If The Founders Saw The President Essay
When the framers of the Constitution designed the presidency, they had no way of predicting how the powers of the office would gradually expand over time. The Founders envisioned the executive to be independent – having no direct constituency relationship with either Congress or the public – as well as restrained. They gave the power to declare war to Congress, implicitly prohibiting the President from committing troops to a long-term conflict (Article I Section 8). However, if the Founders saw the presidency today, I believe they would strongly disapprove.Today, the executive is closely tied to popular will, not the Constitution. In many states, electors are legally obligated for the winner of the popular vote in their state. Many modern presidents
…show more content…
disregard the Constitution, especially regarding the military. The Constitution explicitly gave the power to declare war to Congress, and as George Washington noted: “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be authorized until after [Congress has] deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.”1 Congress has not declared war at all since World War II, essentially giving the executive the power to unilaterally go to war. Even after the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress has given the President general military authority through the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which remains in effect today.
This law allows the president to send the military into action against anyone deemed a terrorist, essentially making it a “blank check” justifying any military action. The Founders would be astonished by this act, as it gives the President almost unlimited authority to use the military. They expected Congress to rein in the President on military matters, as the Constitution only authorized military appropriations for two year periods which was intended to keep the President from permanently supporting an army.2I also believe the Founders would disapprove of the idea of the “legislating president.” While executive orders have been issued by almost every President, they have always been criticized as increasingly violating Congress’ power to make the laws. The line between making laws and enforcing them has been blurred as presidents choose to enforce laws differently. While the presidency was given several specific powers, the Take Care clause has been interpreted to mean that the President may enforce laws however he sees fit, greatly expanding presidential
power. Opponents of this interpretation refer to the clause as the Faithful Execution clause, claiming it forces the President to faithfully and fully execute the laws as passed by Congress. I believe the framers would agree with the latter approach, disapproving of the way Obama selectively enforced immigration laws.
disregard the Constitution, especially regarding the military. The Constitution explicitly gave the power to declare war to Congress, and as George Washington noted: “therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be authorized until after [Congress has] deliberated on the subject and authorized such a measure.”1 Congress has not declared war at all since World War II, essentially giving the executive the power to unilaterally go to war. Even after the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, Congress has given the President general military authority through the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which remains in effect today.
This law allows the president to send the military into action against anyone deemed a terrorist, essentially making it a “blank check” justifying any military action. The Founders would be astonished by this act, as it gives the President almost unlimited authority to use the military. They expected Congress to rein in the President on military matters, as the Constitution only authorized military appropriations for two year periods which was intended to keep the President from permanently supporting an army.2I also believe the Founders would disapprove of the idea of the “legislating president.” While executive orders have been issued by almost every President, they have always been criticized as increasingly violating Congress’ power to make the laws. The line between making laws and enforcing them has been blurred as presidents choose to enforce laws differently. While the presidency was given several specific powers, the Take Care clause has been interpreted to mean that the President may enforce laws however he sees fit, greatly expanding presidential
power. Opponents of this interpretation refer to the clause as the Faithful Execution clause, claiming it forces the President to faithfully and fully execute the laws as passed by Congress. I believe the framers would agree with the latter approach, disapproving of the way Obama selectively enforced immigration laws.