In reply to a comment...

I received the following comment on my entry about why I feel Woodrow Wilson felt it was his duty to expand the powers of the Executive Branch:

"With congress as corrupt as it is now, I think it was a good idea that Wilson took some executive power back into the presidential arena. If it was even worse back then, his actions were certainly justified."

A lot of critics say that Wilson and FDR expanded the powers of the Presidency too much, but I think part of the problem is whether or not the President in office can HANDLE the broader Executive powers.

Coolidge and Hoover are great examples of this. Coolidge took office under Wilson's expanded powers, but he looked around and said, "You know what, things aren't going too badly...let's not touch anything and see what happens." What happened was that things were pretty sedate, and Coolidge left office with a surplus budget. The powers of the presidency didn't really tickle his fancy, so he didn't get carried away with them.

Hoover, however, got into office and said, "Okay, I'm going to do this, and this, and change this, and this...and maybe that, too." Hoover left office with the country and economy a wreck. The Stock Market Crash had come and gone, and the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. He took enthusiastic advantage of the expanded powers of the office, but didn't know how to control them appropriately.

FDR, as an additional example, not only took enthusiastic advantage of the Presidency's powers, but expanded them even further than Wilson had. Although his economic successes are debatable, many of us agree that his policies to assist the less fortunate amongst us are of lasting value: in other words, he was well-equipped to handle a lot of power.

But this is definitely just my opinion.