USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
This is only for yhtomit.Ty
Response one pol-01
Tulis’ thesis is one that could not be more pertinent and on point with what is happening currently in the White House. A President is testing the boundaries of where his power begins and ends; will the remaining three years be dominated by the Large “C” or the little “c”?2
I would argue that President Trump assumed or went into office believing he had “huge” public support and could stretch the boundaries much farther than his predecessor, able to ignore many rules and boundaries laid throughout the Constitution. But using President Trump as an example is still a bit premature since only one year has gone by and three more remain to define his presidency. President Lincoln is by far my favorite president to read about and happens to be a great example of utilizing presidential power bestowed by the people, or the little “c”.
As our weekly lesson provided, President Lincoln presided over the Country during an extraordinary time and as such, required extraordinary measures to ensure the continuation of our great Union. There are many examples of President Lincoln stretching the boundary, and in some cases completely dismissing the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. But his act of suspending Habeas Corpus is one of great interest and still has unanswered questions. The “Great Writ” is one of the first liberties the Founders established and it protects people from capricious arrests demanding that cause be proven before a judge as to why you are being detained. Although the Article I does state that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended during times of unrest and when public safety is required, it did not define who has the authority to suspend it (Congress or President); or how long it can be suspended.1 The only ruling that came out of President Lincoln’s action to suspend Habeas Corpus was a Supreme Court ruling in 1866, Ex Parte Milligan, which stated that the power to suspend Habeas Corpus was not inclusive of Military Courts if civilian courts were open.1 So my question is, although President Lincoln had a great public support from the Northern States and no one really questioned his action, how long would that last? President Lincoln was a wise man and did not abuse that power by suspending Habeas Corpus or other civil liberties longer than what was necessary, but what if it was not Lincoln? What if a president obtained so much public support that the checks and balances became futile? Most scholars maintain that the Judiciary and Congress place constraints on unilateral decisions made by the President, yet this is situational given political agendas and loyalties.3 Add in party politics to the mix; a party has a majority in Congress, a majority in the Supreme Court and sits in the White House, who dares to cross party lines and stand up? These are all things to consider when discussing the breadth of Presidential Powers being derived from the little “c”. I am hopeful and optimistic that the people and our institutions will play their respective roles as we begin a new year in preserving the respect and admiration the United States has earned from around the world when it comes to this great experiment.
1. Linda R. Monk, The Words We Live By (New York, NY: The Stonesong Press, 2000), 58.
2. Grulke Eric, “Week 1: Formal Presidency/Informal Presidency,” American Military University, , accessed January 2, 2018,
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPage=1493982&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBefore=&itemId=4284549&path=push&addTool=-1&recheck=&id
=.
3. Fang-Yi Chiou and Lawrence S. Rothenberg, “The Elusive Search for Presidential Power,” American Journal of Political Science 58, no. 3 (2013): 653, doi:10.1111/ajps.12057.
References
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg. “The Elusive Search for Presidential Power.” American
Journal of Political Science58, no. 3 (2013): 653-68. doi:10.1111/ajps.12057.
Eric, Grulke. “Week 1: Formal Presidency/Informal Presidency.” American Military University. Accessed
January 2, 2018.
https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-37b2-492d-8e6e-
b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPage=1493982&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBefore=&itemId=4284549&path=push&addTool=-1&recheck=&id=.
Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By. New York, NY: The Stonesong Press, 2000.
