Extension Of Power

When the constitution was drafted in 1789 one of the main goals of the founding fathers was to make sure power was shared equally. They didn’t want a country faced with the same problems that they had in Britain. Checks and balances was to be the answer to equally share power between the three branches of government. Checks and balances meant that none of the three branches could misuse or extend their power to anything not justified by the constitution. However as the size of government grew the more unbalanced it became in the sense of extension of power. Overtime the system of checks and balances has been misused as a result of corrupt ideologies and extension of power.
During the Roosevelt administration in the 40’s, he proposed the New Deal. The New Deal was a governmental funded program that would create programs to help end the Great Depression of 1932, it established the use of social security still used today and the FDA. However the Supreme Court judges at this time were very strict when it came to the constitution. They ruled against most of his programs saying that they weren’t justified by the constitution. Roosevelt didn’t agree with this and felt that the judges were too concerned about the constitution in the times of crisis. Roosevelt reacted by sending a bill to congress that required federal judges who served for ten years or were over the age of seventy to resign. This would then allow him to appoint at least five new judges since most of the judges fit the criteria of the bill. The bill received serious attacks and was rejected by congress. Roosevelt knew that his bill was contradictory to the constitution but proposed it anyway because he felt as though it wasn’t valid at this time of crisis. Although the New Deal had a positive objective it was wrong for Roosevelt to deprive the original judges from their position, ultimately what Roosevelt did was executive power over the Supreme Court.
Prior to the attacks of 9/11 President George W. Bush surreptitiously sent a bill to the National Security Agency that requested them to monitor international phone conversations. He did not pass this bill through congress nor did he request congress to pass the bill. He was aware that he was imposing on the rights of un-accused citizens who were protected by the constitution. However when the bombshell was dropped, he defended his wiretapping policy by saying that it was a National Security issue. He said that he did it to protect the safety of the people since it became a threat to national security. However national security was ordained to the President, Secretary of Defense and Congress. National security is not handled in the hands of the executive only, but to the other branches of government also. Even in the times of crisis congress is supposed to be informed of measures being taken by the president and his cabinet. In fact in a national security issue the constitution protects the right for congress to be included in on the decisions made. This is why in 1948 President Truman had to consult congress before dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. Although he felt that it was the best way to go about it he knew that he had to follow the rules set forth by the constitution.
After the attacks on the Twin Towers President Bush declared war on Iraq. Many lives were lost and the war seemed to have made no progress in finding weapons of mass destruction. Bush later stated that they were trying to reform the governmental policies in the Middle East. The war has been going on for five years now, and the budget is not substantial enough to continue the war. President Bush has sent a bill to congress asking for them to sign legislation for money to support the troops. However, the house and senate feels that it is time to bring troops home. They reconstructed the bill and stated that it would only be signed if Bush starts bringing troops home in 2008. He vetoed the bill and refuses to sign it, saying that the troops need the money now and if not the war would be in vain. This shows that Bush is only concerned about his views, the generals in Iraq and his cabinet. However as a president he’s supposed to be concerned about the views of the people and the legislative branch which represents the people. If the bill is passed through congress again Bush has stated that he would veto this bill because it is vital to the security of out nation (to stay in Iraq and win the war. Right? That’s his line for the continued occupation of a formerly sovereign nation).
Checks and Balances to some extent is the most crucial article in the constitution. This is illustrated by the events that happen today, because the misuse of power causes division between the braches. And therefore if they are divided they cannot govern because if the branches disagree on policies nothing will get done. The Judicial branch seems dormant in interpreting these issues in the government today, it’s almost as if the Supreme Court also had become biased. The president is supposed to be the representative of the country and ideally the people. If the views of the citizens and congress are not taken into account a democratic government will not be preserved.
(Keron, you are right on about the last point about the Judicial Branch being dormant. First off, it was the Judicial Branch that handed Bush the election in 2000 and then he has appointed two new conservative leaning judges to court who he believed would support his decisions. There have been some new rulings about the rights of people by the courts that you could look into to support or complicate your discussion of the role of the courts. I think you can also look at the fact that it’s supposed to be Congress who declares war, according to the Constitution, but since Vietnam they have handed that power over to the president by issuing the President authority to engage in war. In fact, Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq and gave Bush their authority. That is pretty sad, since they have been so ineffective at getting any legislation passed that would bring the troops home and end our occupation of Iraq.
Essentially, you are starting to develop a political opinion about the government and are using checks and balances to point out activities that you see as unjust. The big questions you are raising have to do with justice. I think you are on the right track and this essay is a good starting point to develop your own opinion about American politics. It’s equally important for you to be able to support your views with facts and examples of the corruption and imbalance of power that you see. That will help you decide what party and candidates you want to support, since you are almost 18 and ready to vote. It’s actually a big responsibility and you have the voice and intellect to influence your friends, family, and community.