President Of The Executive Branch And The President Essay

Another very notable role of the President also outlined in Article II. Section 2. of the Constitution and reads, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html). It essentially gives the President power to make treaties with foreign nations however, two-thirds of Congress must be in agreement with the decision. Although the President, or the Executive Branch can be interpreted as the most authoritative arm of government, its powers are still limited and restricted by the process of checks and balances. Each branch of government has some governance over the other two divisions. For instance, just as it is outlined above, the President can nominate Ambassadors and Judges of the Supreme Court but the decision must be upheld by Congress. In other words, under the "Advice and Consent clause the appointed member must be sworn in by the Senate. Again, this is an example of how the system of checks and balances limits the powers of the President.

1. Arizona has a "plural executive." Identify each of the constitutional officers included in Arizona’s plural executive in order of succession, as well as the two positions not included in succession. Finally, choose one position and explain at least two of the position’s duties and how the position could affect your daily life.

My thoughts about the power between Congress and The Presidency I think it’s all about balance. We look to Congress and The Supreme Court to lead our government and The President to be the head of our country to make hard decisions that sometimes lead our country into war. With that said neither one at the same time should have too much power we don’t want a dictatorship and our constitution was made to give the President the freedom to be great leaders. It's all about balance and doing what’s best for our country with both Congress and The

Even though the authority of this field is split into three positions, the president, congress, and the senate. The president's position is dominant. The constitution designates him as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Leadership in foreign affairs must flow from the president or it will not flow at all. In times of peace he raises, trains, supervises, and deploys the forces that congress is willing to maintain.

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.

When it comes to foreign affairs it is very important that the President has the ability to use executive privilege. For instance, if the United States was making a treaty with another country, both countries may have to give things up in order to come to an agreement, and everything considered by both sides as well as everything agreed upon should not be made public for everyone, including other countries to see. This is best stated in 1796 by George Washington after the House of Representatives requested that he give them information concerning his instructions to the United States Minister to Britain regarding the treaty negotiations between the United States and Britain. Washington replied by saying:

This third and most helpful definition focuses not only on outcome, but also, crucially, on norms and process. Values are essential to the study of foreign policy, and explain why the policies of different states can vary so dramatically. Means are equally important: what a country does can be less significant than how it does it, as recent US actions illustrate. Central to pluralism is the notion that the three branches of government should be separate and distinct, with each acting to check and balance the others and thus preventing abuse of power. In the United States, the often-tumultuous relationship between especially the legislative and executive branches has been the subject of much scholarship and debate. The Presidency has seen a slow but constant expansion of power since the days of George Washington, culminating in what Schlesinger has called the "imperial presidencies" of Johnson and Nixon, and continuing today. The official rights and duties of the President as regards foreign policy-making are actually only briefly mentioned in the Constitution, and are rather limited. The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur". However, presidents have frequently bypassed the need for congressional approval by enacting

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

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.

Since 1776, The United States of America has been an independant country, presided over by presidents. This year, 2016, the country will greet its forty-fourth president, but forty-three if Grover Cleveland is counted twice. Some say that the greatest presidents, however, presided in 1860 to 1877. These three presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant, rose to the occasion and helped to shape the United States of America to be the great nation that stands today.

The presidency of the United Sates of America has been an evolving office since the term of our first president, George Washington. This evolution has occurred because of the changing times and the evolution of society itself, but also because of the actions of the men who have become president. Starting in the 20th century, most have referred to the presidency as the modern presidency due to changes in both a president's power and the way that the office itself is viewed. As the office of the president has evolved so has who can become president evolved. Yet, even today there are certain individuals who because of their gender or race have yet to hold the office of the presidency. The men that

There is a mind-boggling question that has been floating around the American people here lately. And the question is, “What are the qualifications to construct a good political leader?” When you think about this, other careers such as law enforcement, health professionals, educators, and even city transit drivers all have a more clear-cut job depiction on how to be successful in that career, but when it comes to the criteria for political leadership, one will find a vague description on how and what to do, and the various loop holes in certain areas in politics. So this creates an even more challenging task for people to define if a political leader is good or bad; and could possibly create a divide across the nation.

It is election year in 2016, and we will be electing our President of the United States for the next 4 years putting them in this role until 2020. That means, that we are allowing this person to represent our country, and they should represent what the majority of this country values, being that they were elected from majority vote. Of course this is in a perfect world, in which every citizen, who is of voting age in this country, casts a vote supporting the candidate they believe will uphold their beliefs, and has what it takes to lead this country. Unfortunately, this is and has never been the case. There are actually many people in this country who choose to not participate in elections, not only on the federal level, but also during state and local elections. People choosing not to vote causes for a lot of people’s beliefs, values, and opinions to go unheard, which leads to those people being left without a leader to carry their voices.

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.

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