To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Criticism of the United States government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of the United States government encompasses a wide range of sentiments about the actions and policies of the United States.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 459 224
    2 720 669
    3 119
    4 202 656
    1 619 816
  • ✪ Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4
  • ✪ Introduction: Crash Course U.S. Government and Politics
  • ✪ Has there been any criticism of the Israeli Government by Israelis themselves? | Finkelstein (2015)
  • ✪ The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8
  • ✪ The Bicameral Congress: Crash Course Government and Politics #2

Transcription

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics. Today we're going to talk about a fundamental concept to American government, federalism. Sorry. I'm not sorry. You're not even endangered anymore. So federalism is a little confusing because it includes the word, "federal," as in federal government, which is what we use to describe the government of the United States as a whole. Which is kind of the opposite of what we mean when we say federalism. Confused? Google it. This video will probably come up. And then just watch this video. Or, just continue watching this video. [Intro] So what is federalism? Most simply, it's the idea that in the US, governmental power is divided between the government of the United States and the government of the individual states. The government of the US, the national government, is sometimes called the federal government, while the state governments are just called the state governments. This is because technically the US can be considered a federation of states. But this means different things to different people. For instance, federation of states means ham sandwich to me. I'll have one federation of states, please, with a side of tater tots. Thank you. I'm kind of dumb. In the federal system, the national government takes care of some things, like for example, wars with other countries and delivering the mail, while the state government takes care of other things like driver's license, hunting licenses, barber's licences, dentist's licenses, license to kill - nah, that's James Bond. And that's in England. And I hope states don't do that. Pretty simple right? Maybe not. For one thing, there are some aspects of government that are handled by both the state and national government. Taxes, American's favorite government activity, are an example. There are federal taxes and state taxes. But it gets even more complicated because there are different types of federalism depending on what period in American history you're talking about. UGH! Stan! Why is history so confusing!? UGH! Stan, are you going to tell me? Can you talk Stan? Basically though, there are two main types of federalism -dual federalism, which has nothing to do Aaron Burr, usually refers to the period of American history that stretches from the founding of our great nation until the New Deal, and cooperative federalism, which has been the rule since the 1930s. Let's start with an easy one and start with dual federalism in the Thought Bubble. From 1788 until 1937, the US basically lived under a regime of dual federalism, which meant that government power was strictly divided between the state and national governments. Notice that I didn't say separated, because I don't want you to confuse federalism with the separation of powers. DON'T DO IT! With dual federalism, there are some things that only the federal government does and some things that only the state governments do. This is sometimes called jurisdiction. The national government had jurisdiction over internal improvements like interstate roads and canals, subsidies to the states, and tariffs, which are taxes on imports and thus falls under the general heading of foreign policy. The national government also owns public lands and regulates patents which need to be national for them to offer protection for inventors in all the states. And because you want a silver dollar in Delaware to be worth the same as a silver dollar in Georgia, the national government also controls currency. The state government had control over property laws, inheritance laws, commercial laws, banking laws, corporate laws, insurance, family law, which means marriage and divorce, morality -- stuff like public nudeness and drinking - which keeps me in check -- public health, education, criminal laws including determining what is a crime and how crimes are prosecuted, land use, which includes water and mineral rights, elections, local government, and licensing of professions and occupations, basically what is required to drive a car, or open a bar or become a barber or become James Bond. So, under dual federalism, the state government has jurisdiction over a lot more than the national government. These powers over health, safety and morality are sometimes called police power and usually belong to the states. Because of the strict division between the two types of government, dual federalism is sometimes called layer cake federalism. Delicious. And it's consistent with the tradition of limited government that many Americans hold dear. Thanks Thought Bubble. Now, some of you might be wondering, Craig, where does the national government get the power to do anything that has do to with states? Yeah, well off the top of my head, the US Constitution in Article I, Section 8 Clause 3 gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This is what is known as the Commerce Clause, and the way that it's been interpreted is the basis of dual federalism and cooperative federalism. For most of the 19th century, the Supreme Court has decided that almost any attempt by any government, federal or state, to regulate state economic activity would violate the Commerce Clause. This basically meant that there was very little regulation of business at all. FREEDOOOOOOMM! This is how things stood, with the US following a system of dual federalism, with very little government regulation and the national government