According to Professor Stauffer, Locke argued that the U.S.President should have prerogative powers so that he can act unilaterally when he sees fit. Do you think this is a power our presidents should have? Would your opinion change depending on how you felt about the president?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Grand Challenges Forum 
Dr. Stauffer spoke of the President having prerogative powers so that he can act unilaterally when he sees fit. This is definitely a power presidents should have as there are many cases where there needs to be immediate action to solve a crisis and Congress would not want to cooperate because it conflicts with their personal beliefs or that they are from the opposite political party. Having prerogative powers helps the world understand that the president is powerful and is not merely an operating completely under checks and balances, which gives him a more respected view by world leaders. Another way having prerogative powers is beneficial is that if there is an immediate operation that needs to be conducted for the safety of the American people, the president can launch the operation so that he complete the task without having the approval of others in government.
I would definitely not like to see prerogative powers with a president who I do not like as I would immediately assume that he is crossing his granted powers and think that it is unfair to the people who participate in the voting process. If I like the president, I would think that the president acting on his prerogative powers is patriotic and for the benefit of the people. There are some cases that would change my mind on the issue as well. For instance, if there was a bomb about to be launched on an innocent village for financial reasons, I would not support that and think that prerogative powers are similar to such totalitarian powers that would threaten the meaning of representative democracy. This is due to prerogative powers needing to have set precedent so that he does not have unlimited power but extended power to override any issues with ensuring the stability of the nation.
As Dr. Stauffer mentioned during class, many people would likely disagree with President Trump using his prerogative powers to declare a national emergency to get funds for building the wall. However, President Obama used prerogative powers to call for DACA which was received more positively.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Anthony,
I definitely agree with your argument that the President should have prerogative powers in order to live in a safe and functioning nation. Prerogative powers are necessary in times of crisis. Congress is often slow in reviewing and agreeing upon laws. Therefore, having prerogative powers provides a safety net for everyone during times when a decision needs to be made quickly. Your point about prerogative powers being necessary in order for the president to gain respect from other world leaders is interesting. I never thought about that point when making my own opinion about prerogative powers. This point is valid because the President is often restricted in making decisions due to checks and balances. Prerogative powers allow the president to use their executive powers when he/she deems it necessary.
LikeLike
Professor Stauffer argued that the holder of executive power should have the ability to act beyond the bounds of the law when he/she deems it necessary for the greater good of the people. This idea was first introduced by John Locke in 1988 and was known as the Lockean Prerogative. This idea is still relevant in the political atmosphere today with arguments focused on the constitutionality of executive orders. The most famous use of prerogative power was when President Abraham Lincoln decided to suspend the right of habeas corpus with the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863. We can also see the use of prerogative powers in modern times with the passing of DACA by President Obama and the desire to build a wall by President Trump.
In my opinion, it is necessary for presidents to have the power to act unilaterally when he/she seems fit. Prerogative powers are necessary in order to quickly resolve a problem that would otherwise take months to fix. Passing laws is a long process that often takes months to complete. Prerogative powers offer a simple and easy way to fix a reoccurring problem that the United States is facing. Having prerogative powers also allows the President to act efficiently when the United States is facing life-threatening situations. Prerogative powers allow the President to act immediately without needing the approval of Congress if the country was to ever face a crisis.
My opinion about the use of prerogative power changes depending on how I felt about the President. For example, I am not a huge fan of President Trump and disagreed with his use of prerogative power to enforce a travel ban. I will also disagree with his use of prerogative power if he gains funds to build the wall. However, I also believe my opinion about the use of prerogative power would change based on what the President was using it for. Just because I like a President does not necessarily mean that I immediately agree with their use of prerogative power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I definitely agree with your evidence presented for the support of prerogative powers. President needs to have such powers to lead the nation during times of emergency and crisis. Because the congress is too slow and polarized to address any immediate national threat.
