Many Americans would say a President cannot be too strong. They may be correct. However, is there a point at which the freedom of the nation is at risk? Yes. Should a president be allowed to violate the rights of the people? No. Lately, with the election and all it’s controversy looming, the question of whether the office of the president has become overbearing is being asked more and more. It is felt that so much power has been moved to the Executive branch from the other branches of government that our carefully developed representative republic is now in jeopardy. The Constitution—article II in particular-- is supposed to prevent this imbalance of power. However, it was written in different times and in a different type of society. The framers of the Constitution did not have our current technology of nuclear weapons or space travel or computers or television. They could not predict that the U.S. would become the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, able to eliminate all life in mere minutes at the …show more content…
They believed that, though the Constitution gave them many powers, they needed to have the flexibility to intervene in situations in ways not mentioned by the Constitution in order to improve the country. Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt are modern examples of this type of President. They often met with opposition to their actions and opinions by those who felt that the Constitutional limitations were ignored. The question of how much power the Presidency should be given is increasingly important due to the worsening instability of the economy and the world order. Presidential power has increased greatly through the years. Some who once believed in a strong presidency are now saying it is too strong. Reverting to a more balanced government is their ideal. I agree that returning some power to Congress is