not doing much other than going to war or buying and conquering enormous amounts of territories and delivering the mail. Then the Great Depression happened, and Franklin Roosevelt and Congress enacted the New Deal, which changed the role of the federal government in a big way. The New Deal brought us cooperative federalism, where the national government encourages states and localities to pursue nationally-defined goals. The main way that the federal government does this is through dollar-dollar bills, y'all. Money is what I'm saying. Stan, can I make it rain? Yeah? Alright, I'm doing it. I happen to have cash in my hand now. Oh yeah, take my federal money, states. Regulating ya. Regulator. This money that the federal government gives to the states is called a grant-in-aid. Grants-in-aid can work like a carrot encouraging a state to adopt a certain policy or work like a stick when the federal government withholds funds if a state doesn't do what the national government wants. Grants-in-aid are usually called categorical, because they're given to states for a particular purpose like transportation or education or alleviating poverty. There are 2 types of categorical grants-in-aid: formula grants and project grants. Under a formula grant, a state gets aid in a certain amount of money based on a mathematical formula; the best example of this is the old way welfare was given in the US under the program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. AFDC. States got a certain amount of money for every person who was classified as "poor." The more poor people a state had, the more money it got. Project grants require states to submit proposals in order to receive aid. The states compete for a limited pool of resources. Nowadays, project grants are more common than formula grants, but neither is as popular as block grants, which the government gives out Lego Blocks and then you build stuff with Legos. It's a good time. No no, the national government gives a state a huge chunk of money for something big, like infrastructure, which is made with concrete and steel, and not Legos, and the state is allowed to decide how to spend the money. The basic type of cooperative federalism is the carrot stick type which is sometimes called marble cake federalism because it mixes up the state and federal governments in ways that makes it impossible to separate the two. Federalism, it's such a culinary delight. The key to it is, you guessed it - dollar dollar bills y'all. Money. But there are another aspect of cooperative federalism that's really not so cooperative, and that's regulated federalism. Under regulated federalism, the national governments sets up regulations and rules that the states must follow. Some examples of these rules, also called mandates, are EPA regulations, civil rights standards, and the rules set up by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sometimes the government gives the states money to implement the rules, but sometimes it doesn't and they must comply anyways. That's called an unfunded mandate. Or as I like to call it, an un-fun mandate. Because no money, no fun. A good example of example of this is OSHA regulations that employers have to follow. States don't like these, and Congress tried to do something about them with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or UMRA, but it hasn't really worked. In the early 21st century, Americans are basically living under a system of cooperative federalism with some areas of activity that are heavily regulated. This is a stretch from the original idea that federalism will keep the national government small and have most government functions belong to the states. If you follow American politics, and I know you do, this small government ideal should sound familiar because it's the bedrock principle of many conservatives and libertarians in the US. As conservatives made many political inroads during the 1970s, a new concept of federalism, which was kind of an old concept of federalism, became popular. It was called, SURPRISE, New Federalism, and it was popularized by Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Just to be clear, it's called New Federalism not Surprise New Federalism. New federalism basically means giving more power to the states, and this has been done in three ways. First, block grants allow states discretion to decide what to do with federal money, and what's a better way to express your power than spending money? Or not spending money as the case may be. Another form of New Federalism is devolution, which is the process of giving state and local governments the power to enforce regulations, devolving power from the national to the state level. Finally, some courts have picked up the cause of New Federalism through cases based on the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The idea that some powers, like those police powers I talked about before, are reserved by the states, have been used to put something of a brake on the Commerce Clause. So as you can see, where we are with federalism today is kind of complicated. Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton seem to favor New Federalism and block grants. But George W. Bush seemed to push back towards regulated federalism with laws like No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It's pretty safe to say that we're going to continue to live under a regime of cooperative federalism, with a healthy dose of regulation thrown in. But many Americans feel that the national government is too big and expensive and not what the framers wanted. If history is any guide, a system of dual federalism with most of the government in the hands of the states is probably not going to happen. For some reason, it's really difficult to convince institutions to give up powers once they've got them. I'm never giving up this power. Thanks for watching, I'll see you next week. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of these nice people. Thanks for watching. You didn't help make this video at all, did you? No. But you did get people to keep watching until the end because you're an adorable dog.

