A President’s Power v.s. A Citizen’s Assignment

As America has grown, and continues to grow, it is important that our government grows with it. Presidential power is a key part of our government, and influences us in ways we may not even be aware of, and a President’s personal conviction may be just as impactful as the scope of their control. Just as William Taft’s idea of Conservatism competed with Roosevelt’s Stewardship theory throughout time, we see how our leaders have taken a system designed to protect our citizen’s rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and changed it into a game of power. But the leaders are not alone in this scheme. Citizens are also assigned their own civil duties within this process, and must rise up to the task, or see their rights fade. And as a Citizen must balance their voice with the governments control, a President must balance their own voice, with their own control.

William Taft says, “We are all imperfect. We can not expect perfect government.” This quote represents his Conservative presidential theory, where the President doesn’t actively change things, but instead, just facilitates what is already in motion. But perhaps this lack of action is what holds America back from progress. On the other hand, Roosevelt’s quote, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are,” encapsulates his Stewardship theory, where a president does, “everything in his power,” to create an ideal government.

While it is important to be constantly moving forward, like in Roosevelt’s theory, at what point does the President’s power become too much? In the last several years, most Presidents have abided by the Stewardship theory, making outrageous promises during campaigning, but then failing in this theory as they fail to actually enact these changes. We have learned that most politicians are acting in a way to promote their party, and to get their party re-elected, but where is the shift between social justice, and a system of control?

Conversely, looking at active citizenship, we see our citizen’s not practicing enough “stewardship.” There are many debates on whether voter registration laws should be eased to encourage voting, and how the “filter bubble,” confines our information. A citizen, even though they are tasked with Roosevelt’s call for action, may not actually be able to enact any change. On this age-old issue, Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter to Birmingham Jail says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” In trying to balance Roosevelt and King’s motivation with Taft’s self suppression, at what point does a President’s civic responsibility turn into an abuse of power? At what point is a lack of action failing in their duty? 

Today’s Presidents may have one of the toughest challenges we’ve seen in the White House yet. As a CQ Press Researcher says, “The power of the Presidency is such that it may no longer be meaningful to classify Presidents as ‘weak’ or ‘strong.’ In the modern era, the President is virtually forced to be a strong executive.” This battle forces the President to choose whether to fall prey to your internal voice, or to allow your position to walk all over you. How our current President deals with this, while it may be a never ending process, sets the tone for many Presidents to come. In our ever changing, modern world, how will our leader balance self with image? How will our leader manage opinion and action? And how will our President manage his position of power with his civic responsibility?

Sources:

library.cqpress.com/…earcher/document.php

washingtonpost.com/…/bd572426-27fa-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_video

americanforeignrelations.com/…/Presidential-Power-The-stewardship-theory

Supreme Court} http://www.cagle.com/2014/06/presidential-power …

Theodore Roosevelt’s Little Texas

 

Gun control? self control?

Insight on the gun control in America

Gun control has always been a critical argument in America, that it always has a deeply fraught relationship with violence. “Violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause.” With this long query in the existence of guns, the recent terrorism attack in Las Vegas that causes 58 people dead and 546 injured has intensify the issue with the gun control; some even argue that it’s time to repeal the second amendment. In my opinion Guns obviously have association with violence in United States of America, but the association between them does not implies the causation of death, therefore, banning guns won’t do any good to the situation we have now.

Handgun lying over a copy of the United States constitution and the American flag.

Firstly, Gun is way too widespread now in America, there are millions and millions of people that own a gun. Banning guns now will give a huge disadvantage to those people that do not have a gun yet. The action of banning guns won’t evaporate those that already exist, those criminal will still have the guns in their hands, and there will be no way those innocent people can protect themselves from the danger. Fear will spread all over America when people know they can’t protect themselves, and that’s defiantly going to cause critical problem to American society.

Are guns responsible for all the killing?

