After considering both sides of this debate, I would have to say that I agree with the claims of Quirk and state that I personally feel that the character, experiences, merit, and other personality traits of the person holding the presidency has a greater impact on politics than the institution itself does. I feel this way for many reasons, but above all, I would argue that the presidency has not changed all that much since its birth in the eighteenth century and that much of its change was implemented and shaped by the decisions and events dictated by past presidents and their administrations. If you think about it, our political institutions would not exist without the actors that fill their roles and who engage in political activities. Their views and ideologies shape their policies and dictate their priorities, which shape our government and the people’s perception of it.

Oftentimes, I think that people underestimate the power that an individual can have, whether it be positive or negative. Take Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler as two very different examples; these two people had significant roles in two different historical events. Dr. King’s charisma and incredible ability to relate to and lift people up brought great inspiration in the Civil Rights Movement, whereas Hitler took advantage of a vulnerable Germany by asserting himself as a powerful leader and brainwashing them into thinking that genocide could ever be justified. Furthermore, I think that a person with average leadership skills that blends into the background, a wallflower per se, usually does not have a great impact on the institution aside from perhaps making people think they wasted time that could have been dedicated to bettering various things, but on the other hand, a leader with great charisma and communication skills can make significant waves. On the opposite side of the spectrum would be a leader that has serious defects, as put by Quirk, can cause serious issues and chaos. Two examples that come to mind are FDR, whose incredible leadership and ability to bring people together on a common ground in response to a national crisis, and then Donald Trump, whose negative words and actions incited a horrendous act of violence against the Capitol and many Congresspeople.

Presidential competency can also largely dictate the successfulness of a presidency; the president is in charge of a great deal of tasks, such as overseeing the relationships between and the functioning of the many federal government entities, and if he is not competent in performing these often complex tasks, then this could lead to the ultimate failure of an administration. A president that is more successful and/or competent in delegating tasks, managing time and priorities, and communicating with others is much more likely to implement policy, make positive and lasting change, and be perceived as a legitimate leader. A president’s competence is also vital in situations regarding national security; a president’s decisions can determine whether or not a disastrous war breaks out. Take George W. Bush and the disastrous war with the Middle East–due to his personal beliefs, he was able to sway intelligence agencies into confirming that the “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist. Not only can a president’s competence determine his success, but other factors, such as his energy and emotional intelligence can, as well. As Quirk points out, energetic lobbying and advocacy from the president can sway the results of a critical vote.

Riley von Borstel

This topic is certainly something I have pondered about before reading the arguments of both the pro and con sides of this debate, and even after reading both arguments, I still have to agree with the justification of the con side. In other words, no, I do not think that the President has too much power in the selection of judges. On the contrary, I think Congress perhaps has too much power in their role of the selection of judges, and they use the judicial branch as yet another weapon in the ever-increasing bipartisanship of American politics.

For those that consider themselves to be literalists regarding the Constitution, it is important to consider the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned that the president must consult members of Congress prior to making their judicial nominations–but they are certainly welcome to if they desire. What it seems is that the “advice” from Congress that is mentioned in the Constitution comes from the deliberation that takes place in the legislative branch post-nomination from the president. The role that the president has in this process–selecting the nominees–makes legitimate sense, as if it were up to the members of the legislative branch, then the process would take exponentially longer due to the many different opinions involved in the process. As Nathaniel Gorham argued during the Constitutional Convention, “the Senate was still ‘too numerous, and too little personally responsible, to ensure a good choice.'” Furthermore, James Madison added that the executive would be more likely than the Senate to select individuals fit for the position and that by requiring the “consent and advice” of the Senate there would be the ever-important checks and balances.

When the founders were discussing the issue at hand during the Constitutional Convention, they figured that the Senate voting against the judicial nominations of the president would be a rare occurrence and that it would only occur in times where the Senate felt that the president had a personal or familial connection to the nominee. Of course, this was far before the current hyper partisan climate that we are experiencing today, in which it is extremely common for members of the Senate to reject a nominee merely based on their ideological stance. This is why I feel that perhaps the Senate holds too much power in the role of selecting judicial members. Because the Senate holds this power, they can control who is placed on these courts and will inevitably choose nominees that belong to the same political party, and, therefore, have a similar agenda. They can also use a variety of means to block candidates they are not in favor of without blatantly shooting them down, such as filibusters and through the blue-slip procedure. In my opinion, this is maltreatment of the power that the Senate has been granted in the selection of judicial officials. It does not matter how qualified one may be for the position they have been nominated for, most Senators will not vote to confirm them merely on the basis that they belong to a political party. As time went on and the polarization of political parties grew, the frequency of filibusters and blue-slipping continued to increase, until it got to the point where the amount of time it took to confirm a judicial nominee grew to be excruciatingly long–the median time is currently 225 days. This is yet another example of hyper bipartisanship making it so our federal government is largely unproductive. To wrap up my argument, I wanted to relay a quote from Maltese that I feel adequately sums up why the president does not have too much power in judicial nominations:

“In contrast, President Trump’s judicial nominees were confirmed relatively quickly and easily. Media accounts heralded the ‘historic pace’ set in 2018… That pace did not reflect a president with too much power: it reflected a Senate that was doing its job.” After the president makes his nomination, the ball is then in the court of Senators to do their job and fill these seats.

