Fred Phillips
Indiana University East

Running head: Analysis of Presidential Abuses

Analysis of Presidential Abuses of the U.S. Constitution Fred Phillips
Indiana University East

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 2 Analysis of Presidential Abuses of the U.S. Constitution


This political science analysis paper examines the role and authority of the President of the United States as hawk (fearmonger/warmonger) or dove (pacifist), as a totalitarian or an egalitarian liberal, and a look at party or faction visage of that President from William McKinley to Barack Obama. Is patriotism to the doctrine of that person’s nation or faction of regime? The station of President due to the nonstop wars has stripped away from the U.S. Constitution.

Analysis of Presidential Abuses of the U.S. Constitution

“Good wishes alone will not ensure peace.” Alfred Nobel

“Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” Albert Einstein

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 3

The President of the United States is the chief executive officer under authority of the legislative branch with 2/3rd support and also Commander-in-Chief of the US military, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice of the federal government as declared in the Constitution. The President as Commander-in-Chief has exceptional influence in domestic and foreign affairs as long as there is support from Congress. However the authority of the President has transformed in this regime of international police action (CIA, NSA) in comparison to the authority of the President under Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Homeland Security under authority of the President have monitored and interfered with foreign nations for the sole purpose of gaining control of natural and organic resources (mineral and labor) and increase the want and need for fear and wars.

The Inaugural Addresses of Presidents carry on an important tradition, but the rhetoric is conveyed beyond the words when heard aloud. The point of the President’s Inaugural Address is to invoke confidence for the American people, but George W. Bush made no real effort to convey that confidence as he spoke. The President should be a beacon of hope, strength, wisdom, civility, and courage when FDR argued with strong proclamation, “let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” In contrast to JFK’s Inaugural Address, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” JFK continued with assertion and dutifulness, “my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you- -ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” In contrast to the Inaugural Address of George W. Bush in 2001 that stutters and stumbles as if he was speaking

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 4

for the first time in public: “I ask you to be citizens: Citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a nation of character.” Bush’s rhetoric carried a message that the nation and federal government would conquer inadequate education and poverty; as well as a call for civility and patriotism to one another like the Inaugural Address of President JFK. Kennedy’s rhetoric for peace and liberty was firm and absolute though with a spirit of dove. In contrast to the hawkish George W. Bush that calls for America’s principle to be spread all over the world. All three Presidents faced attacks on liberty and all three handled those threats differently, but only George W. Bush fed the masses with rhetoric of overwhelming fear to abuse Executive powers of the Constitution.

Emeritus Professor of Law Michael E. Tigar of Duke University and Washington College argued that the Executive Branch and more specifically the President had unconstitutionally abused and broken laws and rights of the Constitution. Tigar argued that some early judicial decisions by Chief Justice Marshall made it evident that the President was under authority of the Judicial Branch. He argued, “The net result is that the CIA, the NSA, and all the other executive branch agencies engaged in surveillance, detention, torture, rendition of suspects, and even targeted killings by drone strike have claimed immunity from accountability by either of the two other branches- legislative and judicial.” Tigar used James Madison’s Federalist Paper No68 and Patrick Henry’s arguments to make the point that from the birth of the United States there was concern that there needed to be separation of authority and powers to ensure the checks and balances. Tigar expounds on James Madison’s principle of the Bill of Rights First Amendment powers that needed whistleblowers and watchdogs like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Daniel Ellsberg, and Edward Snowden. However because of military laws that protect the President even when crimes are committed there can be no First Amendment rights

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 5

for active duty soldiers. The device that was implemented that gave the President superior authority over the judicial and legislative was the “political question doctrine”.
Leaders of the world’s nations have worked together to instigate contention. (Tigar, 2014)

From President Woodrow Wilson to President Barack Obama the United States has been involved in perhaps twenty-five official wars and many CIA operated regime coups d’état and weapons sales with regimes or factions that later turned to wars between the United States and that regime or faction. The instruments of killing and sin of covet have resulted in two billion human lives massacred for the call of diplomacy, liberty, and peace? Wars and battles have become manufactured contentions for the President of the United States to have nonstop war powers and to keep the Military Industrial Complex fat with rich contracts and killing technology in evolution. Fear has been the irresistible attribute of our nation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

President Ronald Reagan argued, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” However, President Ronald Reagan supported President Harry Truman’s Presidential Campaign to support the Democratic Party. When President Ronald Reagan argued about corruptible federal government it was for his inaugural address for President as a Republican. So, I argue that the problem with our federal government is corruptible and fallible factions with platforms and ideologies that pervert the United States Constitution and doctrines of humanity, which was the original disruption argument that prevented an immediate ratification for the United States Constitution in the first place. Ronald Reagan proved that patriotic loyalty should be the doctrine and ideology for which the United States was founded, but for many Americans their patriotic duty will be to their faction, which supersedes the United States which should be more dangerous then the Red Scare.

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 6

The famous Harvard graduate historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. argued to William F. Buckley, Jr. that Ronald Reagan restored the honor for the job of the United States President after Richard Nixon’s Watergate criminal fiasco and increase in the publicly non-favored Vietnam War which some how only tarnished the President and not the Republican Party. Schlesinger brings up a very important question to the Conservative Buckley, What gives our federal government the authority to dictate another foreign government when we ourselves are fallible which was previously acknowledged by President Ronald Reagan’s argument at the beginning of this paragraph. The issue here is, what makes our federal government the problem for the American people? The President is an imperial figure that King George III would not have tipped his hat to General George Washington after he conquered England. As Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know the rest of the story.” but that is a lie, because political analysis of United States President’s actions and performances are literally a biased view to favor the faction for which they represent instead of the doctrines of our federal government.

