Essay On Presidential Authority

The president is the foreign policy leader for the United States with an important political, military and economic role in the international arena. If there is collision between the president and congress, can congress restrain the president in foreign policy making?

Although nowhere in the Constitution are executive orders explicitly mentioned, Article II, Section I states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The President’s power to issue executive orders comes from the Constitution and Congress. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power, which grants its power directly to the executive by the Constitution; executive orders do not require congressional approval. Similar to legislative statutes and regulations propagated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, meaning that they can be struck down if deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Executive orders are not to be confused with executive agreements. Executive order carries out constitutional powers of the President without having to go through Congress. An executive agreement is an agreement with foreign heads of state concluded by Presidents under their power as Commander in Chief and their general authority in foreign affairs; executive agreements do not require ratification by the Senate. Examples of executive agreements include trade deals and military actions.

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

In the following article, Adam Liptak and Michael D. Shear, discuss how the Supreme Court of the United States had tied on a case about President Obama’s Immigration Plan. This article gives a glimpse of how the judicial branch is a very important factor of the United States Government. This article reflects how the power of the judicial branch because it shows how the Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress. In the following article it displays how the Supreme Court can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. This article discusses the fact that their are many illegal

The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed.

Throughout American history, after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, the validity of executive privilege has been questioned in federal courts and among legal scholars on countless occasions. According to Merriam-Webster, executive privilege entails, “exemption from legally enforced disclosure of communications within the executive branch of government when such disclosure would adversely affect the functions and decision-making processes of the executive branch” (Merriam-Webster). In other words, executive privilege is the notion that the President is exempt from having to give evidence or disclose information to congressional hearings or to judicial inquiries. Executive privilege also typically includes immunity from legal disputes involving the presidency. Although not officially referred to as “executive privilege” until Eisenhower’s presidency, the first argument of executive privilege or immunity took place during George Washington’s presidency (The Constitution and Executive Privilege). Claiming executive privilege has been a common occurrence throughout all U.S. presidencies and continuing with President Obama. Those who argue against the legitimacy of executive privilege use the reasoning that it is not constitutional because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and interrupts the separation of powers. On the other hand, many legal scholars assert that executive privilege is necessary for

Throughout United States history, there have been countless supreme court cases that have shaped our interpretation of the Constitution; these cases have ultimately led to the way we live our modern day lives with respect to civil rights, government policies, and commerce. Moreover, various Supreme Court cases have provided insight on how the Legislative and Executive branches must operate in order to create and sustain a fair and representative democracy. Schechter v. United States, Yakus v.United States, and Mistretta v. United States, three incredibly high-profile supreme court cases, are perfect examples; these cases address the issue of the nondelegation of legislative powers and whether or not it is constitutional for Congress to delegate certain powers to other branches of the United States government. We will examine these three cases individually and determine if delegation is forbidden under the Constitution or legal under certain circumstances.

The authors maintain that in the face of wartime emergencies such as terrorism “we must adhere to the principles of political freedom, due process, and protection of privacy that constitute the core of a free and democratic society.” In opposition to Posner and Vermeule, they believe that judicial deference is damaging to our civil liberties as citizens, maintaining the constitution, and preserving the state. According to Terrorism and the constitution, deference to the executive is not only unnecessary, but it often leads to a reduction of our rights as citizens. The authors argue that judicial review has in fact protected our civil liberties from an expanding national security apparatus, which incorporates an ever-growing number of bureaucracies competing against each other, without using the constitution as a guideline. The authors look at a number of acts and programs such as the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, COINTELPRO, the Anti-terrorism act of 1996, and the Patriot act of 2001, to demonstrate how judicial deference has not made us safer but often more oppressed, and how the cost of the restriction of our civil liberties in the name of security has created an unequal balance damaging to liberty. A number of bureaucratic agencies such as the

Furthermore, precedent set by Nixon v Administrator of General Services (1977) established that Congressional authority may only be confined and limited in contest between Congress and President only if Congress’ statute would prevent the executive from, “accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.” Morrison v Olson (1988) reinforced the Nixon decision. In following Supreme Court precedent in decisions regarding the power of the executive over Congress, this court should rule against the executive based on the absence of enumerated Constitutional language granting the President exclusive recognition power and the supremacy of Congressional authority.

The separation of power throughout the united states government prevents one part of the government from becoming so strong that it can infringe on the freedom of the governed (Bernstein 24). The united states government is a representative republic. A representative republic is a type of democracy where the people elect representatives to vote for them in the nations matters, rather than having every person vote on every single election and issue. The U.S. government is separated into three main branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each branch has its own powers and weaknesses and they must all work together to govern the country (Bernstein 24).

Presidents of the United States of America have been around since the country became it’s own. Each president is given certain responsibilities and rights. Presidential power is listed in the Constitution but since then, there’s been room for more responsibilities to come into play. The powers exercised in the modern world surpass those included in the Constitution. Today, the president has a number of offices and departments serving under him. These institutions help keep the government together and everything running smoothly. The presidents rely on a number of other things. Some include elections, political parties, interest groups, the media, and public opinion. There are different kinds of powers granted to the president. While some

The role of the President as Chief Executive is a complex matter because it covers a wide area of responsibility and involves many government agencies and offices, that the President is responsible for overseeing. The history of Chief Executive starts in the constitution with Article II section I “Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America” this did not create the role although it was a front runner to it. Executive Power is understood to mean “seeing that laws are executed” this would be a hard task for one person to accomplish in a newly formed government let alone in today’s political world (Kalllenbach) . To briefly explain this requires and understanding of what it is, what it does and how it

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

Government! You can't live with it! You can't live without it! It is the "common cold" that everyone dreads. The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition defines government as, "The exercise of authority in a political unit in order to control and administer public policy." Webster's Desk Dictionary of the English Language defines government as, "The political direction and control exercised over a nation, state, community, etc." The common individual might define government as the root of all evil. The thing about government is that no one stops to think about how government came about.