Essay On Unilateral Power

In his study The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate, Andrew Rudalevige examines the American presidency and how it has changed over time. First off what is an Imperial Presidency? An imperial presidency is a term that was coined around the 1960s by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. In the beginning of the book Rudalevige states, “Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. had affixed an enduring adjective to the Nixon Presidency: Imperial. This didn’t mean that the president literally had become emperor but suggested the occupant in office exercised more absolute power.”

Executive - Mainly used by the President, this power enforces the law. This power also grants the ability to veto the proposal for a law, appoint federal posts, negotiate foreign treaties, appoint federal judges, and grant pardons for a crime.

In modern presidencies, increasing partisanship and political ideologies have become a critical component in a divided government, thus accentuating the hardship of modern presidents in cooperating Congress. In addition, the reforms to congressional powers and the adoption of new laws have bolstered Congress’ influence in the legislative arena, this in turn make it more difficult for the President to govern Congress in an already strained relationship.

In the constitution it states that the Presidents purpose is; to be chief of state, chief executive, chief administrator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislature, party chief, and chief citizen (The presidents job description). As the chief of legislature, one of the presidents duties is to not only review bills being proposed by congress, and occasionally say they must be revised but to also enact laws affecting the people of the United States immediately, rather than wait for them to move up through the many levels and debates of congress. For this, he can use the power of an executive order, a constitutional way to provide laws that relate to national welfare or the good of the citizens. A few good example of this would be executive order 13767, which moves for additional border security on the United States southern border, and executive

During the Writing of the United States Constitution, the Framers wanted a new government, but NOT a king. They split up the Government into three branches, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The Executive branch is run by the president. The Framers wanted the president to have power, but not too much power where he converts into a king. The Frames decided to allow him to give executive orders over laws.

The American presidency has changed drastically throughout the years. Modern presidents’ authority has expanded dramatically comparing to the past when the Founding Fathers set out the guidelines and expectations. The presidents no longer play a passive role, but actively act on their growing power. Even though modern presidential authority does not evolve in the same manner that Hamilton anticipates in Federalist Paper no. 73, his discussion of the president’s veto power is relevant and partially correct today. Hamilton expresses his concern regarding the distribution of power between the branches, thus he defends the executive veto power and its importance in the checks and balances system. The veto system in contemporary politics functions

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).

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.

In this paper we will compare the formal and informal powers if the President and we will explore how and why the Presidential powers have increased over time. The history of the Presidency is an account of aggrandizement; one envisions, today, a President with far reaching power, however, when looking at the Constitution alone we find a President with significant limits. Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or merely a helpless giant?

President has the right to deploy the military in most situations, but does not have the

In recent years, congress has been incredibly adversarial to the president, providing that it is not controlled by members of his (the president) political party affiliation. The main source of this weakness is that congress and its members are defined by partisanship, they value tribalism, and are rewarded based on their loyalty to their party and antagonism to their opposition. This makes congress a breeding ground for viscous opposition where any room for compromise between parties is villainized, because of this the president can only govern efficiently when his party controls a significant percentage of both or either house. The major cause of this new political culture is highly contested, some say it is because political parties have come to gain too much power by way of their influence and ability to build campaign war chests. Others believe that political parties are too weak, citing that special interests and third party intervention has made members of either party less responsive to their leaders causing them to govern based on their fiscal supporters, which, would not allow compromise between two single groups. Regardless, it is very appropriate to cast the blame of a dysfunctional congress upon party politics. To illustrate this relationship between the executive and partisan congress we will look at the presidency of Barack Obama,

Especially with a divided government, and even without, the president is challenged to gain the support of Congress (Heffernan, 2005:59). While the President is responsible for carrying out the law and can even issue executive orders ultimately Congress hold the purse strings. Without the budgetary support of Congress the President’s agenda will not be fulfilled. Treaties and all appointments from cabinet officials to Supreme Court justices have to be approved by Congress, specifically the Senate. “As a result, the White House is engaged in a constant process of persuasion” (Heffernan,

Another important power the Chief in Legislature has is the ability to assemble a meeting with the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both. The framers specified this role of the president in in Article II, Section 3. Not only is the president given the authority to call a meeting with congress, he or she is expected to do so (Kesavan & Sidak, 9). In these meetings the president can discuss the state of America, the status

Although it is often said that the President of the United States holds the most powerful office in the world, this does not mean that he is able to decide very much for himself. The American Constitution, which was adapted in 1789, clearly states the Separation of Powers. Thus, the president makes up only one third of the government, namely the executive branch. He is also controlled by a complex system of checks and balances, which makes sure that he (or any of the other branches, for that matter) does not become too powerful. We will now have a look at the different problems which may be facing a recently elected president, and then discuss to what extent his powers are important.

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.