Have presidents since the Second World War era justifiably stretched executive branch foreign policy powers ?
357261
While they most deffinitly have stretched their powers, in my personal opinion it has not been justified.
952849
George Bush never set foot outside the US until he became President. How could he possibly make a remotely rational decision on foreign policy? Travel as President of the US wouldn't give you any opportunity to assess the situation in any way other than from the view your handlers wanted you to have. Not only is the US foriegn policy isolationist, its the product of an isolated and insular executive.
1001290
The Constitution gives the President primary powers in foreign policy, but Congress has oversight and, ultimately, the power of the purse - if they don't like a particular course of action, they can refuse to fund it or authorize any monies to be spent on it.
400973
Actually, all of these Presidents were drawn into wars because the countries we fought were agressive against either the USA or one of our allies, and each had attempted to resolve the crisis with the UN (or the League of Nations for FDR).\n\nWe should, however, retroactively impeach Reagan and Bush I for starting wars just to draw our attention from other things rather than from legitimate national security concerns. Reagan invaded Grenada a few days after the Marine barracks at Beirut was destroyed, and Bush I invaded Panama the same day that Oliver North was indicted.\n\nSomehow I don't think I'm getting the ten points, but somehow I don't think you were looking for legitimate answers either.\n\nI guess I was right, you were not looking for legitimate answers.
648619
There is so much to say on this so I will keep my personal views relatively ( ! ) short; \nSince WW2, most western european nations have experienced the demise of empire and their previously almost unchallenged military and economic dominance. \nThey have learned from this humility that consultation and diplomacy is the best way forward when dealing with 'problem nations' . \nThis compared to the current (but I hope not permanent) American model of a kind of patriarchal dictatorship, negotiating from a position of economic and military dominance, with a claim of benevolance that belies its self interest. \nDictation of terms is a luxury that European nations no longer have. It promotes jealousy and resentment, in the same way that former colonies of European nations rebelled against their former masters, there is a growing movement of 'non aligned' nations that would like to change the world order once more.\nAmerica needs to learn from the modern and current European political style. It needs to be more pro-active in foreign policy, outward looking and sophisticated in its diplomacy if it wants to keep its position as a superpower.
912474
Technically and by law, presidents are 5-star generals and allowed to fight the war.\n\nNot necessarily physical, but strategically.
1016932
Bush doesn't want to be the President. He wants to be a dictator. That's why he has expanded executive power since he's been in office. Actually, Sandra Day O'Connor said some time ago that this country was slowly becoming a dictatorship. When a Republican-appointed former Supreme Court justice says something like that, you know we're in trouble!
107341
No! Does everyone not seem to notice that terrorism became large scale when Bush came into power? Nothing like this ever happened when Clinton was in power. I won't deny that Clinton had his faults, but when he it came to international relations, the man was on top of his game. Unless, the US elects a more intelligent and a more capable president, I fear that any actions taken by Bush and the US government will only make things a whole lot worse.
795550
It could be possible. The Consitution says the President can only be ELECTED to no more than 2 terms. \n\nIf the current President served as Vice President and due to an illness, death, or some other situation where the previous President could no longer function, than the Vice President would become President.\n\nOnly Franklin Delanore Roosevelt served more than 2 terms. He was elected for 4 terms and served 3 full terms and a few months of the 4th term. \n\nThe consitution was admended after his death to limit a President to only 2 terms.
144654
FDR, 1933-1945 in fact he set the precedent for future presidents only serving 2 terms
16305
Yes. A president can serve a maximum of two 4 year terms. Originally, this wasn't the case, a president could serve as many terms as he wanted. This changed when the 22nd amendment was ratified, limiting the President to 2 terms. \n\n"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
734890
Absolutely nothing, the Monroe Doctrine, stated in his 7th annual State of the Union in 1823, was that the United States did not recognize the right of any European power to exercise military authority on a country in the Western Hemisphere, and that such an attack would be considered an act of war against the United States.  The Roosevelt Corollary was that the United States would exercise Police powers in the Western Hemisphere.  Not only has the Roosevelt Corollary long since been discarded, it applied only to the Americas, unless I was grossly misled in Geography class, Iraq is not a country in North or South America.
168280
From what I remember from American history, though perhaps my memory fails, he was a very expansionistic president and he would send U.S. troops to places they shouldn't really have been. Perhaps he was the first president to give the impression of the U.S. as a sort of "bully" in this aspect, and even to day the U.S. has problems sending their troops where they don't belong. Overall though, he was one of America's finest presidents I beleive. Hey, nobody's perfect.\n\nYes, I did a quick check and that's right. He called it "New Imperialism."
551051
Nothing.  She basically is arm candy but most of them do all kinds of things.  Carter changed how mental heatlh was administered,  Hilary was the force behind the man, so was Elanor & Kennedy changed how the White house was kept up.  Nancy Reagan brought some elegance with china, crystal, silverware, linens, chefs, state dinners & entertaining.  State gifts that were American made too. Wilson's wife ran the country while he was laid up with a stroke.  So while officially they don't "do" anything they have all kinds of power & influence.
