The main arguments that the President of the United States has turned into an imperial presidency include the understanding that while staff numbers continue increasing, most people take up appointments. This is especially with reference to those individuals with personal loyalty to people at office of president and not eligible to the approval or control from external sources outside. A comprehensive scope of drastic advisory bodies emerged around presidency while most of them complemented the lead cabinet functions with cabinet facing a decline in its level of influence. Vivid examples of this include Office of Management, Budget, and National Security Council. Further, the Senate is not in apposition of ‘advising and consenting to’ the appointments of the Office of the President. It only has few exceptions similar to the case of cabinet appointments (Silkenat & Shulman, 2007). The corollary of the fundamental aspect is that personnel act independent of and without any profound regard accountability to the Congress. Further, presidency has much reliance on the available powers exceeding the Constitution. For this case, the extent to which Presidency war powers and foreign policy are in place becomes questionable. In addition, the duration and impact of Presidential secrecy becomes fundamentally illumined (Morris. 2010). Notably, plebiscitary Presidency takes the form of Presidency with utmost accountability during the elections and impeachment above the daily components of the press, the public, and the Congress. This remains to be the lead evidence for Imperial Presidency.
The proponents of imperial presidential power hold that all forms of congressional sensitivity towards public opinion have a precise prediction of why Congress needs not be involved in the formulation of foreign policy. The argument is that the executive branches possess superior expertise for accessing classified information and hence the need of sometimes pursuing policies that can be conflicting with various public opinion "whims" (Watts, 2009). However, this remains an adversely arrogant elitism. The fact that the American people take up all that is necessary, financially and frequently in lives, to address the foreign policy mistakes, they surely have a conclusive role in the determination of policy. On the other hand, the misadventures like the Korean and Vietnam wars point that the touted expertise and wisdom within the executive branch and it’s vast overrating (Schlesinger, 2004). The majority of decisions in foreign policy are not encountered in emergency conditions. Whenever there is time, the president bears a legal and moral duty of including Congress in processes of decision-making irrespective of it being less "efficient".
In addition, Congressional participation wills not guarantee prudent and noninterventionist foreign policies. However, through the addition of subsequent steps towards decision-making processes, it extensively lowers the possibility of rash acting. The vigorous congressional roles in the development of foreign policy are in the maintenance of domestic liberties. Various proponents contend that most of the "new" issues in foreign policy including international trade, energy concerns, and pollution control are so bound up with strategic domestic concerns for which Congress has an involvement in foreign policy (McCormick & LaFeber, 1993). The rising prevalence of presidential decision-making affairs has preclusion in returning to previous aspects of congressional abdication for foreign policy. On the other hand, the fact that Congress develops traditionally great power for domestic affairs is not a warrant that it continues to achieve the same. This is less achievable in using the roles of increasing the authority for foreign policy. Congress previously possessed the extensive and dominant essence of powers for foreign affairs. The main element of losing them is the executive encroachment of presidential imperils. The imperial presidency resurgence within the "traditional" matters of foreign policy translated into the ready transduction of the drastic erosion in congressional authority across the whole range for "interested" as well as the predominant domestic affairs.
In most cases, Congressional members prefer to remain minimally informed as a way avoiding accountability and responsibility to national policies. Even though most people are shocked in times that secret foreign policy documents come to a revelation, the overall information has previous publications. The Congress is better informed in times that it wishes (Rudalevige, 2005). On the other hand, the plebiscitary Presidency revolutionary transformation takes the form of Presidency in which accountability in elections and impeachment proceeds to daily activities with the oversight of the public, the press, and the Congress. For Plebiscitary, democracy rests where leaders are elected and have almost all power while in office. Plebiscitary Presidency governs through decrees like executive orders.
However, this attracts many vices. The Nixon administration is a unique scope in referring to the probable criminal offenses committed within the time. There were massive illegal wiretapping, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, giving and taking bribes, forgery, tampering with witnesses, burglary as well as electronic surveillance, perjury, and conspiracy to indulge government agencies within illegal actions (Morris. 2010). Nixon shunned any knowledge of all the mentioned actions. However, he was officially responsible in discerning all the actions. Through efforts of reining within imperial Presidency, senators proposed that the Congress develop the ability of approving executive agreements in a period of sixty days. The executive agreements were in use by the Presidents in making international arrangements for without the involvement of Congress. Through its enactment, it sought to change the power balance between Congress and the Presidency, which affected the making of foreign policy decisions.
