Response one pol-01 Tulis’ thesis is one that could not be more pertinent and on point with what is happening currently in the White House. A President is testing the boundaries of where his power begins and ends; will the remaining three years be dominated by the Large “C” or the little “c”?2 I would argue that President Trump assumed or went into office believing he had “huge” public support and could stretch the boundaries much farther than his predecessor, able to ignore many rules and boundaries laid throughout the Constitution. But using President Trump as an example is still a bit premature since only one year has gone by and three more remain to define his presidency. President Lincoln is by far my favorite president to read about and happens to be a great example of utilizing presidential power bestowed by the people, or the little “c”. As our weekly lesson provided, President Lincoln presided over the Country during an extraordinary time and as such, required extraordinary measures to ensure the continuation of our great Union. There are many examples of President Lincoln stretching the boundary, and in some cases completely dismissing the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. But his act of suspending Habeas Corpus is one of great interest and still has unanswered questions. The “Great Writ” is one of the first liberties the Founders established and it protects people from capricious arrests demanding that cause be proven before a judge as to why you are being detained. Although the Article I does state that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended during times of unrest and when public safety is required, it did not define who has the authority to suspend it (Congress or President); or how long it can be suspended.1 The only ruling that came out of President Lincoln’s action to suspend Habeas Corpus was a Supreme Court ruling in 1866, Ex Parte Milligan, which stated that the power to suspend Habeas Corpus was not inclusive of Military Courts if civilian courts were open.1 So my question is, although President Lincoln had a great public support from the Northern States and no one really questioned his action, how long would that last? President Lincoln was a wise man and did not abuse that power by suspending Habeas Corpus or other civil liberties longer than what was necessary, but what if it was not Lincoln? What if a president obtained so much public support that the checks and balances became futile? Most scholars maintain that the Judiciary and Congress place constraints on unilateral decisions made by the President, yet this is situational given political agendas and loyalties.3 Add in party politics to the mix; a party has a majority in Congress, a majority in the Supreme Court and sits in the White House, who dares to cross party lines and stand up? These are all things to consider when discussing the breadth of Presidential Powers being derived from the little “c”. I am hopeful and optimistic that the people and our instit ...

1. Response one pol-01
Tulis’ thesis is one that could not be more pertinent and on
point with what is happening currently in the White House. A
President is testing the boundaries of where his power begins
and ends; will the remaining three years be dominated by the
Large “C” or the little “c”?2 I would argue that President Trump
assumed or went into office believing he had “huge” public
support and could stretch the boundaries much farther than his
predecessor, able to ignore many rules and boundaries laid
throughout the Constitution. But using President Trump as an
example is still a bit premature since only one year has gone by
and three more remain to define his presidency. President
Lincoln is by far my favorite president to read about and
happens to be a great example of utilizing presidential power
bestowed by the people, or the little “c”.
As our weekly lesson provided, President Lincoln presided over
the Country during an extraordinary time and as such, required
extraordinary measures to ensure the continuation of our great
Union. There are many examples of President Lincoln stretching
the boundary, and in some cases completely dismissing the Bill
of Rights in the Constitution. But his act of suspending Habeas
Corpus is one of great interest and still has unanswered
questions. The “Great Writ” is one of the first liberties the
Founders established and it protects people from capricious
arrests demanding that cause be proven before a judge as to why
you are being detained. Although the Article I does state that
the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended during times of
unrest and when public safety is required, it did not define who
has the authority to suspend it (Congress or President); or how
long it can be suspended.1 The only ruling that came out of
President Lincoln’s action to suspend Habeas Corpus was a
Supreme Court ruling in 1866, Ex Parte Milligan, which stated
that the power to suspend Habeas Corpus was not inclusive of
Military Courts if civilian courts were open.1 So my question

