Presidency Vs Presidential Power Essay

Most of the specifications for the executive branch in the Constitution, other than how he is to be elected, have to deal with the interactions between Congress and the President. The president can (fill in the blank) but only if (this part) of Congress approves. The powers of the president have been interpreted widely so that he has more power than I believe the Framers intended. They wanted him to be able to check Congress with veto power and be the head of the military. However, I think that presidents nowadays have too much power. They are active in trying force their policy agenda through Congress, manage foreign relations, and act as the administrative head of the entire nation. The textbook lays it out well in, "The vast size of the executive branch and the number and complexity of decisions that must be made each day pose a challenge for the White House.” (316) In order to deal with the stresses put on the executive branch, there are thousands of employees that work to give the president the information that he needs to make decisions. He has advisors, cabinet members, legislative liaisons; the list goes on and on, but he is the person who actually gets to make all of the choices. The President is limited in some ways and given more power in other ways by the structure laid out for him in the Constitution, and evolved to be what it is now.

In many ways, the US constitution has changed and shifted since its creation in 1787. It has changed, with power being put into the hands of bodies not specified in the constitution and certain constraints on power no longer existing. All in all, however, the constitution has maintained the very thing it was created for- to limit the power of the government and protect the people from tyranny of the executive. In this sense, the constitution is still very much embodying the vision of the founding fathers and is relatively unchanged given the lengthy period of time they have existed for. The powers of the president

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 2009, Obama signed an executive order that signalled the closing of Guantanamo Bay. However, Congress blocked bills that would have given the funds necessary to close the detention centre. As a result, Guantanamo Bay is still open today. This example demonstrates that presidents need congress on their side in order for congress to not undermine their executive orders. While the president may have power of executive orders constitutionally speaking, he needs Congress to not undermine it. The House controls the purse and executive orders often require money. This evidence supports the assertion that the US presidency is “more imperiled than imperial” because although he has the legal power, the president needs the political power for his executive orders to not be undermined. In the UK, the PM cannot make laws alone but can vote on them.

Many argue that the most powerful branch in government is the Executive Branch. The President is considered as the most influential and the most important position in the U.S. government. However, the powers granted to Presidents and the prerogative they have exerted are not listed in the Constitution but instead have been adapted and expanded upon by each President. Although the Constitution does not define the powers of the President, it has defined Presidential powers in terms of peace, war, and emergency. A recent expansion of Presidential power, exerted by Bush and then Obama was this “War on Terror (WOT)”. President Barack Obama and his predecessor President George W. Bush have both expanded the powers of the President through the

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.”

The president also has the power Veto laws passed by congress. The president has the power to make political appointment and negotiate treaties with foreign countries, however this power also requires the approval of the senate. The President is responsible for making a for appointing his cabinet and federal judges. The president is capable of calling congress in session and the power to adjourn congress.

The position of president has evolved in the almost quarter millennium since the framers created the Constitution. The main issues facing the framers included the position’s structure, independence, and power. Although the modern presidency is different from the framers’ design, they would approve of it, since the concerns that the framers had with the executive still have been prevented. When creating the presidency, one issue the framers decided quickly was the structure, particularly having one president. This satisfied the needs of both the Conservative and Radical Republicans, by allowing for quick action, while still providing clear accountability.

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.

In the admittedly short life time of the Presidential branch its occupants have taken massive strides in empowering and strengthening their office. At times a case could be made that the executive has aspired to too much; threating essential American political values, such is the case of President Franklin Roosevelt who secured a third term of office ignoring precedent and tradition. However, evidence would suggest that for any significant step a president takes towards increasing their power; often results in an equal and opposite reaction. That is not to say that our presidents are weak, in actuality we see that our presidents have significantly increased their power to wage war

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?

The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.

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.

The presidency occupies a unique position in all systems of government including the American system of government. The formal powers and the constitutional position occupied by the institution of the presidency are at the core of all national and international politics (Alexandrova & Timmermans, 2013). The President can serve as Commander-in-chief, nominate and appoint ambassadors, just to name a few of the powers of office. However, there is another power that is often overlooked by most, the power of agenda setting. The Constitution does not directly state this power, but it is heavily implied. This paper scrutinizes the institution of the presidency in line with agenda-setting literature. The agenda setting process relates to a series of streams, circumstances, or activities within public policy institutions and processes. The agenda setting process has three streams that incorporate the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. The problem stream relates to potential policy problems that may have different magnitudes attached to them. The policy stream associates with an agglomeration of potential solutions to policy problems (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2010). Additionally, the politics stream links to those policy issues and solutions that

If public opinion is completely ignored, presidents lose support and backing of their actions. It’s been seen that, “The people are the arbiters of access to and retention of presidential power,” (). To be effective in any of their endeavors, presidents need some sort of public approval, and public approval comes from following public opinion. It is not an obligation, but it is a tool for success. While studying citizen oversight, it was found that, “news reports of presidential policy successes and failures were correlated with higher and lower levels, respectively, of Gallup Poll-tested public approval of presidential approval,” (). This government was made to be for the people, so it only follows that government leaders are most effective when listening to the voice of the people.