Power balance was achieved in times when all the major great decisions have a degree of sharing and participation. Irrespective of having shared decisions wise, they have a democratic component. Great Presidents had the understanding that the focus of their rule needed Congress consent to sail through the press as well as the public. The errors of President Nixon amounted in expansion as well as Presidential power abuse. In case future Presidents used governance through decree, impeachment would become a necessary reeve in reining in the overall Presidency while supporting the lead Constitution (Silkenat & Shulman, 2007). Through constitutional Presidency, all actions developed by the President’s administration, which are unconstitutional or illegal, encounter exposure and punishment. Constitutional Presidency, shown by great Presidents is a strong Presidency indeed. However, what keeps strong President constitutional apart from the checks and balances within its breast, was vigilance by the nation. Both impeachment and repentance made extensive difference in case people themselves came to unconscious imperial Presidency acceptance. The U.S Constitution does not embrace the nation into ideals that it has the determination to betray.
There are only two approaches necessary in resolving this situation. First, the Presidency needs to immediately report to Congress with sufficient information as well as justification when sending troops into war as well as continuing to report on occurrences during the mentioned conflict. Second, joint Congress declaration at all times can come in handy in terminating the conflict (Savage, 2008). The other option to be used in peacetime is that of allowing the Congress control overseas troops. The U.S. history in war making across 20th century pointed out that there was shared power across the Congress and the President. In turn, the CIA became exempt from the oversight of Congress while the spending regulations and rules diversified. In case Congress sought to bring CIA under control, this could eventually prohibit the covert operations especially in wartimes (Irons, 2006). The powers national emergency provide for the President to control unilaterally all business activities or persons in the country. In the proclaiming of a national emergency, Congressional approval should be passed within 30 days for it is to stand in effect. Joint Congress resolution allows the cancellation of a national emergency. The power of national emergency can be applicable when nations are at the risk of losing. Only the World War II, Civil War, and Cuban missile crisis qualified as drastic national emergencies.
In summary, the U.S has not re-gained an imperial presidency status. The challenges in foreign policy within the U.S constantly call for separation of powers. Previously, the Presidency reigned supreme across all forms of national and foreign policies. However, the country resolves not to have a single person commit the entire nation into war or continue partaking in wars as both valid and Constitutional (Savage, 2008). However, most of those with Constitutional questions develop political grounds. The messianic globalism weight for the aspects proves much for the constitution of American. For this policy to qualify as vital towards American survival, there need be a way of having it rather constitutional. Perhaps, the entire Constitution by itself needs a revision. The policy of global intervention is indiscriminate away from strengthening the overall American security. It weakened it through involving the U.S. in the remote as well as costly wars fought in a manner that brought shame to the nation prior the world (Healy, 2009). Even while fighting the same, there were demonstrations of the inability of powerful nations in the world to contain bands of bandits. With the grandiose policy, there lacked promotion of national security while not succeeding in its individual terms. Thus was better with respect to pursuing policies for which not mush was deforming and the disabilities of the Constitution. The President and Congress reduce the U.S. foreign interests while lowering military spending. Such an approach lowers the national government pressure through allowing Congress to take action.
References
Healy, G. 2009. The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. New York: Cato Institute,
Irons, P. 2006. War Powers: How the Imperial Presidency Hijacked the Constitution. New York: Henry Holt and Company,
McCormick, T. J., LaFeber, W. 1993. Behind the Throne: Servants of Power to Imperial Presidents, 1898-1968. New York: Univ of Wisconsin Press,
Morris. 2010. The American Presidency: An Analytical Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press,
Rudalevige, A. 2005. The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate. New York: University of Michigan Press,
Savage, C. 2008. Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy. New York: Little Brown,
Schlesinger, A. M. 2004. The Imperial Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
Silkenat James R., Shulman, M. R. 2007. The Imperial Presidency and the Consequences of 9/11: Lawyers React to the Global War on Terrorism. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group,
Silkenat, J. R., Shulman, M. R. 2007. The Imperial Presidency and the Consequences of 9/11: Dangerous doctrine : the Attorney General's unfounded claim of unlimited authority to arrest and deport aliens in secret. New York: Praeger Security International,
Watts, D. 2009. The American Presidency. New York: Edinburgh University Press,
