This explains a lot about the Great Society:http://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/4c.html
Archive for the ‘Presidency’ Category
Yes, there were TWO of them: one by a crazed housewife named Sarah Jane Moore, and another by a crazed follower of Charles Manson named Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme. Here is the video:
And here is the background: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ford-escaped-2-assassination-attempts-Both-2481771.php
Let us explore the expansion of presidential power in the 20th century. Or, perhaps more accurately, let us explore the claims of several 20th century presidents that their power was actually far broader than what had been previously understood.
How did the Vietnam War– especially the quest of LBJ to have the ability to prosecute the war freely as commander in chief– affect the balance of power in regard to the executive branch? How does this fit into historical patterns?
In 1973, in the midst of the unfolding of the Watergate scandal–historian Arthur Schlessinger published a book entitled The Imperial Presidency. Here is a review of that book by another famous American historical writer– Garry Wills– in the New York Times Book Review:
By the time that Nixon became president, this aggregation of presidential power had become noticeable. Besides his beliefs about wartime powers for the president, Nixon, as you know, was also involved in the Watergate scandal. What were Nixon’s beliefs about a president’s power? Go to this website: http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/ui320-75/presidents/nixon/nixon_imperialpres.asp and use the hyperlinks at the top of the page to skip to part IV, which explains the basics of Nixon’s beliefs. (Of course, you can use the entire webpage for review for your tests as well– it’s very well done.)
After Nixon’s resignation, he agreed to a series of interviews in 1977 with David Frost (this story was told in the movie Frost/Nixon). Frost asked Nixon if there were ANY limits on presidential power? Nixon gave a fascinating response, which you need to read about here: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/722/Nixons_Views_on_Presidential_Power_Excerpts_from_a_1977_Interview_with_David_Frost
It is important that you understand these concepts for our later discussion of the Watergate scandal, especially the doctrine of “executive privilege.” In the Watergate scandal, Nixon made the claim that he did not have to turn over the tapes of Oval Office conversations due to this presidential prerogative.
So what were Nixon’s claims regarding executive privilege? http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/708/Background_Summary__Questions_
What did the Supreme Court decide? http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/719/Summary_of_the_Decision
We live in a post-9/11 world, and our post- 9/11 presidents– both George W. Bush and Barack Obama– have made claims that presidential powers are broader than most people realize. In the wake of 9/11, the executive branch — president and vice president– has claimed an expansion of power to act, and part of the argument is built on war powers–especially under the promotion of Dick Cheney, who began his Washington career as an aide in… the Nixon White House! Here is a timeline of the influence of persons like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in the Watergate scandal– and beyond: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?nixon_and_watergate_tmln_other=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_rumsfeld__cheney__and_ford_neocons&timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln
The Talented Mr. Roosevelt
Here is a good video from the history channel about Theodore Roosevelt.
With the capture and arrest of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, there are three opinion pieces I want you to read, as well as the first three paragraphs in particular from the front page of Thursday’s paper. As you hopefully know, at first authorities considered charging the surviving bomber as an enemy combatant, and deliberately decided not to Mirandize him once he regained consciousness. Remember that he is a naturalized US citizen captured on American soil and has so far not been tied to any international terrorist organizations.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/boston-bomb-investigation-extends-to-russia/article_047ec30a-d724-5b49-9811-c4c0941fd3dc.html (first three paragraphs are particularly important).
First, from an editorial from the Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-president-or-terror-suspect-the-rule-of-law-applies/article_411048ff-1e15-5032-8b1c-9756bc4a7d93.html
And this one from conservative commentator George Will: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/george-will/george-will-the-shame-of-deference/article_20bdbf54-e3fd-5fdb-aab5-7d8bb93e623e.html
This is a great chance to APPLY what we learn and use it to determine our course of action. It is also a good chance to review the Constitutional Amendments and Supreme Court decisions as well as other historical precedents that apply to our understanding of civil liberties. We will be discussing this in class next Tuesday, April 30. Take notes and CONSIDER your answer to these questions:
What are civil liberties? What is the purpose of civil liberties? Are they negotiable or variable? What does history show us about limitations on civil liberties in times of war or crisis? What points does George Will make about previous instances of racially-based civil liberties decisions? What point does Kathleen Parker make about the ease of stripping those perceived as “alien” or “other” of their rights and claims to humanity?
Here is a link outlining very briefly the current case law on the matter of enemy combatants and civil liberties: http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/index.php?action=showtopic&topicid=24
Note the ironies and strange coincidences.
The Electoral College met on December 17 and officially cast their ballots for president: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/17/3146095/electoral-college-set-to-affirm.html