It makes sense that there is a system of brakes against the abuse of power and his basic framework can be applied to a variety of rules, whether a presidential system or a constitutional monarchy. Yet I wonder what Montesquieu would say about the rise of presidential powers in the United States, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. In both World Wars, for example, the president gained certain war powers that made the executive branch the most powerful branch during the war. While it is understandable that during a time of emergency some freedoms must be sacrificed for collective security, I question whether it is absolutely necessary. In President Wilson's case, the legislative branch (Congress) still had some power since it had not approved the Treaty of Versailles, which was Wilson's ultimate goal. However, under President Roosevelt, he expanded the administration of the executive branch and thus increased its ability to influence laws, the economy, and the side the United States would take, even under the banner of neutrality. Furthermore, during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the president had the ability to send troops around the world to fight, for example, communist uprisings, without declaring war (congressional power) . In recent times, President Obama has used his presidential/executive powers to simply grant amnesty to many illegal immigrants (he is not the first to do so)