How To Make The Executive Branch Strength Or Powerful

Determining the intentions of the founding fathers in their deliberations about whether to make the executive branch weak or strong is a murky task. Like nearly all questions about the true intentions of the founders, there was hardly any consensus, and the only consensus that was possible was a middle ground between a strong executive and a weak one. Gouverneur Morris explained the goal as “make him too weak: the Legislature will usurp his powers… make him too strong” and “[he] will usurp on the Legislature.” There was a delicate balance of creating an effective, independent Executive and having him be responsive to pressures from the people. To many, including Morris, the tyranny that needed to be protected against was not executive, but legislative. The Executive was supposed to act as a check on the legislature and be the “great
protector of the mass of the people.” Other founders like Sherman thought that an independent executive would be the tyrannical branch, not the other way around. The balance of power was struck in multiple forms of compromise.
The first balance was the creation of the electoral college that was voted on directly by the will of the people but had the same representative power as Congress. Another balance that was struck was in the process of impeachment. In order to maintain an independent Executive, Pinckney was critical of the thought of impeachment as Congress could use it “as a rod over the Executive.” This concept was quickly scrapped and it was decided that the House should impeach a president while the Senate would hold the hearings. The President was still tied to Congress, but still maintained some independence through relaxed rules on what constituted an impeachable offense. Other balances of power that were included were the Senate’s power to “advise and consent” on executive appointments, and the Executive's veto power with Congressional overrule. All of these provisions were aimed at both giving the President independent authority while also having checks so as not to abuse his power. The President was not to be too strong, but also not to be so ineffectual as to ruin the
country. This leads to an interesting discussion. How has the modern presidency changed from what the Founders envisioned? Would they be surprised about the state of political relationships? As described by Robertson at the end of chapter eleven, while the formal powers of the President have not changed very much, the informal powers have vastly expanded. This aspect would probably be the most shocking aspect of power dynamics in politics today. Since the FDR era, bills have been written more and more vaguely, giving more authority to the presidency in interpreting and implementing laws. I find it difficult that the Founders would have envisioned Congress ceding so much power and authority willingly to the Executive. For example, the Clean Air and Water Act is vaguely worded, which led to Obama’s expansion of the law to mandate states to reduce carbon emissions without it being expressly granted by the law. This has been challenged in court by multiple states and its fate has yet to be determined. It is undeniable that this is just a symptom of a growing problem of Executive power. Another aspect of Executive politics that might shock the founders is the absolute erosion of federalism. For better or worse, since the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, federalism has greatly diminished and both the federal Executive and Legislative branches have gained substantial power over the actions of states. Originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal Congress, but not any longer. In combination with the aforementioned aspect of vague laws, the relative dissolution of federalism has led to an astronomical increase in Presidential authority. Whether this is a good thing or not is irrelevant, but it certainly would shock the Founders.