1106318
Nope. After FDR and his 4 terms the amendment limiting terms was put in place. It's 2 terms now, even if someone comes between.
611913
So, if I'm to be limited to your time frame, this would mean only Presidents since 1946, so which of these Presidents?\n\nHarry S. Truman\nDwight Eisenhower\nJohn Kennedy\nLyndon Johnson\nRichard Nixon\nGerald Ford\nJimmy Carter\nRonald Reagan\nGeorge H. W. Bush\nBill Clinton\nGeorge W. Bush\n\nEach has had his strengths, weaknesses, crisis's, conflicts and scandals but I'd order them like this and why:\n\nRonald Reagan - Gave America back it's pride after the 1980 election  against Jimmy Carter. Reagan broadened his appeal by espousing moderate policies, gaining much of his support from disaffected Democrats and blue-collar workers. The incoming administration immediately set out to “turn the government around” with a new economic program. Over strenuous congressional opposition, Reagan pushed through his “supply side” economic program to stimulate production and control inflation through tax cuts and sharp reductions in government spending. However, in 1982, as the economy declined into the worst recession in 40 years, and support for supply-side economics faded.\n\nNominated Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman on the Supreme Court.  Reagan's place in history will rest, perhaps, on the short- and intermediate-range missile treaty consummated on a cordial visit to the Soviet Union  with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan could point to numerous domestic achievements as well: sharp cuts in income tax rates, creating economic growth without inflation, and reducing the unemployment rate.\n\nBill Clinton - Presided over the greatest economic expansion in our lifetime. Mastered the art of employing incremental, rather than large-scale, governmental action to effect change leaving the Republicans, with their announced mandate for fundamental change, to appear visionary and extreme. Having taken the center, and with stock markets continuing to boom and unemployment low, Clinton enjoyed high popularity, presiding over an enormous national surge in prosperity and innovation.\n\nDwight Eisenhower - Vastly underrated. preached a doctrine of Dynamic Conservatism. Maintained a conservative economic policy, with liberal social policies. Worked to reduce the size of government, contain inflation, and lower taxes., Simultaneously created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.). His administration supported the civil-rights legislation that passed Congress (1957, 1960); and he prohibited discriminatory practices in the District of Columbia and in federal facilities such as navy yards and hospitals.\n\n\nJohn Kennedy - Promoted civil rights, space exploration, and made Americans hopeful with the promise of the "New Frontier". Yet his Presidencey lasted only slightly more than 1,000 days, he also set forward many changes to our nation that would  have lasting impact. \n\nHarry S. Truman - Truman was a folksy, unassuming president, and popularized phrases such as "The buck stops here" and "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." He overcame the low expectations of many, particularly in the shadow of his politically-dominant predecessor, and although he was forced out of his re-election campaign in 1952 due to low approval ratings, he is now commonly rated among the great Presidents by historians.\n\nLyndon Johnson -  adopted a far-reaching civil-rights bill, a voting-rights bill, a Medicare program for the aged, and measures to improve education and conservation. Congress also began what Johnson described as “an all-out war” on poverty. The double tragedy of a war in Southeast Asia (which he himself escalated)and urban riots at home marked Johnson's last two years in office. Faced with disunity in the nation and challenges within his own party, Johnson surprised the country on March 31, 1968, with the announcement that he would not be a candidate for reelection.\n\nGeorge H. W. Bush - Bush pursued moderate policies in both domestic and
338125
NO!  There is no way that any other president could possibly have screwed things up worse than he has.  \n\nWe're fighting two wars right now, our resources are vastly over-extended, and now they're talking about bombing Iran.  Talk about incompetent.  Anyone know why the American Colonies were able to defeat a country that at the time had about the most powerful military in the world?  England was busy fighting France, that's why!  It doesn't matter how powerful you are, you can still lose to a little guy if your resources are over-extended.\n\nThen there was the whole Hurricane Katrina thing.  You know, the thing where Bush said there was no way anyone could know the levees would overflow, and then a few days later the media got hold of a tape of him being told the levees would overflow.\n\nAnd there's the minor detail that he's turned an unprecedented budget surplus into an unprecedented budget deficit, and yet continues to simultaneously increase spending and decrease taxes.  Any five year old can tell you that's not the way to reduce the deficit.\n\nOh, and he's managed to turn unprecedented international support after 9/11 into hatred and ridicule.\n\nAnd have we completely forgotten Enron?  I doubt that was the only instance of the government screwing over the public to increase profits for themselves and their rich friend.s\n\nHe's also refused to do anything to slow the destruction of the environment, and in some cases has even relaxed existing limits.\n\nHe's made several attempts to channel government funds to Christian organizations, which is a clear violation of the first amendment.\n\nHe's also appointed judges who seem rather inclined to set civil rights back to the stone age.  There was even that one guy who was literally a Nazi.  As in he fought for Germany in World War II kind of a Nazi.\n\nI could go on, but it's nearly 3 in the morning and I have a paper to write.