imperial vs imperilled presidency

Question 1

what does an imperial presidency mean?

Answer 1

characterised by a misuse of presidential powers, excessive secrecy and high handedness in dealings with Congress

Question 2

what does an imperilled presidency mean?

Answer 2

-characterised by ineffectiveness and weakness, often as a result of conflict with congress

Question 3

evidence to show Nixon’s presidency was imperial:

Answer 3

-he authorised military intervention in cambodia and laos without telling congress
-the Watergate scandal showed his use of corrupt and illegal methods to advance his own interests
-he continued the war in Vietnam, even though he was elected on an anti-Vietnam War platform, without congressional approval

Question 4

evidence of an imperilled presidency (general and specific):

Answer 4

-Congress responded to Nixon’s failings by further limiting the power of the president through the 1973 War Powers Act (president had to seek congress’ approval before military action
-presidents can be forced to use direct authority to avoid gridlock
-presidents are unable to achieve their legislative priorities without congressional support
-gov. shutdowns are a reminder of the limits of presidential power (e.g. shutdown over disagreements over Trump’s Mexico border wall plan)
-there are lame duck periods of presidencies (e.g. Biden currently) during which presidents struggle to implement policy objectives