Develop an argument that explains whether or not the powers of the presidency as executed since the Great Depression have made the presidency too powerful an office.

I think I might concentrate of Roosevelt and his "new deal" recovery from the great depression and the mobilization for World War 2. Others such as Kennedy with the Russians bringing missiles to Cuba or Truman bombing Japan with nuclear bombs or Bush with his invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence are extreme in acts of power but over relatively short time spans.

Well, let me put on my funny hat and see if I can clown around with this question!

You know, the powers of the presidency since the Great Depression have definitely made it a pretty powerful office. It's like the presidency went from being a regular Joe to a swole weightlifter with bulging biceps. But has it become TOO powerful? Let's dive in!

On one hand, having a powerful presidency could be a good thing. I mean, imagine if the president had the strength of Hercules and the wit of Shakespeare. They could singlehandedly fix all the world's problems and still have time for a friendly game of golf. The power of the presidency could be the ultimate superhero cape!

But on the other hand, with great power comes great responsibility, right? Having a super-powerful presidency could also mean all the power gets concentrated in one person's hands, like a magician's trick with only one rabbit. And let's be honest, putting all the chocolate in one basket can sometimes lead to, well, a chocolate mess.

When the presidency becomes too powerful, it could also lead to a loss of checks and balances. Like a seesaw with one super-heavy person sitting on it, the equilibrium gets all wonky. And we don't want a lopsided government, do we? That would be like trying to ride a unicycle on a tightrope - not a good look!

So, in conclusion, while having a powerful presidency can seem tempting, we ought to strike a balance. We need to make sure the presidency doesn't become a Godzilla-level monster stomping through our democracy, but also doesn't turn into a weakling that can't even bench press a feather. Let's keep it just right, like Goldilocks searching for that perfectly comfortable presidential chair!

Step 1: Introduction

The powers and influence of the presidency have expanded significantly since the Great Depression. This development has fueled a debate on whether the presidency has become too powerful of an institution. In this argument, we will explore both sides of the issue and assess whether the powers of the presidency, as executed since the Great Depression, have made it an office that wields excessive authority.

Step 2: The expansion of executive powers
Since the Great Depression, the executive branch has seen a considerable increase in its powers and responsibilities. Presidents have taken on varying degrees of authority to address the nation's challenges, both domestically and internationally. They have utilized executive orders, signing statements, and regulatory agencies to shape policies and regulations. Additionally, modern presidents have been able to bypass Congress through the use of executive actions, allowing them to implement policies without legislative approval.

Step 3: Checks and balances
However, it is crucial to note that the U.S. Constitution enshrines a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. The president is subject to oversight and constraint from both the legislative and judicial branches. For example, Congress has the power to declare war, confirm appointments, and control federal spending, thus serving as a check on the president's authority. Furthermore, the Supreme Court can rule executive actions as unconstitutional, providing an additional safeguard against presidential overreach.

Step 4: Public accountability and transparency
Presidential power is also mitigated by public accountability. The president is ultimately accountable to the American people, who can express their opinions and concerns through elections, public opinion, and media scrutiny. Presidential actions that are perceived as excessive or unconstitutional can face significant pushback and backlash, leading to limits being placed on the power of the office.

Step 5: Changing societal expectations
Another important factor to consider is the changing societal expectations placed on the presidency. As the demands and challenges facing the nation evolve, there is a greater need for the executive branch to respond swiftly and decisively. The complexity of modern governance requires a more active and powerful presidency to address issues such as economic crises, national security threats, and technological advancements. Therefore, it can be argued that the perceived expansion of presidential power is a result of societal demands rather than an inherent flaw in the office itself.

Step 6: Conclusion
In conclusion, while the powers of the presidency have expanded since the Great Depression, it is important to consider the system of checks and balances, public accountability, and changing societal expectations. These factors mitigate the potential for an overly powerful executive branch. Ultimately, the presidency remains subject to the constraints imposed by the Constitution and public opinion, preventing it from becoming an office that wields excessive authority.

To develop an argument on whether or not the powers of the presidency since the Great Depression have made the office too powerful, we need to consider the expansion and impact of presidential powers, as well as potential consequences. Here's how to approach it:

1. Understand the historical context: Start by researching the Great Depression and how it affected the presidency. Look into the specific actions taken by presidents during that time to address economic and social challenges. This will provide a foundation for understanding the context in which the expansion of presidential powers occurred.

2. Analyze the growth of presidential powers: Investigate the specific ways in which the presidency has grown in power since the Great Depression. Consider executive orders, use of emergency powers, expanding control over the bureaucracy, and the influence of new technologies that enhance the president's ability to exert influence. Look into key legislation and landmark court cases that have shaped these powers.

3. Evaluate the consequences: Consider whether these expanded powers have had negative consequences for government checks and balances, privacy and civil liberties, public trust, or the ability of the other branches of government to function effectively. Assess whether the presidency's concentration of power has led to executive overreach, abuse, or a lack of accountability.

4. Consider counterarguments: To present a well-rounded argument, explore reasons why some might argue that the presidency has not become too powerful. Some counterarguments might highlight the necessity of strong leadership during times of crisis, the role of Congress in checking executive power, or the ability of the courts to curb abuses.

5. Incorporate evidence and examples: Support your argument with specific examples from history, such as specific executive actions, notable court cases, or instances of congressional pushback. Use credible sources and academic research to validate your points.

Remember, developing an argument on such a complex and subjective question requires a critical analysis of historical events and an understanding of political systems. By following these steps, you will be able to construct a well-supported argument on whether the powers of the presidency since the Great Depression have made the office too powerful.