Contents

Foreign policy

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. Rumsfeld came to discuss an aid program.[1]
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. Rumsfeld came to discuss an aid program.[1]

The U.S. has been criticized for making statements supporting peace and respecting national sovereignty, but while carrying out military actions such as in Grenada, fomenting a civil war in Colombia to break off Panama, and Iraq. The U.S. has been criticized for advocating free trade but while protecting local industries with import tariffs on foreign goods such as lumber[2] and agricultural products. The U.S. has also been criticized for advocating concern for human rights while refusing to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The U.S. has publicly stated that it is opposed to torture, but has been criticized for condoning it in the School of the Americas. The U.S. has advocated a respect for national sovereignty but has supported internal guerrilla movements and paramilitary organizations, such as the Contras in Nicaragua.[3][4] The U.S. has been criticized for voicing concern about narcotics production in countries such as Bolivia and Venezuela but doesn't follow through on cutting certain bilateral aid programs.[5] However, some defenders argue that a policy of rhetoric while doing things counter to the rhetoric was necessary in the sense of realpolitik and helped secure victory against the dangers of tyranny and totalitarianism.[6]

The U.S. has been criticized for supporting dictatorships with economic assistance and military hardware.

The U.S. has been criticized by Noam Chomsky for opposing nationalist movements in foreign countries, including social reform.[7][8][clarification needed]

President Bush has been criticized for neglecting democracy and human rights by focusing exclusively on an effort to fight terrorism.[9][9] The U.S. was criticized for alleged prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib in Iraq, and secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, according to Amnesty International.[10] In response, the U.S. government claimed incidents of abuse were isolated incidents which did not reflect U.S. policy.

Some critics charge that U.S. government aid should be higher given the high levels of gross domestic product.[11][12] The U.S. pledged 0.7% of GDP at a global conference in Mexico.[13][14] However, since the U.S. grants tax breaks to nonprofits, it subsidizes relief efforts abroad,[15] although other nations also subsidize charitable activity abroad.[16] Most foreign aid (79%) came not from government sources but from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals. According to the Index of Global Philanthropy, the United States is the top donor in absolute amounts.[17]

Picture of a skyline of a modern city with mountains in the background.
Kyoto, Japan in 2008. The Kyoto Protocol treaty was an effort by many nations to tackle environmental problems, but the U.S. was criticized for failing to support this effort in 1997.

The U.S. has also been criticized for failure to support the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[18][19]

In 1930–1940 the US collaborated with Stalin regime by building around 1500 factories in the USSR using a slave labor of political prisoners.[20] The USA also covered up genocide of East Ukraine in 1932–1933, that killed between 4 and 6 millions of Ukrainians and in the midst of it established a diplomatic relationship with the USSR.

There has been sharp criticism about the U.S. response to the Holocaust: That it failed to admit Jews fleeing persecution from Europe at the beginning of World War II, and that it did not act decisively enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust.[21][22]

Critic Robert McMahon thinks Congress has been excluded from foreign policy decision making, and that this is detrimental.[23] Other writers suggest a need for greater Congressional participation.[24]

Jim Webb, former Democratic senator from Virginia and former Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, believes that Congress has an ever-decreasing role in U.S. foreign policy making. September 11, 2001 precipitated this change, where "powers quickly shifted quickly to the Presidency as the call went up for centralized decision making in a traumatized nation where, quick, decisive action was considered necessary. It was considered politically dangerous and even unpatriotic to question this shift, lest one be accused of impeding national safety during a time of war."[25]

Since that time, Webb thinks Congress has become largely irrelevant in shaping and executing of U.S. foreign policy. He cites the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA), the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, and the 2011 military intervention in Libya as examples of growing legislative irrelevance. Regarding the SFA, "Congress was not consulted in any meaningful way. Once the document was finalized, Congress was not given the opportunity to debate the merits of the agreement, which was specifically designed to shape the structure of our long-term relations in Iraq" (11). "Congress did not debate or vote on this agreement, which set U.S. policy toward an unstable regime in an unstable region of the world."[25] The Iraqi Parliament, by contrast, voted on the measure twice. The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement is described by the Obama Administration has a "legally binding executive agreement" that outlines the future of U.S.-Afghan relations and designated Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally. "It is difficult to understand how any international agreement negotiated, signed, and authored only by our executive branch of government can be construed as legally binding in our constitutional system," Webb argues.[25]

Finally, Webb identifies the U.S. intervention in Libya as a troubling historical precedent. "The issue in play in Libya was not simply whether the president should ask Congress for a declaration of war. Nor was it wholly about whether Obama violated the edicts of the War Powers Act, which in this writer's view he clearly did. The issue that remains to be resolved is whether a president can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards of a vital national interest worth of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of taxpayer money."[25] When the military campaign lasted months, President Barack Obama did not seek approval of Congress to continue military activity.[25]

