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.
During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will
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).
The president is constantly looking toward the state of nation’s defense. All major decisions and strategies are his to make alone. Likewise, the president is the nation's number 1 political boss. People look to the president as the leader for public opinion. Even though the president seems like he couldn’t take on many other roles, he is also the Chief of State, he is the leader of the rituals of the American Democracy.
C. Obama is an imperial president because he has violated the Constitution in many ways, including missing multiple budget deadlines, making appointments while the Congress is not in recess, and changing the Affordable Care Act without permission from Congress.
Throughout history, the term “Imperial Presidency” has been used in the 1960s to portray the United States presidents and their utilities. “Imperial Presidency” is grounded on many citations, observations that are devised by many historians. A numerous number of presidents follow the footsteps of presidents before them, in order to live in the shadow, they leave behind. Residing by the thought of, given that the president achieved his successes during his office, they try to repeat the same idea in order for the same successful outcome. However, there is a high chance for bad outcomes to occur, making it discreditable for the president in the current office. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr’s use of “imperial” president is aimed to convey a president with noble personality with his constant accumulation of power in his presidency. The executive power given to the president, sanctions him to be totalitarian and may create a war-like decision that affects the country as a whole.
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:
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,
Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.
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 formulation of US foreign policy has always been a controversial issue with different views emphasizing on various factors—the role of the president, the influence of the congress, the impact of interests group and public opinion, etc—in the process of decision making. This project intends to discuss the extent to which the Obama Administration is to change the direction of the US foreign policy. First, the characteristics in the US foreign policy making is explored to show how critical the presidential pre-eminence is to the policymaking. Second, a revisit to the Clinton and George W. Bush Administration is made to trace the pattern of the US foreign policy. Third, the Obama Doctrine is studied to identify the policy continuity and the sporadic changes. Based on the analysis, the project comes to the conclusion that continuity still prevails in the Obama Doctrine and the changes are only made in a minor and incremental fashion.