Response two pol-01
Tulis has posited two constitutional presidencies as an informal presidency and a formal presidency. I think that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution would best be served here, as did Tulis. The Framers of the Constitution had just experienced quartering of soldiers and unjust searches and seizures to name a few indignities of the King and his loyal governors. So what they wanted, rather than the Divine Right of Kings(the premise that kings or rulers derive their power to rule directly from God and do not have to answer to the people) was a way to hold in check the powers given to the one in charge of the new country they sought to establish. They then instituted an executive branch withpowers delineated in Article II of the Constitution. The Framers concern was that if the executive branch was too powerful as in a “popular leader”, that majority tyranny would be the result and the new country would be back to square one.[1]
Tulis points out that up until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson that the formal presidency is how most of the presidents governed with a few exceptions. Important to the discussion is to point out that Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. Under Wilson, the progressive income tax was passed and the Federal Reserve Act was passed among other laws. The Progressive movement had a profound effect on how the constitution was interpreted based on their aversion for checks and balances, that government is the answer for everything, that the administration of government should be by administrative experts and that the constitution is a living breathing document and should change with the times.[2] According to Tulis, Woodrow Wilson’s point of view was that “Separation [of powers] would be replaced by institutionally structured cooperation.” (Tulis, no page number) Further, that President Wilson thought that “the separation of powers was the central defect of American politics”.[3]
Tulis explains that the original constitution was buttressed by the writings of the Federalist and in these papers we discover what the Framers intended. The Framers, whether they be Federalists or Anti Federalists, wanted a government that was limited in nature, protected individual rights and promote individual liberty secured by private property. How to accomplish these things was where they disagreed. In addition, the citizenry would need to be virtuous as described by Thomas Jefferson and Plato. Virtue would come naturally from the citizens as opposed to being forced on them.[4]
Tulis points out that Alexander Hamilton explained that on occasion a situation might arise where the president would make a decision that was contrary to what the people wanted but that it should be in the best interest of the nation as a whole. I think therein lies the ambiguity of the two constitutions. The president needs to act in accordance with the constitution but sometimes may use rhetoric to explain why he might not follow the constitution. This is where Tulis explains the second constitution (a rhetorical constitution). Both constitutions give the President power but the root of that power is different. According to the Framers, the president derives his power from the authority bestowed upon him by the written constitution. According to President Wilson, the power that the president has is conferred by the people and the president should talk to the people and explain why he is doing what he is doing (use rhetoric to assuage the citizenry). Tulis mentions that presidents have had to use opposing arguments, one for the people and one for congress.[5] Ronald Reagan used his powers of persuasion to say that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.[6] JFK in his inaugural speech said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” (As an aside, if you have time, google JFK’s speeches). But one of the greatest persuaders of all was Bill Clinton; first President Clinton would poll the American people and then go talk to them. That was his style. President George W. Bush was not a natural speaker. But when the twin towers came down, his leadership was impressive, not necessarily his speeches. So, that is why we have what Tulis calls two constitutions…what presidents say (the informal or rhetorical constitution) and how they act or react to situations according to the written constitution (the formal constitution).
Trish
Bibliography:
Pestritto, Ronald and Kempema, Taylor. “The Birth of Direct Democracy: What Progressivism Did to the States”, The Heritage Foundation, (February 25, 2014). http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-birth-direct-democracy-what-progressivism-did-the-states.
Tulis, Jeffrey K., “
The Two Constitutional Presidencies
“, The Presidency and the Political System 8, (2003): 57-87.
[1] Jeffrey K Tulis, “The Two Constitutional Presidencies”, The Presidency and the Political System 8, (2003): 57-87. npn.
[2] Ronald Pestritto, “The Birth of Direct Democracy: What Progressivism Did to the States”, The Heritage Foundation, (February 25, 2014). http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-birth-direct-democracy-what-progressivism-did-the-states.
[3] Tulis (long version, npn)
[4] Tulis (long version, npn)
[5]Tulis (long version, npn)
[6] Tulis (long version, npn)
RESPONSE ONE PADM-01
1. How would you define public policy? Be sure to draw from scholarly sources to enhance or support your definition; but don’t quote the source. I’d like to see your analysis of the term.
Public policy can be seen as the result of action given by governments to change direction by goals or methods used to produce shifts over varying sectors and fields (Howlett, 2014, p.188). However, this definition falls short in addresses true actors, such as interest groups, lobbies, or individuals who help pilot these government directions. Therefore, a more direct definition should be that public policy is the direction or aim guided from actors within the public or private sectors that drive either an end state or solution to public issues and problems via government mandate. This helps further identify the ‘man behind the wheel’ so to speak, instead of thrusting the responsibility unto the performing actor alone, ie. the government, and shielding outside actors from responsibility. This definition brings more to light in terms of accountability and forces the responsibility to all parties, instead of just the government who implements the new direction. This is both good and bad, since a definition along these lines peels back the shadows on who is driving and pushing policy while discarding plausible deniability for entities acting upon government direction.
2) Share with us some of the public policies you have seen present within your community or state. Which ones impact your life directly and how?
Personally, my community public policy often does not affect me too much except in a few areas. The largest of these is probably the policy push towards more public transportation as the downtown area continues to grow and become more saturated with businesses, university buildings, and living areas like apartment complexes. Due to increased traffic, the city has pushed more, and funded more, into construction of new lanes and policy pushes for public transportation to attempt to reduce private vehicles in the downtown area. The policy makes sense at first, but falls far short in implementation. It has actually created new problems both traffic related and financially due to road construction and cost. It has taken years for the most basic lane expansions, thus creating traffic flow problems in road construction areas, while rising costs for bus maintenance and fuel. Also, there has been policy shifts to increase bike ridership, but those also fall short in implementation due to construction needed for bike lanes, as well as the problems of hazards in bike ridership in heavily congested areas. It seems as though better solutions might be better suited, but the city maintains this direction for the time being for better or worse.