Domestic policy

Critics charge that the U.S. supported brutal dictators such as Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Richard Nixon with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1971.
Critics charge that the U.S. supported brutal dictators such as Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Richard Nixon with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1971.
two men walking; they're wearing suits.
Critics charge that savvy dictators such as Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni have manipulated U.S. foreign policy by appealing to its need to fight terrorism. Others suggest U.S. should adopt a policy of realpolitik and work with any type of government who can be helpful.
Soldiers waiting nervously with rifles by a wall.
The Vietnam War is viewed by many as a mistake

Spying and surveillance

Demonstration against the NSA surveillance program PRISM, June 2013
Demonstration against the NSA surveillance program PRISM, June 2013

Corruption

Government structure

Executive branch

Presidential incompetency

One difficulty of the American government is that the lack of oversight for Presidents offers no safeguards for presidential incompetency. For example, Barack Obama has been increasingly criticized for his expansive views on executive powers and mismanaging of several situation, including the Syrian Civil War.[26] In addition, George W. Bush, who was criticized as entering the Iraq War too hastily, had no reproach for his advocacy of the war.[18][27][28][29][29][29][30][31][32][32]

George H. W. Bush was criticized for stopping the first Iraq War too soon without finishing the task of capturing Saddam Hussein.[29][29] Foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger criticized Jimmy Carter for numerous foreign policy mistakes including a decision to admit the ailing Shah of Iran into the United States for medical treatment, as well as a bungled military mission to try to rescue the hostages in Tehran.[33][33]

Virtually every President in modern history has been criticized for incompetency in some fashion. However, there are little to no mechanisms in place to provide accountability. Since the only way to remove an incompetent president is with the rather difficult policy of impeachment, it is possible for a marginally competent or incompetent president to stay in office for four to eight years and cause great mischief.[34][35]

Over-burdened presidency

Presidents have not only foreign policy responsibilities, but sizable domestic duties too. In addition, the presidency is the head of a political party. As a result, it is tough for one person to manage disparate tasks, in one view. Many believe that this overburdened duty of presidents allows for incompetency in government.[36]

Presidents may lack experience

Since the constitution requires no prior experience in diplomacy, government, or military service, it is possible to elect presidents with scant foreign policy experience. Clearly the record of past presidents confirms this, and that presidents who have had extensive diplomatic, military, and foreign policy experience have been the exception, not the rule. In recent years, presidents had relatively more experience in such tasks as peanut farming, acting and governing governorships than in international affairs. It has been debated whether voters are sufficiently skillful to assess the foreign policy potential of presidential candidates, since foreign policy experience is only one of a long list of attributes in which voters tend to select candidates.[18] President Obama has been widely criticized as too inexperienced for the job, having only served in government for three years before his presidential election. However, party leadership and donors were adamant in their advocacy due his broad appeal, leading to a nominee with little experience.[37]

In addition, an increasing difficulty for providing well-versed Presidents is that the American people in recent years are, in increasing numbers, more distrustful of their government and longterm, career politicians. As such, inexperienced candidates often perform better.[38]

Excessive authority of the presidency

In contrast to criticisms that presidential attention is divided into competing tasks, some critics charge that presidents have too much power, and that there is the potential for tyranny or authoritarianism. Many presidents have circumvented the national security decision-making process, including Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan, as well as others historically.[18] Many critics see a danger in too much executive authority.[39][40][41][42][43][44]

