The Powers of War and Peace - Essay Example

Have recent changes in governance improved or weakened the ability of citizens to influence the way they are governed? I have selected the United States of America, and the first issue which I will address is the issue of the unitary presidency ,which I assert has detracted from the realisation of democratic ideals. This paper is being guided on the premise, that people are in accord with the concept of governance because they possess a basic need for security and maintence.It is the reasonableness of most, that it is much more desirable to be co-existing under soverign rule, than to be reacting to the chaos of anarchy. It is very basically for the maintence of safety and public harmony that people are willing to tolerate, being governed. Today there is little debate on how and why the American constitution was constructed.The framers of the constitution took very special care when formulating the document to bestow assurances that it would not be subjected to political change, lest it be ever so slow and extremely difficult. Indeed, through out the history of this document, and the American Republic, we have seen a multitude of ingenious insurgents become frustrated in their confounded attempts to wreak havoc on the checks and balances.On the other hand, the experiences have been extremely gratifying to view, as the finely orchestrated mechanisms which had been previously set into motion to circumvent such attacks, proved their essence in words.The theory is at the very least an intriguing paradigm, because its manifestation upon the political scene was probably very unexpected, and definitely never before witnessed. Sure, the progressives, launched an attack against formalism, but this battle served to revamp the manner in which the government went about conducting its business, but it generally made the government more accountable to the public, and the presidency regained its respectability, because of its sensitivity and ostensible conectivideness to the voting populace. The progressives earnestly believed that Jackson had placed himself, and that of the presidency in an exalted position, and in so doing he created mechanisms which would enable him with presidential deference to forgeo the desired will of the people.The unitary theory, and its level of acceptance has not been welcomed by anyone other than the neo-conservatives, as federalism was only accepted by the Jeffersonians, as an effort to create a more expansive presidency,e unitary presidency has sought to thwart democracy as well.(Harvard Law Review).This transgression upon the presidency does not foster security and maintence,It does not sustanin public safety, and harmony, and this runs counter to the purpose of establishing a government in the first place. George Bush and his group of neo-conservatives, viewed the constitution as a strict constructionist instrument, and it was not their intentent or interpretation, that the president should be restricted by the constitutional dictates, nor should he be accountable to those whom he took an oath to defend and protect, the neo-conservatives had a more aggressive intent on their agenda, and they presented George Bush with enermous latitudes of independence.As noted, the attempts to be dissatisified with what exists, if for no other reason that it does not give credence to your agenda, is certainly not a new concept. Virginia theorist John Taylor of Caroline decried the tendency of ideologically charged movements to change the Constitution without amendment. The “predominant sect” simply reinterpreted the text, proceeding by means of “construction” to render it more amenable to attainment of the new political purposes in view. Constraints on programmatic action gave way before a “machine called inference,” a machine that works by “conceding [constitutional] principles, and then construing them away. ( TAYLOR 1998) (1820). One must understand that the unitary theory is manifested with a number of variations, and as such it does not necessarily dictate that a proponent of one variation is in accord with all the proponents of another.(Calabresi& Yoo, 2008).They do however, emanate from the same source, and they do embody the same primary objective, which is the prevailing principle of the separation of powers, with a particular emphasis on the constitutional inference of the granting of independent powers to the president.(Calabresi,1995). This has been effectuated into attempts to imply that with the presidency comes expansive powers, and responsibilities, of which only the president reserves exclusivity. The neo-conservative posture is one which takes much credence in Article II of the constitution, which speaks to the vesting clause, and the other domains of unfettered actions which are contained in the oath of office, the take care clause, and the commander-in-chief clause, the theory has been super-imposed to expand discreationary actions taken by the president.It has even been put forward as a defence to justify the presidents action of engaging the sons of mothers in unilateral, and perhaps illegal war action.(Yoo,2006). George Bush and his band of neo-conservatives deeply internalized their perception of presidesidential exclusivity which had as its hallmark, the deception of the American electorate and the world. Not only did they remove the right of the people to be informed, they circumvented the right of the people to be honestly informed about the state of American affairs, and they exhibited total disdain for federal as well as international law.In strict adherence to the unitary theory, Colin Powell was dispatched by Bush to appear before the UN.He was provided bogus intelligence on the status of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. Powell was ostensibly seeking the approval of the security council to initiate a strike within the sovereign state of Iraq. The position of the council is that no state shall launch pre-emptive strikes against other member states. Powell’s appearance before the security council, as perceived by the Bush administration, was not actually to seek permission, it was in fact a notification to the world of intent. An articulation of The George W. Bush Doctrine, which emphatically addresses the issue of preemptive war can be found in the text of the "National Security Strategy of the United States", which was published on 9/20/2002. President George W. Bush states,. