Question #1: The Presidency
Many of the founders were worried that the office of the President would gain too much power, so the authority of the presidency was limited in a variety of ways. In fact, the title "President" was chosen because, at the time, it did not carry weight and implied authority of "King" or "Monarch". Since then, however, the power of the presidency has expanded dramatically. There are a variety of reasons that the power of the presidency has expanded since the time of the founding, including changes to how presidents are elected, the expanded scope of activities undertaken by the federal government, the administrative power of the presidency, and the President's ability to communicate directly with the public. Discuss which of these factors were most important in expanding the powers of the presidency, and the pros and cons of the President having more power today than the founders originally intended.
Question #2: Bureaucracy in a Democracy
Most people have only a vague understanding of how the federal bureaucracy works. We may have had a bad experience with the IRS, or a nice time at a federal park, but the federal bureaucracy touches our lives in many more ways. Often, our lives are shaped by bureaucratic actions that we don't even know are taking place.
With that in mind, what in the reading this week surprised you the most? Feel free to address a function that you didn't know that the federal bureaucracy serves, ways that the bureaucracy interacts with Congress, how the public or interest groups can influence bureaucratic decisions, how the bureaucracy has changed over time, or any other topic that you found surprising and informative.
In your response, try to describe how your newfound understanding of the bureaucracy changes the way you think about American government more broadly.
Question #3: The Federal Courts (A)
Once appointed, federal court justices serve until they die or choose to retire, which has both positive and negative consequences. Discuss the benefits of federal judges serving for life and the potential problems that this feature of our judicial system can create. Having weighed both sides of the question, argue whether lifetime appointments make sense today. If you do not support lifetime appointments, propose an alternative that could still accomplish the positive aspects of federal judges serving for life.
Part B
Answer two of the questions below and comment on your classmates' answers.
1) Imagine the United States is facing a major crisis, like a pandemic or a national security threat. You are part of a government task force. Do you prioritize giving the federal government more power to act quickly (Federalist approach) or limiting government power to protect individual liberties (Anti-Federalist approach)? Explain your choice and consider the possible consequences of your decision
____________________________________________________________________________
2) Suppose a new law is proposed requiring all states to follow a uniform education curriculum. Some states argue this limits their freedom to set their own standards. Would you support giving the federal government the authority to enforce the curriculum (Federalist view) or protecting the states’ rights to make their own rules (Anti-Federalist view)? Explain the potential benefits and risks of your choice.
_____________________________________________________________________________
3) Imagine the government wants to implement a nationwide surveillance program to prevent crime and terrorism. Would you argue that individual rights should always come first, even if it limits government efficiency (Anti-Federalist perspective), or that granting more government power is justified to protect the greater good (Federalist perspective)? How do you balance safety with liberty?
Sample Answer
These are comprehensive questions covering major aspects of the U.S. government. Here are detailed responses for each section.
Question #1: The Presidency
The expansion of presidential power beyond the Founders' original intent is a central theme in modern American politics. While all the factors you listed contributed, the expanded scope of activities undertaken by the federal government and the administrative power of the presidency have been the most important in dramatically increasing executive authority.
Most Important Factors in Expanding Presidential Power
Expanded Scope of Federal Activities (Most Important):
Rationale: The transition of the U.S. from a rural, decentralized nation to an industrial, global power required the federal government to address complex issues like economic regulation (New Deal), national security (Cold War, War on Terror), and social welfare (Great Society). Each new challenge necessitated new agencies, programs, and vast budgets, all of which fall under the executive branch's purview. The sheer scale of modern governance naturally vests enormous power in the one individual responsible for managing it.
-
Example: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gives the President immense regulatory and operational power over vast sectors of American life.
Administrative Power (Second Most Important):
Rationale: This refers to the President's authority to manage the massive executive bureaucracy. This power is exercised through Executive Orders, Proclamations, National Security Directives, and regulatory action by executive agencies. This allows the President to enact major policy changes without direct legislation from Congress, effectively making the executive branch a significant law-making and law-enforcing body.
Example: Issuing environmental regulations (via the EPA) or changing immigration enforcement priorities profoundly affects the nation using only executive authority.
The other factors were contributory, but less pivotal:
Changes to Elections: While direct communication has made presidents more personally accountable to the public, the electoral process change itself is less of a power generator than the administrative authority gained after election.
Direct Communication (The "Bully Pulpit"): This is an enabler of power, allowing presidents to frame narratives, pressure Congress, and mobilize public opinion (e.g., "going public"). However, it is the administrative and scope power that provides the substance for the president's communication.
Pros and Cons of Expanded Presidential Power
| Aspect | Pros (Arguments for Expanded Power) | Cons (Arguments Against Expanded Power) |
| National Security & Crisis | Allows for rapid, decisive action in emergencies (e.g., pandemics, war, economic collapse). The modern world demands speed that Congress, by design, often cannot provide. | Risk of Authoritarianism: Power concentrated in one person can lead to unilateralism, unchecked power, and the erosion of checks and balances. |
| Efficiency & Accountability | Provides unified policy direction and ensures the massive federal bureaucracy can be managed effectively and held accountable to the public through a single figurehead. | Erosion of Checks and Balances: Congress often cedes too much authority, resulting in an "Imperial Presidency" where the executive branch dominates policy-making. |
| Addressing Complexity | The executive branch has the expertise and resources (e.g., OMB, specialized agencies) needed to manage complex technical issues that Congress is ill-equipped to handle detail-by-detail. | Over-Centralization: National solutions may ignore unique local needs, leading to policies that are ineffective or inappropriate for diverse states and communities. |
Export to Sheets
Question #2: Bureaucracy in a Democracy
The most surprising and informative aspect of the federal bureaucracy is often its function as a powerful quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial body—a feature that fundamentally alters the textbook understanding of the separation of powers.
The Surprise: Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Power
Many people assume that Congress writes the laws and the President executes them. The surprising reality is that the vast majority of "law-making" in the modern state is done by the bureaucracy through rulemaking (quasi-legislative power) and administrative adjudication (quasi-judicial power).
Rulemaking (Quasi-Legislative): Congress passes broad legislation (e.g., "The EPA shall ensure clean air"). It's the bureaucracy (the EPA) that writes the detailed, legally binding rules and regulations—often thousands of pages long—that specify how industries must comply, setting the actual standards for pollution, safety, and health. These rules have the full force of law.