Andrew Jackson and Presidential Power
ABSTRACT This paper examines Andrew Jackson's role in establishing the foundations of the Presidency. He is generally considered by historians to have been one of the nation's most vigorous and powerful chief executives. He advanced a new vision of the President as the direct representative of the people. Jackson put theory into practice with the vigorous exercise of his executive powers - interpreting the Constitution and enforcing the law independently, wielding the veto power for policy as well as constitutional reasons, and re-establishing control over the executive branch. In the first of two great political conflicts of his time, the Bank War, Jackson vetoed a law that the Supreme Court and Congress both thought constitutional, removed federal deposits from the Bank, and fired cabinet secretaries who would not carry out his orders. In the second, the Nullification Crisis, Jackson again interpreted the nature of the Constitution and the Union on behalf of the people, and made clear his authority to carry out federal law, even against resisting states. Although he was a staunch defender of limited government, Jackson would confront head-on the forces seeking a weaker union and or a weaker Executive. His achievement would be to restore and expand the Presidency, within the context of a permanent Union. He would also spark resistance so strong that it would coalesce into a new political party, the Whig party, devoted to opposing concentrated executive power.
SourceAvailable from: SSRN[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We continue to live in a dangerous world. We are exposed to the risk that hostile states or terrorist groups with global reach might attack our civilian population or those of our allies using weapons of mass destruction. In such circumstances, it might seem natural for U.S. policymakers to consider preventive war as a possible tool for countering such threats. Yet in the current climate of opinion, such thinking would be controversial - in large part, no doubt, because of the continuing disputes over the normative, strategic, and legal wisdom of what has been called the “Bush Doctrine.”Preventive war, in appropriate circumstances, can be justified for reasons that are closely analogous to those usually offered to justify humanitarian intervention. The key difference is that in preventive war the intervenors protect their own populations, whereas in humanitarian intervention the intervenors protect the target state’s population. Although critics of preventive war tend to be sympathetic to humanitarian intervention, the underlying logic for both uses of force is substantially the same.In this Essay, we first explain what we mean by “preventive” war, and how it is distinguishable from “preemptive” war. Then we briefly consider whether, as critics of the Bush Doctrine allege, the War in Iraq was virtually unprecedented in the Nation’s history or was, instead, one of several major conflicts fought by the United States that could fairly be described as preventive wars. Finally, we shall recommend certain normative guidelines and criteria for policymakers to follow in deciding whether to initiate a “preventive” war.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper explores the end of the 2008 Presidential primary season in the context of Senator Barack Obama's speech on race, A More Perfect Union, and the Pew Research Center's Poll on values and Blacks. Next, the paper discusses the impact of various persons who held the office of the presidency and what impact their views have had on Blacks' access to liberty in the United States. Then the paper surveys social science rationale for whether Blacks should be more or less supportive of one major party over the other and what benefit, if any, it may be for Blacks to do so in numbers that may affect party platforms and political power. The paper focuses on the recent history of both major parties actions in the state of Florida. Finally, the paper offers observations about those who are attempting to increase the share of the Black vote in both major parties.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper identifies potential values deriving from the seemingly destructive, distracting health reform nullification movement. Both before and after passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, states engaged in various forms of resistance to the new law. The debate highlights the increased role of government in health care delivery and generates active deliberation of core values and public policy concerns.