While prerogative powers are necessary for an ideal government, the people need to constantly monitor the president’s action. Not all presidents are capable of using this power and they should face the repercussions. I believe one of the best ways to accomplish this is by participating during congressional and executive elections. If someone is unhappy with the administration and their misuse of their powers, they can voice their concern by voting them out of the office.
LikeLike
I definitely agree with your view on the presidents use of prerogative powers. Lots of progress is often hindered by the bickering from the two parties that occupy Congress. Although I believe that the conflict that they encounter when deciding on a contentious issue is altogether better for the process of democracy, it does keep things going pretty slow. Letting the president use prerogative powers to circumvent these issues helps things move along faster and efficiently. However, if the issue is very contentious and the president uses this power to unilaterally favor one solution over another, then that is where I have issue with this power. I believe that a prerogative power, if used, should be well informed on both sides of an issue before being used. Often times this is not the case, for example Trump’s Wall. When a decision by the president to use such a power is not well informed and is extremely unwise and brash, then that is when such a power is more scrutinized by the public eye.
LikeLike
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher discusses the importance of acting with prudence. While it’s good to impose guidelines on oneself to ensure that one is acting with correct morals and goodness, and while it’s good to cultivate a foundation of personal moral theory from which to act upon, it is also necessary to be flexible, and to recognize when it is needed to shift one’s frame of action and boundaries in order to be effective in embodying goodness. Aristotle recognizes that our reality is complex and fluid, and that there are very few absolute moral boundaries that can accommodate each complex and fluid circumstance. Prudence empowers one to be bold in their goodness, so long as it is grounded in rationality.
When there is a circumstance that demands immediate attention, the president should be able to act. The slow bureaucracy of government can be constricting or can even completely negate necessary action. However, it is also important to recognize why these slow systems of bureaucracy were implemented in the first place–to ensure fairness, considered thought, and measured refinement. Moreover, they provide a necessary check on presidential power. An abuse of prerogative powers can quickly devolve into self-serving or oligarchical endeavors or initiatives that are otherwise unrepresentative of his/her/their people. While I believe that prerogative powers can turn a lackluster government into an effective government, this belief is operating on the assumption that the president is elected fairly–that is, elected without the existing powers of voter suppression, and with the earnest intent of the majority of the population–and is rational, moral, and has the intent of representing the interests of the people. Prerogative powers should be a privilege that is conditional to the president’s character. An unchecked power such as this can set an irreversible and dangerous precedent regarding the limits, or lack thereof, of what the president can do and the people and resources to which the president can claim authority. I would not be comfortable with a president who was not elected fairly, does not represent the interests of the people, does not exercise rationality or morality, and does not allow or consider challenges to or even allow others to examine his authority and use of powers to exercise prerogative power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Professor Stauffer introduced many new ideas and concepts that really made me think about how prerogative powers can be used in the hands of the US President. Prerogative powers grant the president the ability to act without the approval of Congress. The powers range from vetoing legislation to granting pardons. I think the president should have prerogative powers. It will allow them the ability to take charge in a moment of crisis or a national emergency. It facilitates their role as president in a situation where there is no time to waste and an immediate decision is necessary. The president will be able to lead the country without any imposition placed by Congress or others. The President of the US should always try to use prerogative powers how he sees best fit.
I like to think the president will use their power for the best interest of all Americans, but that is not always the case of course. My opinion definitely depends on who is president and how I feel about that person. If I do not agree with the president, I would be more inclined to think the use of prerogative powers is to further his political agenda and ideologies. I would not think their actions are for the benefit and safety of all Americans. If I agree with the president, I would see the use of their power for the best interest of all Americans. I would see their use of it as inclusive.It simply just depends on who is the President and how they use prerogative powers.
For instance, if the President were to use prerogative power to build a wall, I would disagree with his use of it. The need for a wall is not a national crisis or emergency. It is not a concern for every single American. If the President were to use his prerogative power to stop a future nuclear bomb, that is something that concerns all of us. The situation and how the President handles it determines my agreement or disagreement with their use of prerogative power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Sandra,
I agree with many of your points regarding the prerogative powers of the president. There are many cases where a need for prerogative powers is necessary and I think you expressed those points clearly. During a time of national crisis and a compromise of American safety, the president needs these powers to have immediate action. Waiting on Congress to vote on its approval would disregard the safety of the American people. Having such a decision when faced with international conflicts can be complex as well due to many people probably not agreeing with how the president wants to handle a situation without the approval of Congress.
