You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
In U.S. history, what does imperial presidency mean?
- Thread starter David
- Start date
parrotjohn2001
New member
Imperial as in emperor, a ruler with broad, almost unlimited powers.
FDR did have very broad powers during his administration, first to deal with the economic crisis and later in waging the war.
Truman inherited those powers, and used his powers broadly, even though he did have an opposition Congress in 1947-48.
Eisenhower and Kennedy were not all that imperial as presidents, although both did have broad powers in foreign affairs.
Lyndon Johnson did use his powers imperially, both on a foreign and domestic level. Having a supportive Congress helped.
Nixon effectively ended the Imperial presidency by so overreaching and so abusing his powers that Congress began limiting the authority of the President.
FDR did have very broad powers during his administration, first to deal with the economic crisis and later in waging the war.
Truman inherited those powers, and used his powers broadly, even though he did have an opposition Congress in 1947-48.
Eisenhower and Kennedy were not all that imperial as presidents, although both did have broad powers in foreign affairs.
Lyndon Johnson did use his powers imperially, both on a foreign and domestic level. Having a supportive Congress helped.
Nixon effectively ended the Imperial presidency by so overreaching and so abusing his powers that Congress began limiting the authority of the President.
The Imperial Presidency is often viewed as an abuse or even a subversion of the Constitution, but it can also be seen as a product of history and national ambition -- and even as its own political institution, with entrenched precedents and traditions that tend to survive the transient occupants of the Oval Office.
The Imperial Presidency can be defined, succinctly, as a structure in which enormous discretionary power to respond to national security crises and perceived dangers is concentrated in the office of the president. In this scheme, Congress, willingly or not, is only a bit player. Although the term has a pejorative connotation, it is not so much the existence of an Imperial Presidency that has spurred public backlashes as it is the abuses of power that have sometimes come with it. Richard Nixon comes to mind.
The birth and sustained growth of the Imperial Presidency are inseparable from America's self-adopted "world responsibilities," in the apt phrase of Harry Truman. "In one generation, we've come from an isolated republic, to the position of the leadership of the world," Truman declared a few months into the Korean War, which began without congressional authorization in June 1950. The American Age ushered in a new kind of presidency, designed to anticipate and, if need be, respond to threats from virtually anywhere on the globe.
The Imperial Presidency can be defined, succinctly, as a structure in which enormous discretionary power to respond to national security crises and perceived dangers is concentrated in the office of the president. In this scheme, Congress, willingly or not, is only a bit player. Although the term has a pejorative connotation, it is not so much the existence of an Imperial Presidency that has spurred public backlashes as it is the abuses of power that have sometimes come with it. Richard Nixon comes to mind.
The birth and sustained growth of the Imperial Presidency are inseparable from America's self-adopted "world responsibilities," in the apt phrase of Harry Truman. "In one generation, we've come from an isolated republic, to the position of the leadership of the world," Truman declared a few months into the Korean War, which began without congressional authorization in June 1950. The American Age ushered in a new kind of presidency, designed to anticipate and, if need be, respond to threats from virtually anywhere on the globe.
thecanadianone
New member
Why is everyone studiously ignoring the proverbial "elephant in the room"??? The concept of an "Imperial" or all-powerful emperor-like presidency has certainly been kicking about since the Truman era... Nixon obviously thought that he could get away with just about anything, and that "If the president does it, it's not illegal", but he was sacked for being crude and blatent about it and making a collosal blunder in the Watergate affair. That said, the full flowering of the Imperial or "Unitary" presidency was achieved under the Bush Jr. regime. "Dubya" acted very much like an emperor - starting and controlling wars with minimal congressional permission and oversight, making hundreds of bills democratically passed by congress and the senate effective null and void anytime he wished to circumvent or ignore them, through the often questionably legal devise called a "signing statement", which enabled him to ignore any law he "signed away" any time he wished, and appropriating many of the traditional powers of congress to himself...... look up "Emperor Bush" (or "Emperor Cheney", since that particular vice president had far more power and influence than the traditional role of the vice president) for more info. Recall that the Bush man famously said "I am the Decider", and "One of the best parts about this job is that i don't have to explain my decisions" :-+). The constitution drastically limits the power of the president, except in times of war and extreme emergency (and no, the "war on terror" doesn't really count: 9-11 was an isolated incident, not a reign of terror - a one of a kind event that the neo-cons exploited to grasp powers that the constitution did not give or permit them.). The Bush presidency basically said: to heck with the constitution, I am the Decider, i don';t have to explain anything, and i'll do whatever i like - and anyone who has a different viewpoint is a traitor and can go to hell. THAT is what the "Imperial Presidency" was all about in practice. // As to how it happened, i think that congress mainly let it happen by not challenging the president any time he overstepped his constitutional bounds. Fear was a big factor: those that wished the president to be more powerful than the founding fathers prescribed, have consistantly used the most effective methods of most who wish to attain and then hold on to the most power possible - fear, misinformation, appeals to pride and patriotism, threats against those who dare to disagree...