Special Offer!Use code first15 and
Get 15% off your first order
In support of this view, in 1952 when Harry Truman was the president of the US, he authorized the confiscation of steel mills through an executive order without the consent of Congress. This was meant to avert the emergence of the labor strike that was attributed to the fight in Korea. In response to this directive, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman had overstepped his mandate as the president and that he ought to have acted within the law by following through with the Congress’s recommendations. Further, the Court argued that since the Congress had already decided on the matter, his presidential powers did not grant him the powers to overrule the Congress (Dye et al., 2009).
Based on the powers provided by the US Constitution for the executive, judiciary and legislature, it is very evident that the Constitution of the US is in support of William Howard Taft’s definition of the presidential powers, and the extent to which such powers can be exercised. The Constitution also recognizes the rights of Americans in the Bill of Rights; thus, no president should fill obligated to break the law in his/her pursuit to fulfill public interests. Such is an act of impunity and imperialism on the part of the president, and therefore it is highly disregarded in the Constitution.
Theodore Roosevelt’s view of presidency shows that being proactive and ready to act for the benefit of the general public is consistent with the changing governance trends, and thus highly recommended to serve the interests of the US in the 21st century. This is attributed to the fact that more and more governments are shifting towards a people centered democracy that acts within the constitution and exercises every viable option that is not forbidden by the constitution (Shapiro, Kumar &Jacobs, 2000). Further, Dye et al., (2009) argue that the Constitution provides for Congress to impeach the president who is convicted of serious crimes such as treason and bribery. However, the Constitution does not allow the president to be impeached by Congress due to their decisions. This therefore provides the room for the president to make rational decisions through executive directives to serve the interests of people he/she governs.
According to Shapiro et al., (2000) over the years, the US presidents have fought for more executive powers. This is because most of them have felt that the executive powers provided in the Constitution are an impendent towards actualizing proactive leadership. To be in line with the leadership expectations of people, and to be consistent with the changing leadership trends, a more people sensitive government is prone to be popular in the 21st century.
Further, Dunn (2011) argues that the dominance of the legislature over the executive in the sense that the legislature controls the functions of the executive through approvals has been losing momentum over the years. This has been attributed to conspiracy during lobbying for policies, and thus for so many years the public has felt left out of the whole process. To curb this, Shapiro et al., (2000) recommend a more people sensitive executive that acts in the best interest of the public.
The broad use of executive powers as advocated for by Theodore Roosevelt’s quote has been a major contribution towards implementing necessary legislation and laws. For instance, George Washington exercised broad executive powers to establish a neutral ground during the war between France and Britain. Through his proactive leadership style, he instigated the French revolution and the establishment of the president’s role in making foreign policy. This policy has majorly served the interests of the 21st century Americans through assurance of security (Dye et al., 2009).
In conclusion, it is paramount for modern presidents to embrace a leadership style that is consistent with the changing times and the needs of their people. I therefore recommend that modern presidents embrace Theodore Roosevelt’s view of presidency as long as they are acting in the best interest of their populace.