I also agree with your example of how many people would not view the wall as absolutely necessary to protect the lives of the American people. It would be viewed rather as a strategy for the long term but not essential for the immediate protection of citizens. Many people would not be pleased if President Trump were to exercise his prerogative powers to build the wall as they would think he is stepping over his boundaries of influence.
LikeLike
I agree with your view on the presidents use of prerogative powers. I believe that a prerogative power, if used, should be well informed on both sides of an issue before being used. Often this is not the case, for example Trump’s Wall. Just like you stated the Wall, for many people, is a non-crisis and should not even been considered as an act under prerogative powers. Although I am partially for the use of these powers, I think that they should only ever be truly used in situations that are dire and are an actual concern for majority of the American public. Prerogative powers should rather be used to address immediate and dire issues such as a threat of nuclear annihilation or addressing poverty or climate change. Regardless of who the president is, if they use the prerogative powers in a way that I agree with, then I will have no qualms with the use of the power itself. However, if they use the power in a way that is blatantly biased and harms many people, then I will be steadfastly opposed to the use of the power. It is for these reasons why I think the use of prerogative powers is a touchy subject that has many pros and cons.
LikeLike
Hello Sandra,
I definitely agree with your view that the effectiveness of prerogative powers depends on the situation it is used for. The example of Trump’s Wall is a good example of a misuse of prerogative powers because as you said, it is entirely unnecessary. Not only will building the wall cost the United States a lot of money, but it is also immoral to section off an entire group of people from entering the United States. However, when prerogative powers are used to protect the nation from a serious attack such as a nuclear bomb, it is necessary because it provides a quick response.
LikeLike
The current executive administration is attracting a lot of attention lately; there are many controversies surrounding the recent executive orders and actions made by the White House. Dr. Stauffer‘s speech elucidated the source of this issue and its importance in our politics today. I believe it is necessary for a president to have prerogative powers to combat and address challenges and emergencies in the nation. However, as Dr. Stauffer mentioned, it is imperative for the people and the congress to stand up against the executive branch if the president introduces totalitarian, oppressive, and brutal measures to our nation.
This issue of prerogative powers dates to early American history; the famous federalist and Anti-Federalist papers highlight many issues still being discussed today regarding the president’s power. There are many examples in U.S history where presidential powers were used to boost the U.S economy, for instance, the famous Louisiana purchase. The Louisiana Purchase was a seminal moment for a new nation. The land involved in the 830,000 square mile treaty would eventually encompass 15 states. If the president only followed the constitution by letter, then the purchase would have not been possible. Jefferson had to expand the executive power to negotiate land treaties with foreign powers. More recently, Franklin D. Roosevelt dramatically expanded the powers of the presidency to combat the Great Depression. By the end of World War II, the presidency was a much stronger office than the one that Roosevelt had inherited.
While these expansions of powers proved to be beneficial, Dr. Stauffer mentioned that these prerogative powers can set precedent in the minds of everyone. Furthermore, emergency power is a pathway to a tyrannical government. In other words, no matter how capable and efficient the current administration might be at handling prerogative powers, there will be a future president that will misuse and/or abuse that power.
Prerogative powers shaped our current nation; the president needs to use it in order to lead the country effectively. But it is the responsibility of congress and more importantly, the people, to constantly watch the president and protest any misuse of this power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that the general public/media needs to continually watch the actions of the president and the federal government as a whole. The use of prerogative power should only be used in times when the need for action is great, such as the examples that you raised. However, I feel that more recent presidents have been testing the limits of this emergency power. Only by attentively holding the government accountable can we continue to resist the government from abusing the power it has been given.