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." (Bush Doctrine 2002). Long before Powell appeared before the UN, the Bush administration had decided that they possessed the unfettered right, to ignore the law. There was little doubt in anybody’s mind that Sadaam Hussien was not a good person,but was he any worse than any of the hundreds of strong arm mass murdering leaders across the globe? Moreover, was he worth the shedding of American blood? Not only did the Bush administration send our warriors off on a mission which could have been deferred, he violated the trust of the American people, by becoming obsessed with vengeance, while ignoring the economic affairs of state, and during his unitary watch, he permitted the American economy to slip into the most dramatic free fall of the century. The will of the people were not served by his unitary executive existence, and by the time he left office, his approval ratings as per the polls: CNN, Gallup, and NY Times, was well below thirty percent.On the same note, the confidence level of the public in governments ability to govern, was parallel to his low double digit negative rating. The Obama administration needs to increase the levels and amount of transparency concerning issues, and allow for public input. Moreover, the arrogance which the unitary executive has previously displayed must be eradicated from the public domain. Of course, agendas are a fact of political life,and this administration must align its agenda with the priorities of the public good, not with those that are self-serving, or are aligned with multi-national corporate lobbying.Moreover, there must be strict adherence to the laws and principles which accord themselves with good governance. The second issue has to do with the Patriots Act.It was signed into law by President Bush, two days subsequent to the attacks of September 11. There is no question, there is extreme difficulty in maintain democratic values with the persistent threat of terrorism. It is cumbersome to sustain a reasonable line of human rights, transparency and detention.The Patriot Act was characterized in some quarters as a very necessary tool in fighting the war on terrorism. While on the other hand it was viewed as a mechanism, which would erode the constitutional guarantees, Americans had always enjoyed.Additionally,since large pockets of the American populace are either foreign born, or first generation assimilators, that some if not most policy makers, might have the tendency to attach terrorism to immigration.Meissner (2009), argues that treating these individuals as though they were terrorists could present a plethora of problems from a civil rights stand point, and it also smacks of convoluted logic.She goes on to present the argument that if these individuals are treated with dignity, it is conceivable that they can be valuable assets. Instead the government has sought to pursue a path of decreasing the number of visa denials of individuals from Muslim countries. The long term negative affect of our visa policy will no doubt, result in a reduction in the number of international students at American Universities, and this could reasonably have an adverse affect on long term national interest, as the policy tends to limit exposure to our home grown values. The other side of the coin concerning the argument presented by Meissner,is that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks were residing in the United States legally, and there was little effort prior to the attacks to screen out potential terrorists. There are arguments which are based in sound reasoning and vigilance which suggest that the government must monitor and evaluate visa requests, and there should not be any limits or boundaries placed as requisites on this security. However, as the Patriot Act approaches terrorism with a broad stroke, and the surveillance techniques and procedures are conducted at the discretion of the authorities involved, the law does not place any limits. This allows an authority who might entertain a suspicion, to search or tap the phones of citizens or non-citizens to pursue this path without notification, or permission.If and when such a procedure is undertaken, notification of the incident only occurs if the person is convicted. Clearly, the Patriot Act is not a panacea, but there are many who believe that the Act has contributed to a heightened security within the country.However, if we are going to restore the public faith in this area of governance, we must be willing to show that the US has a vested interest in supporting hope for democracy, human rights, civil rights, equal rights, and the rule of law. Bibliography Taylor, J. (8ed 20), Construction construed and Constitutions Vindicated 23,(Lawbook Exch. 1998) (1820). Harvard Law Review Vol. 122:2070 Calabresi. S.G. & Yoo, C.S. (2008), The Unitary Executive, 18-21. Calabresi, S.G.,(1995),Some Normative Arguments for the Unitary Executive, 48 ARK. L. REV. 23, 45–70 (1995); YOO,J., (2006), The Powers of War and Peace] John Yoo, War by any other means:An Insider Account of the War On Terror (2006). National Security Strategy of the United States National Security Council September 2, 2002,The evolution of the Bush Doctrine, in The war behind closed doors, frontline, PBS, February 20, 2003 Meissner,D.,(2008),The US Patriots Act Affect on Civil Liberties,Open Society Institute & Soros foundation Institute Read More