'The imperial presidency ' is a term first used in 1973 by Professor Arthur Schlesinger to describe a trend that had developed since the USA had entered the Second World War and subsequently entered the Cold War. Following the attack on Pearl Harbour, the constitutional restrictions specifying congressional checks on the President 's powers regarding foreign policy were seemingly relaxed in the following decades. For example, in 1950, President Truman sent troops to South Korea without congressional authorisation and this unconstitutional action was repeated by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Nixon for various conflicts around the world. President Johnson even gained permission from Congress to do this due to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution,
…show more content…
This included the Case – Zablocki Act of 1972, which forced the President to inform Congress of any executive agreements within 60 days of it happening and the War Powers Act of 1973 which reinforced Congress ' ability to be the one to authorise the use of troops. These actions arguably lead to another new era of the 'imperilled presidency ', in which the President was far more restricted in power to act without …show more content…
But, certainly in the sphere of foreign policy has since rescinded almost back to where they started with a President currently seeming to commit troops to another war in Iraq with no congressional authorisation. The events of September of 9/11 and the current war on terror seemingly allowed the imperial presidency to return to an imperial role because of public opinion – reversing the effects of Watergate to some degree. This, in theory, should have led to a return of the imperial presidency. But to apply that tag to Obama 's reign seems inappropriate, his constant struggles with Congress to apply any meaningful legislature at home during his two terms make it incredibly hard to apply that term to him. So perhaps the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky 's theory of a presidency that is strong abroad but weak at home is the most accurate in describing the modern
This included the Case – Zablocki Act of 1972, which forced the President to inform Congress of any executive agreements within 60 days of it happening and the War Powers Act of 1973 which reinforced Congress ' ability to be the one to authorise the use of troops. These actions arguably lead to another new era of the 'imperilled presidency ', in which the President was far more restricted in power to act without …show more content…
But, certainly in the sphere of foreign policy has since rescinded almost back to where they started with a President currently seeming to commit troops to another war in Iraq with no congressional authorisation. The events of September of 9/11 and the current war on terror seemingly allowed the imperial presidency to return to an imperial role because of public opinion – reversing the effects of Watergate to some degree. This, in theory, should have led to a return of the imperial presidency. But to apply that tag to Obama 's reign seems inappropriate, his constant struggles with Congress to apply any meaningful legislature at home during his two terms make it incredibly hard to apply that term to him. So perhaps the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky 's theory of a presidency that is strong abroad but weak at home is the most accurate in describing the modern