paralyzed by Congress’ indecision” (Rudalevige, 267). Consequently, because of Congress’ hesitancy the checks and balance system can not work either, in the way in which it was designed to be used by James Madison (Rudalevige, 284). If the checks and balance system can not function the way in which it was designed to then there is nothing
The executive branch however, did not gain power over night (Rudalevige, 35). When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, the tragic turn of events began to occur in the way in which the executive branch would gain power. Rudalevige points out however that not all presidents were as prominent in the role of taking more power away from the legislative branch (Rudalevige, 40). While this is true, some presidents promoted a larger executive branch, the Nixon presidency proved that the executive branch had overstepped the bounds that had been set in place by the founding fathers in the constitution. With soldiers overseas in Vietnam and the United States in the chaos of the anti-war movement, Nixon had to be careful of what was to be said about the war. In the same time period the Cold War was also being fought, and leaks from the white house were becoming public news, Nixon knew for the public safety something had to be done (Rudalevige, 73). The small executive branch had now become an authoritative branch dictating to congress what would and would not be done; it had become “repressive” (Rudalevige, …show more content…
The Congress is seen as lazy, slow, and tends to deal with issues that are not important. According to Rudalevige this also occurred prior in history, they seemed uninterested in the War efforts during World War II, and the reorganization period there after the war, many of these duties fell to the executive branch to accomplish (Rudalevige, 55). After Watergate congress realized they had given up much of the rights they were given, and strived to take back what they had once had control of (Rudalevige, 100). While wars were being fought, and the President had taken over they had the power and opportunity to exemplify their rights, but chose not to (Rudalevige, 141, 206). In modern history the legislative branch has not been involved in intelligence spending, which is arguably one of the most vital rights the legislative branch has above the executive branch (Rudalevige, 205). Many have taken notice of Congress’ failure to appeal to their rights over and with the executive branch, Cheney addressed them and stated that the country should not have to “be paralyzed by Congress’ indecision” (Rudalevige, 267). Consequently, because of Congress’ hesitancy the checks and balance system can not work either, in the way in which it was designed to be used by James Madison (Rudalevige, 284). If the checks and balance system can not function the way in which it was designed to then there is nothing