2. is, although President Lincoln had a great public support from
the Northern States and no one really questioned his action, how
long would that last? President Lincoln was a wise man and did
not abuse that power by suspending Habeas Corpus or other
civil liberties longer than what was necessary, but what if it was
not Lincoln? What if a president obtained so much public
support that the checks and balances became futile? Most
scholars maintain that the Judiciary and Congress place
constraints on unilateral decisions made by the President, yet
this is situational given political agendas and loyalties.3 Add in
party politics to the mix; a party has a majority in Congress, a
majority in the Supreme Court and sits in the White House, who
dares to cross party lines and stand up? These are all things to
consider when discussing the breadth of Presidential Powers
being derived from the little “c”. I am hopeful and optimistic
that the people and our institutions will play their respective
roles as we begin a new year in preserving the respect and
admiration the United States has earned from around the world
when it comes to this great experiment.
1. Linda R. Monk, The Words We Live By (New York, NY: The
Stonesong Press, 2000), 58.
2. Grulke Eric, "Week 1: Formal Presidency/Informal
Presidency," American Military University, , accessed January
2,
2018, https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-
37b2-492d-8e6e-
b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&back
Path=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPag
e=1493982&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBe
fore=&itemId=4284549&path=push&addTool=-
1&recheck=&id=.
3. Fang-Yi Chiou and Lawrence S. Rothenberg, "The Elusive
Search for Presidential Power," American Journal of Political
Science 58, no. 3 (2013): 653, doi:10.1111/ajps.12057.

3. References
Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg. "The Elusive
Search for Presidential Power." American
Journal of Political Science58, no. 3 (2013): 653-68.
doi:10.1111/ajps.12057.
Eric, Grulke. "Week 1: Formal Presidency/Informal
Presidency." American Military University. Accessed
January 2,
2018. https://edge.apus.edu/portal/site/366584/tool/ac046166-
37b2-492d-8e6e-
b208146732e9/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&back
Path=&errorMessage=&clearAttr=&source=&title=&sendingPag
e=1493982&newTopLevel=false&postedComment=false&addBe
fore=&itemId=4284549&path=push&addTool=-
1&recheck=&id=.
Monk, Linda R. The Words We Live By. New York, NY: The
Stonesong Press, 2000.
Response two pol-01
Tulis has posited two constitutional presidencies as an informal
presidency and a formal presidency. I think that the original
intent of the Framers of the Constitution would best be served
here, as did Tulis. The Framers of the Constitution had just
experienced quartering of soldiers and unjust searches and
seizures to name a few indignities of the King and his loyal
governors. So what they wanted, rather than the Divine Right
of Kings(the premise that kings or rulers derive their power to
rule directly from God and do not have to answer to the people)
was a way to hold in check the powers given to the one in
charge of the new country they sought to establish. They then
instituted an executive branch withpowers delineated in Article
II of the Constitution. The Framers concern was that if the
executive branch was too powerful as in a "popular leader", that
majority tyranny would be the result and the new country would
be back to square one.[1]
Tulis points out that up until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson

4. that the formal presidency is how most of the presidents
governed with a few exceptions. Important to the discussion is
to point out that Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. Under
Wilson, the progressive income tax was passed and the Federal
Reserve Act was passed among other laws. The Progressive
movement had a profound effect on how the constitution was
interpreted based on their aversion for checks and balances, that
government is the answer for everything, that the administration
of government should be by administrative experts and that the
constitution is a living breathing document and should change
with the times.[2] According to Tulis, Woodrow Wilson's point
of view was that "Separation [of powers] would be replaced by
institutionally structured cooperation." (Tulis, no page number)
Further, that President Wilson thought that "the separation of
powers was the central defect of American politics".[3]
Tulis explains that the original constitution was buttressed by
the writings of the Federalist and in these papers we discover
what the Framers intended. The Framers, whether they be
Federalists or Anti Federalists, wanted a government that was
limited in nature, protected individual rights and promote
individual liberty secured by private property. How to
accomplish these things was where they disagreed. In addition,
the citizenry would need to be virtuous as described by Thomas
Jefferson and Plato. Virtue would come naturally from the
citizens as opposed to being forced on them.[4]
Tulis points out that Alexander Hamilton explained that on
occasion a situation might arise where the president would make
a decision that was contrary to what the people wanted but that
it should be in the best interest of the nation as a whole. I think
therein lies the ambiguity of the two constitutions. The
president needs to act in accordance with the constitution but
sometimes may use rhetoric to explain why he might not follow
the constitution. This is where Tulis explains the second
constitution (a rhetorical constitution). Both constitutions give