The American Conservative and host of Firing Line, William F. Buckley argued, “War is what happens when you have defective presidents.” Justin Rex wrote a paper that examined President William McKinley (Republican Party) and the Spanish-American War in contrast to President George W. Bush and the War on Terror. Rex argued that President McKinley did not arouse our nation to fear or war. On the contrary, Mr. President McKinley displayed anxiety of war even when the USS Maine had been attacked. McKinley kept his rhetoric void of fear or war. Even after he learned that an external force attacked the USS Maine he did not raise the war hawk rhetoric. President George W. Bush (Republican Party) on the contrary was the absolute opposite of President William McKinley with the President’s rhetoric as a hawk or warmonger after September 11, 2001. President George W. Bush cried for revenge, war, fear of Weapons of

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 7

Mass Destruction (WMD) and terrorism throughout every means capable. (Justin, 2011)
The institution of the President of the United States supersedes the faction or party that he

represents, but the Supreme Court Justices and Senators have not. Presidents McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), John F. Kennedy (JFK) all acted and spoke with hesitation towards war or foreign and domestic contention. All of these U.S. Presidents could be titled as doves. On the flip side are the hawkish Presidents. At the top of the list of President hawks is Theodore Roosevelt (TR), Harry S. Truman, “Ike” aka Dwight David Eisenhower, Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Presidents Jimmy Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton are kind of a mixed bag. President Carter for his chaos with Iran, Afghanistan, and doing nothing during the genocide of East Timor. President George H.W. Bush delayed in the American involvement of Dessert Storm on the basis of chemical weapons were used, but no evidence was actually found to support Bush. President Bill Clinton supported the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that created too many foreign and domestic contentions. Thus the issue of wars and warmongering and/or fearmongering isn’t as much a party or faction issue as it is or should be an issue of patriotism to principle.

I was shocked to hear many of the arguments on the Conservative talk program, Firing Line that the office of President after Ronald Reagan had been declared an imperial station. These are arguments of a political dissident that no longer boldly wave the banner of American Conservatism. For true patriotism is to our principles and doctrines of liberty to all humankind and not like a sports fan; which one nation or regime should not cleave so tightly to that it becomes choked to death for the true icon of covet and authoritarianism. Psychologist, B.F. Skinner in 1971 on Firing Line, argued that our civilization might fail if we do not evolve

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 8

philosophically on the principle of liberty. We have seen or perhaps some fail to see that the United States has taken on a reincarnation of Ancient Rome when Julius Caesar and Marc Antony chased the Senate out of Rome.

Analysis of Presidential Abuses


Bush, G. W. (2001, January 20). President George W. Bush 2001 Inaugural Address [Video file]. Retrieved from

Dolbeare, K. M., & Cummings, M. S. (2010). American political thought (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. FISHER, L. (2010). The Law: When Wars Begin: Misleading Statements by Presidents. Presidential Studies

Quarterly, 1(40), 171-184. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2009.03739.x
Galison, P., Navasky, V. S., Oreskes, N., Romero, A., & Aryeh. (2015). What We Have Learned about Limiting

Knowledge in a Democracy. ProQuest.
Henderson, D. R., & Gochenour, Z. (2013). War and Presidential Greatness. The Independent Review, 4(17), 505-

Justin, R. (2011). The President’s War Agenda: A Rhetorical View. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 1(41), 93-118. Kennedy, J. F. (1961, January 20). President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address [Video file]. Retrieved from

Kiel, Jr., J. L. (2007). When Soldiers Speak Out: A Survey of Provisions Limiting Freedom of Speech in the

Military. ProQuest.
Parenti, M. (2003). The assassination of Julius Caesar: A people’s history of ancient Rome. New York: New Press. Roosevelt, F. D. (1933, March 4). Franklin D. Roosevelt Inaugural Address - 1933 - [Video file]. Retrieved from

Steibel, W. (1971, October 2). Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Case against Freedom”:

B. F. Skinner, Donald MacKay, Unavailable: Amazon Instant Video [Video file]. Retrieved from video&ie=UTF8&qid=1430248591&sr=1-2

Steibel, W. (1974, November 15). Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “Democratic Culture”: Leslie Fiedler, Unavailable: Amazon Instant Video [Video file]. Retrieved from

Analysis of Presidential Abuses 10 Culture/dp/B00VNM8UOW/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1430247067&sr=1- 1&keywords=firing+line+democratic+culture

Steibel, W. (1974, July 9). Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Limits of Journalistic Investigation”: Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Unavailable: Amazon Instant Video [Video file]. Retrieved from Investigation/dp/B00B8CLSZA/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1430247358&sr=1- 1&keywords=firing+line+carl+bernstein

Steibel, W. (1986, October 16). Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “Human Rights, Foreign Policy, and Ronald Reagan”: Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Unavailable: Amazon Instant Video [Video file]. Retrieved from Foreign/dp/B00VTUPGZE/ref=sr_1_2?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1430247559&sr=1- 2&keywords=Arthur+M.+Schlesinger

Steibel, W. (1989, November 17). Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “President Kennedy and Prime Minister Macmillan: Part I”: Alistair Horne, Arthur M. Schlesinger, John Kennneth Galbraith, Unavailable: Amazon Instant Video [Video file]. Retrieved from Buckley-President-Minister-Macmillan/dp/B006JITYMW/ref=sr_1_5?s=instant- video&ie=UTF8&qid=1430247445&sr=1-5&keywords=firing+line+kennedy

Tigar, M. E. (2014). The National Security State: The End of Separation of Powers. ProQuest, 66(3), 136-159.