LikeLike
You raise a good point, in that the people and congress have a responsibility to respond accordingly when a leader begins to abuse prerogative and emergency powers, because such abuse of power can lead to a type of tyrannical situation in government. As you said, such powers have been widely used throughout the history of our country, and thus the precedent of its use is a strong part of our political system, specifically with regard to the executive branch. As history has shown such powers have proven to be necessary, but that does not mean those powers should be without bound.
LikeLike
Professor Stauffer offered a compelling look at how early modern political theory applies to modern political issues. He mentioned John Locke’s proposal of prerogative powers that allow the executive to act unilaterally when he or she deems necessary. I think this is similar to the war powers and power of executive order, both of which have been used by previous presidents.
Though I understand Locke’s reasoning behind prerogative power, I don’t think think a president ought to have this amount of power. While prerogative power can and has been used for worthy causes, such as Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals, it can also be used to side step the constitution to pass laws that many Americans and members of government don’t agree with. Professor Stauffer brought up that according to Locke, the worst thing for prerogative power is actually a good leader using it in a positive way, like how it has been used by previous presidents, because it sets up a precedent for future leaders to use prerogative powers at their own discretion. To me this is a warning against the use of prerogative power. While a great president can use it in a times of emergency or to improve the nation, another president can use it to do the opposite. I also feel that the use of prerogative power has increased over the last 2 decades, and that this is a problem that ties into Locke’s warning of setting the precedent.
Ultimately, my opinion on the use of prerogative power does depend on who is using it, and what they’re using it to accomplish, which is why Locke’s warning is so important to me. While executive orders can be used to pass righteous laws and escape gridlock, their potential to erode democracy is too great for them to be employed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You bring up a good point about Locke’s warning and how eventually the power will start being more frequently used, which leads to a higher chance of presidents abusing it. A lot of the public believes the president is abusing this power currently by shutting down the government nationwide to be able to build a wall on our southern border. You are correct about how the more times this power is used correctly, the more credible it becomes, and the more vulnerable it is to future presidents abusing it. It’s a twisted sequence, but evidently inevitable.
LikeLike
Hello Trae,
You brought up many great points regarding Locke’s warning against prerogative powers especially due to the precedent set by previous presidents. I think that it is essential for a president to use it with caution. Where we differ in our opinions on the subject is that I think presidents should have this power during times of crisis, knowing he can step over the boundaries of the constitution to protect the country. When electing a president, the people essentially trust them with prerogative powers and it is no interesting surprise why many world leaders consider the United States President to be possibly the most influential and powerful human at the moment.
I have also seen the trend of the presidents using prerogative powers over the last two decades increase and that is possibly from the presidents wanting to fulfill their political agenda. However, I do not see how the positive use of prerogative powers can be dangerous as it would instead set a precedent on certain issues to focus on.
LikeLike
I found it interesting that Locke thinks that the worst thing for prerogative power is for it to be used in a positive way. Maybe I just misunderstood the point, but why would Locke propose such a mechanism if to use it effectively is to paradoxically set us up for failure?
LikeLike
Dr. Stauffer gave a very well informed and insightful look into how the philosophers of modernity still can help us to navigate our modern world and the challenges we face. However, one of the most important and currently relevant issues he mentioned was that of prerogative powers of the executive branch. John Locke suggested that, in times of a crisis, the president would be allowed to perform any deed or pass any law that he deems necessary, without the permission or approval of Congress. There are plenty of ups and downs to having such as thing be in our government, but I am personally divided on the subject. For me, the whole point of having three branches of Government is to bring balance, representation and unity to America as whole. The whole idea of being able to bypass the will of Congress or the people to impose the will of the executive branch sounds completely off to me. I feel that much more growth and understanding would be made if we let democracy do its thing and have a large group of people from varying stances decide on an issue together. However, I do understand how long decision making can be, especially if it is a contentious issue. In cases such as those, like a crisis, I am open to the idea of the president using prerogative powers. My opinion wouldn’t really change whether I liked the president or not, as my opinion doesn’t really have to do with the president all too much. It is rather whatever that the president wishes to use the prerogative power for and the method in which they decide to obtain it. If I do not agree with the way that the president wants to use prerogative powers to solve an issue, for example Trump’s wall, I will not support the use of the power itself regardless of who uses it. Technically a president that I do not like could use the power in a way that I approve and vice versa. Overall, I am open to the power belonging to the president, but I am very critical of how they use it and would like a system to be in place to check such a power if it were to get out of hand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I definitely agree and am on the same boat as you. “Divided” seems to be the right word for the feeling since this power could be drastic, like the current situation you talked about in the United States, or it could be really beneficial as an immediate action for a nationwide crisis. It honestly just depends on the president and how responsible and understanding they are to handle a power like that. You also bring up a good point about how decisions made in the government can take a while to go through and be approved; this is a good support for having the prerogative powers. It just also seems off to me that the president can bypass every institution set in place to check their power.