5. the President power but the root of that power is different.
According to the Framers, the president derives his power from
the authority bestowed upon him by the written constitution.
According to President Wilson, the power that the president has
is conferred by the people and the president should talk to the
people and explain why he is doing what he is doing (use
rhetoric to assuage the citizenry). Tulis mentions that
presidents have had to use opposing arguments, one for the
people and one for congress.[5] Ronald Reagan used his powers
of persuasion to say that "government is not the solution to our
problem; government is the problem.[6] JFK in his inaugural
speech said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
what you can do for your country." (As an aside, if you have
time, google JFK's speeches). But one of the greatest
persuaders of all was Bill Clinton; first President Clinton
would poll the American people and then go talk to them. That
was his style. President George W. Bush was not a natural
speaker. But when the twin towers came down, his leadership
was impressive, not necessarily his speeches. So, that is why
we have what Tulis calls two constitutions…what presidents say
(the informal or rhetorical constitution) and how they act or
react to situations according to the written constitution (the
formal constitution).
Trish
Bibliography:
Pestritto, Ronald and Kempema, Taylor. "The Birth of Direct
Democracy: What Progressivism Did to the States", The
Heritage Foundation, (February 25,
2014). http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-
birth-direct-democracy-what-progressivism-did-the-states.
Tulis, Jeffrey K., "The Two Constitutional Presidencies", The
Presidency and the Political System 8, (2003): 57-87.

6. [1] Jeffrey K Tulis, "The Two Constitutional Presidencies",
The Presidency and the Political System 8, (2003): 57-87. npn.
[2] Ronald Pestritto, "The Birth of Direct Democracy: What
Progressivism Did to the States", The Heritage
Foundation, (February 25,
2014). http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-
birth-direct-democracy-what-progressivism-did-the-states.
[3] Tulis (long version, npn)
[4] Tulis (long version, npn)
[5]Tulis (long version, npn)
[6] Tulis (long version, npn)
RESPONSE ONE PADM-01
1. How would you define public policy? Be sure to draw from
scholarly sources to enhance or support your definition; but
don't quote the source. I'd like to see your analysis of the term.
Public policy can be seen as the result of action given
by governments to change direction by goals or methods used to
produce shifts over varying sectors and fields (Howlett, 2014,
p.188). However, this definition falls short in addresses true
actors, such as interest groups, lobbies, or individuals who help
pilot these government directions. Therefore, a more direct
definition should be that public policy is the direction or aim
guided from actors within the public or private sectors that
drive either an end state or solution to public issues and
problems via government mandate. This helps further identify
the ‘man behind the wheel’ so to speak, instead of thrusting the
responsibility unto the performing actor alone, ie. the
government, and shielding outside actors from responsibility.
This definition brings more to light in terms of accountability
and forces the responsibility to all parties, instead of just the
government who implements the new direction. This is both
good and bad, since a definition along these lines peels back the
shadows on who is driving and pushing policy while discarding

7. plausible deniability for entities acting upon government
direction.
2) Share with us some of the public policies you have seen
present within your community or state. Which ones impact
your life directly and how?
Personally, my community public policy often does not
affect me too much except in a few areas. The largest of these
is probably the policy push towards more public transportation
as the downtown area continues to grow and become more
saturated with businesses, university buildings, and living areas
like apartment complexes. Due to increased traffic, the city has
pushed more, and funded more, into construction of new lanes
and policy pushes for public transportation to attempt to reduce
private vehicles in the downtown area. The policy makes sense
at first, but falls far short in implementation. It has actually
created new problems both traffic related and financially due to
road construction and cost. It has taken years for the most basic
lane expansions, thus creating traffic flow problems in road
construction areas, while rising costs for bus maintenance and
fuel. Also, there has been policy shifts to increase bike
ridership, but those also fall short in implementation due to
construction needed for bike lanes, as well as the problems of
hazards in bike ridership in heavily congested areas. It seems
as though better solutions might be better suited, but the city
maintains this direction for the time being for better or worse.
3) What about national policies? Have there been larger
policies that you see a personal connection to?
Not wanting to descend into politics, the first thing that
comes to mind is foreign policy. Specifically dealing with
foreign aid and strategic partnerships. Coming from a military
background, I understand the necessity and idea behind
providing certain nations with funding for various reasons.
However, it is the policy reasons particularly that I find
disconcerting. For example, with a strategic relationship with
partner NATO nations, I find there is a disparity in funding put

