Description
Edited by Ellis (politics, Willamette U.) and Nelson (political science, Rhodes College), this text is designed to engage undergraduate students in primarily normative issues of the American presidency through the presentation of "pro" and "con" essays debating the following issues: the relationship of the modern presidency to that intended by the framers of the Constitution, the possible institution of a national primary for nominating presidential candidates, the direct election of the President, the repeal of the 22nd Amendment (limiting the number of terms a president can serve), media treatment of the President, the President as Jacksonian representative of the American people, presidential usurpation of congressional war powers, the "war on terror" and checks on presidential power, the use of presidential signing statements, presidential power in the selection of judges, the possible abolition of the vice presidency, the President's personal attributes as a predictor of presidential performance, and the President as agent of democratic change. Annotation ©2010 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
Read More
The study of the presidency—the power of the office, the evolution of the executive as an institution, the men who have served—has generated a great body of research and scholarship.What better way to get students to grapple with the ideas of the literature than through conflicting perspectives on some of the most pivotal issues facing the modern presidency? Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson have once again assembled a cadre of top scholars to offer a series of pro/con essays that will inspire spirited debate beyond the pages of the book. Each essay—written in the form of a debate resolution— offers a compelling yet concise view on the American executive. In essays that are new to this edition, contributors debate the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, the abolition of the vice presidency, the extent to which presidential signing statements threaten the separation of powers, and whether the fighting of the war on terror should require relaxing checks on presidential power. Ellis and Nelson introduce each pair of essays, giving students context and preparing them to read each argument critically, so they can decide for themselves which side of the debate they find most persuasive.
Read Less