The President’s ability to succeed, I believe, is influenced by the time he lives in. This is because the Presidents are mythicized through their term and after; allowing them to have a much greater influence than many might think! These mythicization, idolization, and demonization are all influenced by the era these people lived in and how they were thought of even during their Presidency, not just long after. 

George Washington was idolized for what he was able to do, the actions that led to the creation of the nation we hold today. He was present in the right time to achieve these goals, living in the time of revolution against the British Empire. The man even turned down the position of Commander of the Revolutionary forces, suggesting someone else but his fellow delegates pushed him enough that he would agree. Despite his hesitations, his results would let him be the first President voted in unanimously! The era he lived would all allow him to achieve the goal of founding the United States and lead to his place as President of the United States.

Jimmy Carter fell into obscurity and ridiculed despite success in aiding Africa and improving health there. It was not seen as an overly important thing to the American people at the time so he did not feed into the mentality of the people of his time. While many Americans will mock his term and successes, the people of Africa do greatly appreciate him and his stance against the dominating white minority in South Africa. Despite the good there, it was overshadowed by other failings that people were more influenced by such as; the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan which played into their Red Scare and even the Iranian hostage situation which hurt his image. In the end, he failed to win a reelection thanks to the drop in popularity.

Overall, I think that there is indeed an importance to the times a person is in. The events that will occur, the views of the people on those events, and how people view your success and failure. The ability of a President to succeed is interconnected to these events and how they use the tools at their disposal to try and do what’s best for their nation.

Going in favor of Yalof, the President upholds too much power over the decision making for the Supreme Court Judge. The Supreme Court nominations were something to uphold and deem what is truly constitutional, instead it has become a constant power grab from each Presidential Candidate that gets a chance to add a new judge. This judge is meant to uphold the constitutional validity of the laws that are passed and rulings given by the courts on a state, local, and even federal level.  The President is meant to pick this person who will remain in the position of power until their death or something withdraws them early, though this is rare. A single man who was elected by the majority though merely a simple majority oftentimes. Without representing all people or deciding with a group who present that representation, they are to pick a candidate that will endure for many years to come; deciding on what is constitutional by their view which is often reflective of the party that pushed them forward. 

The President represents someone who is the face of his party. They elect this person into power and we expect them to put someone into the Supreme Court that doesn’t seek to advance their own party’s agenda? Instead of picking someone based on merit and view point, they are instead selected based primarily on their own party. When Trump was President, he pushed forth a Conservative Supreme Court nomination over a Liberal one. You could argue that this has been due to the qualifications but there were surely more qualified individuals that were not able to advance simply because of the political party they identify with. The President is given a huge opportunity to input someone that will help advance their view of what the constitution is and that is a rather large thing given how the people view this position. The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land, how they rule on something is how it shall remain for years to come. Presidents have been given the power to rule and decide what is right based on who they nominate and that is a bit too much power for one person to have.

The Constitution is an open and broadly interpreted document but is also what would be considered a living document. A good way to better understand this open to interpretation aspect of the document is that the constitution is like a circle. You can move and read within those spaces but there’s still a border, a rim, a limiting factor. When reading into the document, you can read in those spaces but you can’t read inside it and then end up pushing outside the circle. There’s still a form of limitations to interpretation, it is open, not limitless. The President has gained more power and has the ability to enact military power overseas. This is due to the fact that the President is within the branch that is given the ability to do so. The ability to conduct war and the ability to declare are separated aspects of the government that are meant to act as a checks and balance, allowing limitations and coordination requirements. 

During the creation of the constitution, there was never the thought of where we would be in the current day. So much has changed and the very world is something entirely foreign them. The interconnectivity of each nation has become something that is now a requirement rather than an option. What the Founding Fathers were able to hold in foresight was that the nation would continue to grow and interact with others, keeping to a basic foundation allowed for more flexibility over time. The separation of powers would allow the continued existence of the nation through releasing the ability to control the military and declare war powers. This simple divide would ease any corruptive attempts to abuse the system and unleash the nation’s might onto whoever Congress or the President might have quarrels with. Instead the President is Commander in Chief, able to dispatch the military at his own call, though not immune to public image decay or Congressional disapproval. There is the catch that it must be in defense though and not in direct opposition through aggressive action. The degree of power unleashed though and involvement might be seen as offensive but it can be argued that it is still defensive if it is to protect American assets. Such loopholes in the War Powers Resolution are what allows the President to still take action even when Congress holds no stance or is still debating through one. 

I can not say either or is the correct one but I can say that I do have a leaning of agreement towards Byron E. Shafer and their stance on the matter. This matter being, should the President be elected directly by the people of the United States. Though Byron E Shafer has a point too on how the Electoral College has a purpose and a need to exist. Burdett Loomis states that it is important for the people to determine the results of an election rather than a group that risks polarization as he deemed. This form of Electoral College we have now does further support and push a two party system but it is through the actions of the people that this remains. When displaying my leanings in support for Byron E Shafer, I believe that the Electoral College does hold a strength as it removes the wild card factor of the people such as ‘in the moment’ mentality and their attraction towards those who are more popular. These factors include the bandwagon mentality that is often on display in America and would prevent a popularity contest from forming! Instead you have the Electoral College who will each look at what a Presidential Candidate, aside from a ‘common struggle’ and determine what is best for their state as per their election. Those who vote for their state are trusted to vote in the favor of their ideals, representing the people. While there can be times where the responsible individual who is meant to make the vote may go against what his elected position was meant to side with, these people know the risks and how unlikely a reelection may be. 

There is also the downside that when you take into account the smaller states, the Electoral College allows them to have more of an impact than they might have before. Dominance through a few key states would be the way to ensure victory by sheer mass of votes but you also have the downside of an already polarized system which would draw people more into conflict. When people vote and express anger over the results, they don’t always view that aggression towards the opposite voters but rather the state itself or the Electoral College. By using the Electoral College, you are almost creating a buffer zone between the people of opposing views and allows for a sort of cushion against political hostility projected towards the common man. I think overall the Electoral College creates more of a safety net and presents more pro’s rather than con’s. While I can see the good in having the people control things more directly, you have such a low voter turnout usually that you would then make it far more impactful when someone doesn’t vote versus allowing a designated official to speak on your collective’s behalf. Depending on what you favor for speaking as a group or having someone speak for the group, either can have more appeal over the other. In the end, I side more with Byron E Shafer and think that the importance of the Electoral College should remain present and continue to act as that voice for the many rather than the many trying to speak at once.