Richard Milhous Nixon, who is the 36th Vice President of the United States under the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, once stated: “Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which the president personally exercises his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by another branch of government.” Nixon expressed his strong views on the absolute power of the president, who represents for American, the head of a country and not a puppet being controlled from many different forces within the government and no voice of their own. President of the winner after election to get the confidence of the American, who have the responsibility and duty to bring a better life to the people, promoting economic development of the
…show more content…
After that the bill that returned is become a law of the nation. Second, he is a commander in chief of the military, including Army, Navy, and National Guard of the United States, and also command the militia of some States (Hamilton 309). Furthermore, President held the key to control nuclear energy resources of America, to ensure the interests and position of the country to another countries because the great power can control and support of other nations. Thirdly, President have a totally power to appoint ambassadors, justices, public ministers, councils, and executive officers (Hamilton 311). These people will be powerful supporters of the state apparatus to support the management of the country 's president. Moreover he also can convene or dismiss the congress at the President’s leisure. Fourthly, President have power to grant clemency, pardons, and other reprieve for any criminals or offenses against the United States; but this benefit can bring many disadvantages even undermine the prestige of the President. The case of Michael Dukakis is an obvious example for this statement. To be more specific, in election running between Michael Dukakis and George Bush, Dukakis, the Massachusetts Governor was attacked by Bush because Dukakis allowed a black convicted …show more content…
He argue that "the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied." In his perspective, a president 's "jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional" (Taft 317) 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. There is no doubt that president 's powers must be limited to avoid treason, bribery or other high crimes; but limiting executive power would be an unwise decision. Because of some emergency cases, times is a key to survive, like war or natural disaster, a call for hasty actions from President that may not be constitutional provisions is indispensable. In that case, if the president continues to wait for approval from the Constitution and no action, it can lead to unimaginable proportion of casualties and lead to danger for the national economy because of all the activities of the national will be delayed shortly thereafter. By this reason, the strengthening of presidential power for the benefit and development of the country is the top priority which should be done as soon as possible.
In conclusion, through many conflicting opinions between the strengthening
After that the bill that returned is become a law of the nation. Second, he is a commander in chief of the military, including Army, Navy, and National Guard of the United States, and also command the militia of some States (Hamilton 309). Furthermore, President held the key to control nuclear energy resources of America, to ensure the interests and position of the country to another countries because the great power can control and support of other nations. Thirdly, President have a totally power to appoint ambassadors, justices, public ministers, councils, and executive officers (Hamilton 311). These people will be powerful supporters of the state apparatus to support the management of the country 's president. Moreover he also can convene or dismiss the congress at the President’s leisure. Fourthly, President have power to grant clemency, pardons, and other reprieve for any criminals or offenses against the United States; but this benefit can bring many disadvantages even undermine the prestige of the President. The case of Michael Dukakis is an obvious example for this statement. To be more specific, in election running between Michael Dukakis and George Bush, Dukakis, the Massachusetts Governor was attacked by Bush because Dukakis allowed a black convicted …show more content…
He argue that "the president can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied." In his perspective, a president 's "jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional" (Taft 317) 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. There is no doubt that president 's powers must be limited to avoid treason, bribery or other high crimes; but limiting executive power would be an unwise decision. Because of some emergency cases, times is a key to survive, like war or natural disaster, a call for hasty actions from President that may not be constitutional provisions is indispensable. In that case, if the president continues to wait for approval from the Constitution and no action, it can lead to unimaginable proportion of casualties and lead to danger for the national economy because of all the activities of the national will be delayed shortly thereafter. By this reason, the strengthening of presidential power for the benefit and development of the country is the top priority which should be done as soon as possible.
In conclusion, through many conflicting opinions between the strengthening