LikeLike
Hi Antonio! I think I agree with you in regards to the idea that there should be some sort of system in place to check the prerogative powers of the president. It just seems so exploitable and the ambiguous meaning of “crisis” makes it seem so prone to misuse. I guess for now we’d just have to rely on ourselves–the people–as well as our representatives to stay vigilant in keeping our president in line.
LikeLike
You are correct that congress is slow at delivering an appropriate solution to an immediate threat. During times of real crisis, we need an entity that is united and swift at decision making; executive branch is the perfect solution. I agree with you that the use of the prerogative power should not be assessed on who the president is, but how does the policy impact the American government. A president should not take the government hostage to pass a funding for a law. Furthermore, a president who abuses his or her powers to by pass congressional approval can set path to a totalitarian government.
Unfortunately, we still must face this issue today where the president shuts down the government and fabricates “national emergencies” to pass the funding for the Wall. We must be extra cautions because a president who manufactures emergencies to bypass checks and balances can set a precedent to a tyrannical rule.
LikeLike
Sorry, This was meant as a reply to Antonio F Cannata’s post. Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Stauffer gave an interesting talk on why modern philosophy is important and why the modern philosophers are in particular important to our society, the way we think philosophically, and the political institutions that govern the world today. Of particular interest was when he talked about the prerogative powers of a head of state. With regard to that idea, it is difficult to say whether or not such powers would be appropriate and whether or not they should be allowed to leaders such as the president. As Dr. Stauffer mentioned, the most dangerous situation with regard to prerogative powers is not a bad leader who misuses it, but a good leader who uses it well, because that set the stage for a potentially bad leader to take that ability and abuse it while still following the precedent of its use.
One must consider both sides of that case, and then decide what is the greater evil: Allowing a president to have that power so that in situations where national security is at risk, he or she is able to act necessarily for the better of the country, even if their actions may not necessarily be allowed in the context of the law or constitution, and thus invite the possibility of a president who uses that same power arbitrarily? Or forcing the president to act strictly within the bounds of the constitution, thus preventing them from taking actions outside the law that might have been able to help secure the country? I find the former to be somewhat a better option, because I feel it would be better to have the prerogative power and not need it, than to need it and not have it, if some situation were to occur. I’m sure that in the moment, my opinion would change if I did not agree with the president’s actions, but I think that is a natural reaction when your opinions differ from policies that are put forth, and that when wielded correctly, prerogative powers would be a useful tool in necessary times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You raise a good point with your questions, and I agree with your assessment of them. The office of the president is supposed to be the leader of United States, and as a leader it sometimes is necessary to do what is needed for the good of the people. I also agree that it is a natural reaction to either agree or disagree with the use of prerogative power by a president, but I feel that we should define our opinion of prerogative powers based upon the application of them and not the president.
LikeLike
Prerogative powers are a necessary power of the president. They allow the president to be able to react to crises effectively and quickly since the power allows the president to circumvent other branches of government. A dilemma arises on what constitutes a crisis. Due to the nature of the power, the ability to enact it is up to the discretion of the president. The general public does not have a say in the matter when these powers are enacted. Professor Stauffer pointed out that the use of prerogative powers by a good leader is more dangerous than the use of the power by a bad one.
