Question

Consider the idea that "national emergencies allow for more presidential power." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Use examples from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
You've considered the challenges and major expansions of each of the 3 presidencies in focus. How did each of these presidents set an example for their successors to follow? In what ways do we see their legacies in modern presidency?
Respond in 5-8 sentences

Answer 1

I agree that national emergencies tend to expand presidential power, though the scope and durability of that expansion depend on political, legal, and institutional pushback. Abraham Lincoln used the Civil War to exercise extraordinary authorities—suspending habeas corpus, ordering blockades, and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation—that established wartime precedents for unilateral executive action. Theodore Roosevelt, facing economic and social upheaval rather than war, enlarged the presidency through activist regulation, trust-busting, and the “bully pulpit,” demonstrating how presidents can use publicity and administrative power to shape policy. Franklin D. Roosevelt institutionalized emergency expansion during the Great Depression and World War II with the New Deal, an enlarged federal bureaucracy, and sustained use of executive orders and wartime controls, showing how crisis responses can become permanent features of government. Each set examples successors have followed: Lincoln for broad wartime authority, TR for presidential leadership and regulatory activism, and FDR for using crisis to build lasting institutions and public support. Today presidents routinely claim emergency powers, leverage executive orders, and rely on a large administrative state and media persuasion—continuations of the patterns these three presidents established.