Riley von Borstel

Prior to reading this debate regarding the right to declare war, I didn’t really have a strong opinion on the subject, so I had to think long and hard about my position after reading the points made by both sides of the argument. After reading this chapter of Debating the Presidency, I would have to say that I agree with the Con side–argued by Bauer–more so than I do with Kassop, who wrote the Pro argument. I think that both Bauer and Kassop made some excellent points, but in the end, Bauer’s reasoning resonated with my way of thinking more. I do not think that the executive branch has usurped the right to declare war from Congress.

One of the arguments made on the Pro side was that declaring war should be something decided by more than one person due to the magnitude of repercussions this decision inevitably will have on society. This is true, yes, but it does not prove that the executive branch has usurped the right to declare war from the legislative branch. Yes, I do think that there have been a handful of presidents that have abused their constitutional right to emergency powers and that the ambiguity of the Constitution allows presidents to justify any action in such a way that it is deemed necessary, but this does not answer the question at hand. In fact, there have been a plethora of instances where Congress took actions to support war efforts initiated by the president, such as passing legislation for funding that continues the conflict. For example, take the Vietnam War: people argued that Congress had been coerced into beginning the conflict, when they were very aware of the fact the plan to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops. A deployment of that magnitude could only mean one thing–full-fledged war. Regardless of whether or not a president decides to deploy troops, Congress can put a stop to it if they do not support the executive’s actions. The legislative branch can do this in a number of ways, such as enactment of legislation holding the executive accountable for actions regarding the use of military force, not declaring war within the allotted sixty day period, or even by impeachment of the president. In short, Congress has many ways to keep war from occurring if they disagree with the actions of the president.

A statement that Bauer made that really resonated with me was that many people on the opposite side of the argument portray Congress has being a helpless victim that had the right to declare war stolen from them, when in reality, the relationship between the two resembles a “complicated dance between the branches”. The Constitutional relationship between the executive and the legislature is complicated and messy, but simultaneously holds officials accountable for their actions and prevents tyranny. Also, I feel that if Congress were truly the passive victim of executive usurpation that the Pro side depicts it as, we surely would have transformed into an autocratic nation by now. Even though the president is regarded as the most powerful official in the United States government, I think that Congress, in some ways, is more so.

Rachel Nelson
Professor Lovecraft
PS F301
September 27, 2022

Debate 1

In the question of whether America’s president should be elected directly by the people (purely popular vote) or by the electoral college, Byron E. Shafer is correct in his vehement stance that the electoral college is a necessary institution of American democracy.

Shafer is correct for many reasons, some of which he discusses such as the polarization of contemporary politics and the need to have the popular vote filtered through the electoral college as a means to funnel it toward an “ideological middle” and how a true popular vote would a.) not actually reflect the desired outcome of the country, and b.) because a true popular vote would actually exacerbate party domination, not alleviate it.

Some other reasons to be in favor of the electoral college not unpacked by Shafer are that the electoral college can act like a sort of gatekeeper, ensuring that a charismatic demagogue who is a threat to democracy is less likely to be elected president, and that the individuals actually casting the vote in the presidential election are educated and invested in the current scene of politics in the nation and hopefully internationally.

In this current political climate in America there is extreme ideological polarization, creating extreme and narrowly-thought views on political issues on either side of the political spectrum. In order to find a more temperate, milder middle ground, filtering the popular vote through the electoral college ensures swing states are able to act as an “antipolarizer.”

The popular vote would also not actually elect the “most popular” presidential candidate as intended. With votes split between candidates, it is probable that someone running for president who garnered only a third of the nation’s vote or even less might be elected president where currently with the electoral college there is more likelihood of near half the country supporting the candidate that is ultimately elected.

Riley von Borstel

For as long as I’ve studied United States politics, I’ve had a definitive opinion regarding the Electoral College, and it’s that I don’t think that it is a positive thing for America. I read both the pros and cons laid out by Loomis and Shafer and my longtime opinion still stands–the Electoral College needs to go. I feel this way for several reasons, but the most prominent of my reasons is that as Loomis says, the Electoral College simply is not fair. It is based on old justifications from the country’s founders, all of whom lived in a time when illiteracy was a commonality and they simply did not trust the average American citizen to make educated political decisions. The fact is that this rationale is outdated and so is the Electoral College.

Something that really stuck out to me from Loomis’ argument was his statement about his vote in Kansas being worthless due to the fact that all of Kansas’ electoral votes have gone to the Republican candidate every election for the past 40 years. On the other hand, if he lived in a swing state, his vote would count and he could actively participate in a competitive election. Also, the Electoral College is notoriously hard for people to understand even though several articles are released about it every election cycle and many citizens question its legitimacy. Because of this system, not every vote carries the same amount of weight. In other words, this system is biased. The vote of a person in a swing state, such as Nebraska, could determine the next U.S. President, whereas the vote of someone in Texas could mean absolutely nothing. Due to this being the case, this is why a candidate that loses by millions of votes in the popular vote can still become the next president.