The reason why the use of prerogative powers by a good leader, i.e. one who is effective and suave in political/social/economic problems, is more dangerous is because it can set a precedent for the future presidents. When this power is used in the right situation, it can lead to public approval which in turn justifies the president’s reason for using the power. This justification can lead to that president or future presidents being more open to exercising the power in other situations where it may not be necessary. At this point, the power can make the president corrupt and it hurts the political balance of the United States’ separation of powers. On the Contrary, the use of prerogative power by a bad president, i.e. one that is making poor political/social/economic choices as deemed by the general public, causes a backlash when the power is used by the public. This disapproval can deter that president and future presidents from using the power haphazardly.
Our presidents should have the ability to act without approval in only certain crises such as invasion, natural disaster, and protection of the public by some preemptive actions. Whether or not the president is considered a “bad” or “good” leader, they should be wary when using this power. The president should not use his power to circumvent Legislative or Judiciary Branches, or respond to issues that can be solved by the processes laid out in the Constitution. This mode of thinking would not change on my preference of the president that is in office.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that prerogative powers are necessary, and that in situations where the president needs to act outside of the law for the betterment of the country, he or she should be able to act in that regard. I think it would be difficult for such a power to be regulated, however, precisely because such a power is not strictly outlined within the law or the constitution. As a result, that leaves it open to being potentially abused by a bad leader, as was mentioned in the talk. Ultimately I think such a possibility does not outweigh the necessity of prerogative powers.
LikeLike
I feel that this is a hard question to answer with a clear answer since it depends on a couple variables. One has to have a trust in their president to take action in the best interest of the people of the United States. The president also needs to have a good understanding of when to use immediate action- when the country is in a state of danger, under attack, etc. In cases where action is needed and congress is refusing to do anything, the president then needs to step in and use their prerogative powers. This all makes sense; it just throws off the concept of checks and balances for me. For the president to be able to get past the authority of the people and institutions in the government put in place to check the president’s power, it seems to be getting a little close to tyrannical. Obviously, in a crisis quick action must be taken and prerogative powers are needed for that.
In a crisis situation, I would most likely forget about my bias toward or against the president. As long as they make the right decision, I am all for it. Currently in our nation, however, our president has called for a nationwide government shutdown to be able to build a border wall on the United States’ southern border. This does not seem to be a pressing issue at the moment so I do not understand this urgent and drastic decision he made, resulting in many to lose their pay during this whole time period. In this case, I do not approve of the power being used here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Pooja,
I agree that this was a hard question to answer, as there are many variables that affect what a president ought to do. You make a good point that in a crisis situation, most would forget about their personal feelings towards the president and support the use of prerogative power. However ‘crisis’ is a term that can be used very loosely, and not everyone agrees what constitutes a crisis. For example, some people truly believe that illegal immigration is a crisis and executive action is justifies. The only way to fix this would be to create a hard set definition of crisis that allows for use of prerogative power, but at that point it wouldn’t be prerogative power.
LikeLike
This is definitely a power presidents should have as there are many cases where there needs to be immediate action to solve a crisis and Congress would not want to cooperate because it conflicts with their personal beliefs or that they are from the opposite political party. Having prerogative powers helps the world understand that the president is powerful and is not merely an operating completely under checks and balances, which gives him a more respected view by world leaders. Another way having prerogative powers is beneficial is that if there is an immediate operation that needs to be conducted for the safety of the American people, the president can launch the operation so that he complete the task without having the approval of others in government. I like to think the president will use their power for the best interest of all Americans, but that is not always the case of course. My opinion definitely depends on who is president and how I feel about that person. If I do not agree with the president, I would be more inclined to think the use of prerogative powers is to further his political agenda and ideologies. I would not think their actions are for the benefit and safety of all Americans. If I agree with the president, I would see the use of their power for the best interest of all Americans. I would see their use of it as inclusive.It simply just depends on who is the President and how they use prerogative powers.
LikeLike