U.S. Presidential Power

[therealUT]

I am keenly interested in these results.

 

[JTrainDavis]

Voted, position noted, but I'm off to bed, will defend myself tomorrow.

 

[volinbham]

Too ignorant of history to vote.

will say that Bush got jiggy with E-power and Obama has taken all that new E-power and added some more.

 

[VOLatile]

Too ignorant of history to vote.

will say that Bush got jiggy with E-power and Obama has taken all that new E-power and added some more.

This is where I stand, also. Although I view Bush and Obama on the same level.

 

[JayVols]

I am going to have to think about this one before I vote. I will say that I am leaning towards the War Powers Act of 1973. My reasoninging on that is win, lose, or draw it seems to be a cluster almost every time war making powers are ceeded to the executive branch and carte blanche is given to a president. It just seems convenient and irresponsible to wash one's hands of one of the if not the most importantant decision our government can make. It seems like a cop out for the Congress, or politically insulating. Take a freaking stand and back that stance up. JMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Edit: I misread the question. I was thinking I was answering something to the effect of what is the best balance, if you will, of presidential war making powers.

 

[n_huffhines]

Abraham Lincoln expanded the power of the executive more than any president ever, in my opinion. And almost all of his expansive acts were war-related.

But of the options listed I chose: Senate decision regarding Treaty of Versaille 1919-1920. Because I think WWI is where **** really started to hit the fan.

 

[n_huffhines]

Can I change my vote? I had forgotten we rejected the treaty of Versailles. Good for us.

The second blunder [by Churchill] was the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that added a million square miles to the British Empire while putting millions of Germans under Czech and Polish rule in violation of the terms of the armistice and Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan81.html

 

[therealUT]

But of the options listed I chose: Senate decision regarding Treaty of Versaille 1919-1920. Because I think WWI is where **** really started to hit the fan.

I am not exactly sure how you and JTrain voted for this with regard to the question. How was the expansion of Presidential power, with regard to Foreign Policy, demonstrated with regard to the Treaty of Versailles?

Wilson fervently pushed for the treaty to be ratified and the Senate rejected it. The only expression of Presidential power in this ordeal was Wilson's stated refusal to sign any ratification that included amendments and/or revisions from the original Treaty. If anything, I would argue that the failure to ratify the Treaty demonstrated a containment of Presidential powers.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am not exactly sure how you and JTrain voted for this with regard to the question. How was the expansion of Presidential power, with regard to Foreign Policy, demonstrated with regard to the Treaty of Versailles?

Wilson fervently pushed for the treaty to be ratified and the Senate rejected it. The only expression of Presidential power in this ordeal was Wilson's stated refusal to sign any ratification that included amendments and/or revisions from the original Treaty. If anything, I would argue that the failure to ratify the Treaty demonstrated a containment of Presidential powers.

You are totally right. Wilson's tenure definitely expanded the power of the executive, but not with regard to the Treaty of Versailles, which is why I had already retracted my vote:

Can I change my vote? I had forgotten we rejected the treaty of Versailles. Good for us.

 

[therealUT]

Grand total of five votes on this one. Damn.

 

[fl0at]

Grand total of five votes on this one. Damn.

Come across this one while studying for FSOT?

I really don't know the history well enough on either to vote. And looking it up would defeat the purpose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Come across this one while studying for FSOT?

I really don't know the history well enough on either to vote. And looking it up would defeat the purpose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I did and the "correct answer" bothers me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

I did and the "correct answer" bothers me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm going to make another assumption or two, and you can let me know if they are also correct:

C and D are obvious, and thus unlikely. Your defense against Treaty of V as right leads me to suspect that is the answer they wanted.

So what is it about the Treaty that expand Presidential power with regards to Foreign policy? The mere attempt, maybe?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

I'm going to make another assumption or two, and you can let me know if they are also correct:

C and D are obvious, and thus unlikely. Your defense against Treaty of V as right leads me to suspect that is the answer they wanted.

So what is it about the Treaty that expand Presidential power with regards to Foreign policy? The mere attempt, maybe?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

They say the correct answer is C. While I feel that Lend-Lease was definitely a huge display of Presidential power in foreign policy, I would argue that the ability to send US troops anywhere in the world for 60 days is bigger.

A President can be pretty imperialistic with our military for 60 days (this does not even include a build up and provides an extra 30 days for withdrawal).

 

[fl0at]

They say the correct answer is C. While I feel that Lend-Lease was definitely a huge display of Presidential power in foreign policy, I would argue that the ability to send US troops anywhere in the world for 60 days is bigger.

A President can be pretty imperialistic with our military for 60 days (this does not even include a build up and provides an extra 30 days for withdrawal).

If that is the correct answer, I would generally have to agree with you.

Land lease was useful in establishing presence (base with troops), but ability to wage near uncontrolled war for even a brief period seems to trump "presence," especially in today's military where mobilization, deployment and smart weapons technologies make for near instantaneous actions.

Maybe, just going PC here, based on the exam's caretaker... War is not the answer to diplomacy?

Hm. Does possession of foreign property/lease require Congressional approval, due to monetary issues? If so, maybe that is the defense?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

If that is the correct answer, I would generally have to agree with you.

Land lease was useful in establishing presence (base with troops), but ability to wage near uncontrolled war for even a brief period seems to trump "presence," especially in today's military where mobilization, deployment and smart weapons technologies make for near instantaneous actions.

Maybe, just going PC here, based on the exam's caretaker... War is not the answer to diplomacy?

Hm. Does possession of foreign property/lease require Congressional approval, due to monetary issues? If so, maybe that is the defense?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Constitutionally, I believe that it is supposed to require Congressional approval.

Regardless, FDR's Destroyer-for-Bases deal certainly violated, in principle not in wording, the Neutrality Act that Congress had passed the year prior.

Six-months later, the new Congress passed the Lend-Lease Legislation, basically showing support for Destroyer-for-Bases; however, from a Constitutional perspective, they could have just as easily found grounds for impeachment in FDR's unilateral move.

I imagine the reason the FSOT sees Destroyer-for-Bases as a greater expression of Executive Power due to the fact that it was, by definition, unConstitutional; yet, I have a hard time believing that providing Britain with warships in return for certain bases shows greater Executive Power in Foreign Policy than being able to conquer another nation without Congressional approval (the US defeated Saddam's forces and gained control of Baghdad in just twenty days).