3) What about national policies? Have there been larger policies that you see a personal connection to?
Not wanting to descend into politics, the first thing that comes to mind is foreign policy. Specifically dealing with foreign aid and strategic partnerships. Coming from a military background, I understand the necessity and idea behind providing certain nations with funding for various reasons. However, it is the policy reasons particularly that I find disconcerting. For example, with a strategic relationship with partner NATO nations, I find there is a disparity in funding put forth by certain participating nations as wholly lacking, requiring increasing funding and support by the US Government. This policy of ‘picking up the slack’ for partner nations is something that should be rectified and reevaluated along different lines. In this same vein, there are federal funding disparities established by policy that should be rectified as well, due to either state’s own actions or lack of actions in accordance with federal policy.
References
Howlett, M. (2014). “From the ‘old to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance.” Poly Sci, Vol: 47 (187-207). Retrieved from http://apus.intelluslearning.com/v3/course-widget/640/#/document/24738466/1/4943b9a67766f44a3513349c2afb6f04/59cc1287f80f16baded539a4e0a0783a/browse_published_content/6390/23175/51109/1/lesson/lesson?hideClose=true&tagId=40659&external_course_id=365269&external_course_name=PADM530%20B001%20Win%2018
RESPONSE TWO-PADM-01
My definition of public policy is the particular steps that the government takes to resolve issues that affect all citizens. The steps may include establishing recommendations, rules and laws in order to rectify certain issues within the public sector. The goal of public policy is to ensure that the concerns that impact all Americans are address and produce solutions. Our lesson one supports my definition about public policy and enhances our knowledge by providing good guidance of the definition of public policy. Lesson one defines public policy as “specific actions government takes to rectify a public situation, to establish goals and develop methods to accomplish them, to set guidelines and best practices, and to communicate agency expectations and standards” (p.1). However public policy can be an arduous topic to define and an extensive expression. Public policy requires a deep analysis and an innovation process.
Petridou, (2014) concurs, innovation and policy diffusion research “focuses on the processes through which a government adopts innovative (new to this particular government) policies. Diffusion literature recognizes that different policy jurisdictions do not exist in a vacuum but instead are influenced by the choices of other jurisdictions” (p. 8). Innovation and diffusion definitely can assist the government whether is Federal, State or Local in the process of public policy. The public policy process requires the involvement of the three government branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). Howlett (2014) views about public policies are the “result of efforts made by governments to alter aspects of their own or social behavior in order to carry out some end or purpose and are comprised of (typically complex) arrangements of policy goals and means” (p. 188). The public policy process as mentioned before can be a difficult process and will always require to be reassess in order to provide a neutral analysis to the issues or concerns that affect the public sector. As public managers is our job to study public policy to ensure that we are active actors and provide some solutions to resolve problems and better our communities.
I reside in the State of California and like always there are new laws or new policies that will be implemented with beginning of the New Year. Thompson (2018) mentioned about 900 bills that were signed by California state lawmakers and were signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Some of these laws are: cannabis (sale of recreational marijuana to 21 year olds or older), immigration (California a sanctuary state), fire arms (ammunition bought in another state or online cannot be brought to California unless is thru a license ammunition dealer). In my opinion all new laws or policies will have some kind impact on my life and all Californians. Recreational marijuana will be a huge one because now we will have to worry about people driving while they are under of influence of marijuana and also we have to worry about drunk drivers.
One national policy that we all are connected to is the new tax plan policy that President Trump signed on Dec 22, 2017. Without a doubt the tax rate cuts will affect all individuals not now but in 2025. The tax corporate was cut down 14 percent and the individual tax cut percent was 37 percent however that tax corporate is permanent and the individual tax will expire in 2025 (Amadeo, 2017). So what happens then? Only time will tell but it definitely will be create another problem and therefore an implementation of a new policy.
References:
Amadeo, K. (2017), Trump’s Tax Plan and How It Affects You. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968
Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187-207. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
PADM530 – Lesson 1: Introduction to Public Policy and Policy Actors
Petridou, E., Avdelningen för samhällsvetenskap, Fakulteten för humanvetenskap, & Mittuniversitetet. (2014). Theories of the policy process: Contemporary scholarship and future directions. Policy Studies Journal, 42(S1), S12-S32. doi:10.1111/psj.12054
Thompson, D. (2018) New California laws cover immigration, marijuana, education Retrieved Jan 4, 2018 from http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7828413-181/new-california-laws-cover-immigration?gallery=7812409&artslide=0&sba=AAS