Also, Guns are never responsible for the killing, people do. They are never designed to represent violence, they are designed to maintain the peace. It is those violent people out there that are suppose to be controlled, even if they are restricted to use gun, there are still other ways they will do to express their anger to other people. Every criminal will choose the target that are weak. Banning the gun weaken those people which give the criminal a chance, instead of keeping the peace, this act will cause the true violence.

Last but not least, In my opinion guns have already became part of American culture. From the first settler to the wild west and now, Americans are bounded with guns. You will never see this wild and strong culture in China, this is something very unique for Americans. Like the food culture

One of Beijing local food even some Chinese can’t handle it’s flavor, made by beans that have gone mouldy.

 in China, some of them are very unhealthy, they might not even taste that good and we knew from the beginning, but we never banned them from our daily life, because that’s part of our culture. A country without it’s own culture is not a complete country. I think government should never take away something that is so meaningful to the history and culture of a country.

To sum up, the violence in America are clearly suppose to be controlled but not by restricting guns, this action will only unarmed those innocent people and leave them unprotected. Giving more violence education and giving more security regard to those public place will reduce the true problem that we are facing nowadays.

Partisanship: Are we free?

In government, we investigated how Congress works. I was surprised about how human Congress runs and how we as individuals can affect our government’s decision so easily. I personally don’t care a great deal for political science, but was fascinated in how our political system is acts with logic while being chaotic.

Most people are unaware of how Congress works and are limited to what biased views are seen through the news. While Congress is seen as being chaotic, there are some scholars who have spent time to explain Congress to the populace of America. Woodrow Wilson, 28th president of the United States, wrote Congressional Government, a work that is well known for its effective and logical study of Congress. Wilson’s work helped me understand members of congress acted more human instead of ideal dream like the Constitution describes in saying that members of congress help make “laws [the purpose of the job] which shall be necessary and proper for carrying the execution [the powers Congress has]” (Article 1 Section 8). Congress has a great deal of power and that power is shared amongst hundreds of people. I thought that Congress always acted for the benefit of their community and now see understand that congress acts on their own ideas as well as working for the benefit of others. Wilson describes Congress as “hard to see satisfactorily and appreciatively at a single view and from a single standpoint [meaning that Congress takes a long time to come to a consensus on what is best for the nation]. Its complicated forms and diversified structure confuse the vision, and conceal the system which underlies its composition [meaning the mechanism of Congress is confusing and hidden, even though it can be seen]” (Congressional Government). Wilson says that Congress does work for the betterment of the community (as the system should work), but takes a long time to take action (because of all the debates that occur on the current issue). Wilson’s argument runs true and leads to the question why congress takes so long to act on issues. The problem of our Congress’ inability to immediately act upon issues rests upon our problem of partisanship.

Partisanship is the inclination to favor one view or opinion over others. Opinions allow for individuals to provide insight to community to help the group advance. However, political partisanship is where there is little compromise. Members of Congress are staunch in their opinions in order to gain support on certain issues from their community. Members who have certain opinions on issues are usually part of the same political party. These members look out for one another and see the opposite party as an hindrance (or an enemy) to their goals. The teamwork of partisanship helps pave way for new laws, but gain such a strong opposition at the same time the law gains notoriety. When congress has discussions on laws, there is little compromise from either political party to make the bill become a law. The partisan political parties destroy compromise and lead to more deceitful tactics that delay action. Members of Congress try to get around partisanship by splitting a law into smaller parts that are passed by Congress. These smaller laws are worded in order to confuse the other party and trick the opposition into passing the laws. The deceitful tactics of splitting up a law into smaller laws that do the same effect and wording the laws in order to confuse the enemy are fueled by partisan views. These partisan opinions rub against their opposite party (both fueled with partisan politics).

Partisanship is the source of our Congress’ delay to actions and America cannot live without it. The conclusion of partisanship being the source of political problem is a timeless fact that was written even in the early days of America with Federalist 10 by James Madison. Madison argues that faction (or partisanship) is the source of anarchy because groups are more powerful than the citizens. Wilson’s Congressional Government discusses how Congress has tried to avoid partisanship but has failed to escape its grasp.