See also

Criticism of agencies

Further reading

References

  1. ^ Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980–1984. National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No. 82. Ed. by Joyce Battle, February 25, 2003.
  2. ^ "Canada attacks U.S. on wood tariffs". BBC. 2005-10-25. Retrieved 24 March 2008.
  3. ^ Satter, Raphael (2007-05-24). "Report hits U.S. on human rights". Associated Press (published on The Boston Globe). Retrieved 2007-05-29.
  4. ^ "World Report 2002: United States". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2007-06-02.
  5. ^ "U.S. keeps Venezuela, Bolivia atop narcotics list". Reuters. September 16, 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  6. ^ Bootie Cosgrove-Mather (February 1, 2005). "Democracy And Reality". CBS News. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  7. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2006-03-28). "The Israel Lobby?". ZNet. Archived from the original on 2009-04-17. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
  8. ^ "Noam Chomsky on America's Foreign Policy". PBS. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
  9. ^ a b Stephanie McCrummen (February 22, 2008). "U.S. Policy in Africa Faulted on Priorities: Security Is Stressed Over Democracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
  10. ^ "Report 2005 USA Summary". Amnesty International. 2005. Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  11. ^ "US and Foreign Aid Assistance". Global Issues. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  12. ^ "US and Foreign Aid Assistance". Global Issues. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  13. ^ "UN Millennium Project – Fast Facts". UNDP. 2005. Archived from the original on December 10, 2008. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  14. ^ "UN Millennium Project – Fast Facts". OECD. 2007. Archived from the original on 2008-11-23. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  15. ^ "Papers". ssrn. 2007. SSRN 951236.
  16. ^ "U.S. and Foreign Aid Assistance". Global Issues. 2007. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  17. ^ "Foreign aid". America.gov. 2007-05-24. Archived from the original on 2009-12-23. Retrieved 2009-12-24.
  18. ^ a b c d Dana Milbank (October 20, 2005). "Colonel Finally Saw Whites of Their Eyes". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  19. ^ "Bush + Blair = Buddies". CBS News. July 19, 2001. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
  20. ^ "How We Built the Soviet Might".
  21. ^ "FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
  22. ^ Joseph J. Plaud, BCBA. "Historical Perspectives on Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Foreign Policy, and the Holocaust". Franklin D. Roosevelt American Heritage Center and Museum. Archived from the original on 12 January 2014. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
  23. ^ Robert McMahon; Council on Foreign Relations (December 24, 2007). "The Impact of the 110th Congress on U.S. Foreign Policy". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  24. ^ Jessica Tuchman Mathews (October 10, 2007). "Six Years Later: Assessing Long-Term Threats, Risks and the U.S. Strategy for Security in a Post-9/11 World". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
  25. ^ a b c d e Webb, Jim (March–April 2013). "Congressional Abdication". The National Interest (124). Retrieved 11 March 2013.
  26. ^ "You Can't Keep Up with Obama's Incompetence, Corruption, and Hyperactivity". National Review. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
  27. ^ Fareed Zakaria (March 14, 2009). "Why Washington Worries – Obama has made striking moves to fix U.S. foreign policy – and that has set off a chorus of criticism". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-12-18.
  28. ^ Amy Chua (October 22, 2009). "Where Is U.S. Foreign Policy Headed?". The New York Times: Sunday Book Review. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  29. ^ a b c d e James M. Lindsay (book reviewer) (March 25, 2007). "The Superpower Blues: Zbigniew Brzezinski says we have one last shot at getting the post-9/11 world right. book review of "Second Chance" by Zbigniew Brzezinski". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  30. ^ Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press (2008-09-15). "Report: John Le Carre says he nearly defected to Russia". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-12-22.
  31. ^ Paul Magnusson (book reviewer) (2002-12-30). "Is Democracy Dangerous? Book review of: World On Fire – How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability; By Amy Chua". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  32. ^ a b Roger Cohen (April 5, 2006). "Freedom May Rock Boat, but It Can't Be Selective". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  33. ^ a b "Nation: Kissinger: What Next for the U.S.?". Time. May 12, 1980. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
  34. ^ Sanford Levinson (September 17, 2008). "Constitution Day Essay 2008: Professor Sanford Levinson examines the dictatorial power of the Presidency". University of Texas School of Law. Missing or empty |url= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  35. ^ Sanford Levinson (October 16, 2006). "Our Broken Constitution". University of Texas School of Law – News & Events. Archived from the original on 2009-10-05. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
  36. ^ Zbigniew Brzezinski (2001-10-20). "From Hope to Audacity: Appraising Obama's Foreign Policy (I)". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  37. ^ "The big question about Barack Obama". USA Today. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
  38. ^ "Amateurs in the Oval Office". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
  39. ^ Nelson, Dana D. (2008). Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-8166-5677-6.
  40. ^ Sirota, David (August 22, 2008). "The Conquest of Presidentialism". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
  41. ^ David Sirota (August 22, 2008). "Why cult of presidency is bad for democracy". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
  42. ^ David Sirota (January 18, 2009). "U.S. moving toward czarism, away from democracy". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-09-21.
  43. ^ Sanford Levinson (February 5, 2009). ""Wartime Presidents and the Constitution: From Lincoln to Obama" – speech by Sanford Levinson at Wayne Morse Center". Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics. Retrieved 2009-10-10.[dead link]
  44. ^ Anand Giridharadas (September 25, 2009). "Edging Out Congress and the Public". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
This page was last edited on 21 March 2019, at 00:41
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.