8. forth by certain participating nations as wholly lacking,
requiring increasing funding and support by the US
Government. This policy of ‘picking up the slack’ for partner
nations is something that should be rectified and reevaluated
along different lines. In this same vein, there are federal
funding disparities established by policy that should be rectified
as well, due to either state’s own actions or lack of actions in
accordance with federal policy.
References
Howlett, M. (2014). “From the ‘old to the ‘new’ policy design:
design thinking beyond markets and collaborative
governance.” Poly Sci, Vol: 47 (187-207). Retrieved from
http://apus.intelluslearning.com/v3/course-
widget/640/#/document/24738466/1/4943b9a67766f44a3513349
c2afb6f04/59cc1287f80f16baded539a4e0a0783a/browse_publish
ed_content/6390/23175/51109/1/lesson/lesson?hideClose=true&
tagId=40659&external_course_id=365269&external_course_na
me=PADM530%20B001%20Win%2018
RESPONSE TWO-PADM-01
My definition of public policy is the particular steps that the
government takes to resolve issues that affect all citizens. The
steps may include establishing recommendations, rules and laws
in order to rectify certain issues within the public sector. The
goal of public policy is to ensure that the concerns that impact
all Americans are address and produce solutions. Our lesson one
supports my definition about public policy and enhances our
knowledge by providing good guidance of the definition of
public policy. Lesson one defines public policy as “specific
actions government takes to rectify a public situation, to
establish goals and develop methods to accomplish them, to set
guidelines and best practices, and to communicate agency
expectations and standards” (p.1). However public policy can be
an arduous topic to define and an extensive expression. Public
policy requires a deep analysis and an innovation process.
Petridou, (2014) concurs, innovation and policy diffusion

9. research “focuses on the processes through which a government
adopts innovative (new to this particular government) policies.
Diffusion literature recognizes that different policy jurisdictions
do not exist in a vacuum but instead are influenced by the
choices of other jurisdictions” (p. 8). Innovation and diffusion
definitely can assist the government whether is Federal, State or
Local in the process of public policy. The public policy process
requires the involvement of the three government branches
(Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). Howlett (2014)
views about public policies are the “result of efforts made by
governments to alter aspects of their own or social behavior in
order to carry out some end or purpose and are comprised of
(typically complex) arrangements of policy goals and means”
(p. 188). The public policy process as mentioned before can be
a difficult process and will always require to be reassess in
order to provide a neutral analysis to the issues or concerns that
affect the public sector. As public managers is our job to study
public policy to ensure that we are active actors and provide
some solutions to resolve problems and better our communities.
I reside in the State of California and like always there are new
laws or new policies that will be implemented with beginning of
the New Year. Thompson (2018) mentioned about 900 bills that
were signed by California state lawmakers and were signed by
Gov. Jerry Brown. Some of these laws are: cannabis (sale of
recreational marijuana to 21 year olds or older), immigration
(California a sanctuary state), fire arms (ammunition bought in
another state or online cannot be brought to California unless is
thru a license ammunition dealer). In my opinion all new laws
or policies will have some kind impact on my life and all
Californians. Recreational marijuana will be a huge one because
now we will have to worry about people driving while they are
under of influence of marijuana and also we have to worry
about drunk drivers.
One national policy that we all are connected to is the new tax
plan policy that President Trump signed on Dec 22, 2017.
Without a doubt the tax rate cuts will affect all individuals not

10. now but in 2025. The tax corporate was cut down 14 percent
and the individual tax cut percent was 37 percent however that
tax corporate is permanent and the individual tax will expire in
2025 (Amadeo, 2017). So what happens then? Only time will
tell but it definitely will be create another problem and
therefore an implementation of a new policy.
References:
Amadeo, K. (2017), Trump's Tax Plan and How It Affects You.
Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-
how-it-affects-you-4113968
Howlett, M. (2014). From the 'old' to the 'new' policy design:
Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance.
Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187-207.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s11077-014-
9199-0
PADM530 - Lesson 1: Introduction to Public Policy and Policy
Actors
Petridou, E., Avdelningen för samhällsvetenskap, Fakulteten för
humanvetenskap, & Mittuniversitetet. (2014). Theories of the
policy process: Contemporary scholarship and future directions.
Policy Studies Journal, 42(S1), S12-S32. doi:10.1111/psj.12054
Thompson, D. (2018) New California laws cover immigration,
marijuana, education Retrieved Jan 4, 2018 from
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7828413-181/new-
california-laws-cover-
immigration?gallery=7812409&artslide=0&sba=AAS