Skip to main content

Have presidential powers evolved over time, or were they a result of a major event? Explain in detail.

It's a little of both; the expansion of the power of the President of the United States has been going on for a long time, but it hasn't simply been a gradual progression toward ever-greater power. Instead it's more what biologists would call punctuated equilibrium; most of the time it stays fairly constant, and then there are large, relatively sudden disruptions which shift it forward.

The main cause of such expansions of Presidential power has been wars. Abraham Lincoln greatly expanded Presidential power in the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson greatly expanded it in WW1. Franklin Roosevelt expanded it again in WW2. Lyndon Johnson expanded it in the Vietnam War.

Even when we weren't actually at war, expansion of Presidential power has usually been accompanied by some sort of crisis or panic, such as a recession or a major terrorist attack. People look to the President to save them from danger, and expand his power (particularly his military power) in order to do that.

This might not be such a big deal if we then reined in Presidential power again during calmer times; but that rarely happens. Instead we get a kind of ratcheting effect, where the President gets stronger... and stronger... and stronger... until by now the President's powers, especially over the military, are far beyond what was originally in the Constitution. Whether that is good or bad depends on whether you think the President or Congress better represents the will of the people and the interests of the nation; but it's definitely a major departure from what the Founding Fathers originally intended.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.