Is the war on terrorism giving too large a shift of power to the executive branch? It seems that since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the executive branch has gained excessive power. In an article written by David E. Sanger for the New York Times, several good points are brought forth on this issue. The president (George W. Bush) has so much power now that it is getting to the point where something has to be done. Yet, nothing is being done to lesson the president's power, and probably nothing will be done for a while to lesson the power of the president during the time of war. It should not be right for major military decisions be left to rest on the account of a single person. There should be a panel of several people who have just as much say as the president does when it comes to military decisions during war time. After all, didn't the framers of the constitution want several people to be the ones making important decisions such as these? This way the decision would not be made due to a single person's bias or whishes; such a way would insure a concrete system of checks and balances for war time decisions. How much power is too much for the president (or executive branch) to have during the time of war? America certainly has given the executive branch too much power, yet has done nothing to stop the shift of power. Something needs to be done to stop this before it gets out of control. .
