The Expansion of Presidential powers

Hechler 1 of 10

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Political Science 12

The Expansion of Supreme Powers

Austin Hechler

University of California Santa Barbara

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

Hechler 2 of 10
Expansion of the Supreme Power

How can it be that the President of the United States is no longer “The Most Powerful

man on the Earth?” According to Steve Forbes, Vladimir Putin of Russia has captured that pinnacle position due to his recent ability to successfully trump the President with all international eyes attentively scrutinizing his each and every decision. (Curry 2013) Is
President Obama simply a poor leader or did the United States Constitution unambiguously establish an executive role with an unproductive amount of power and no flexibility for necessary ratification of presidential power? Post-home rule and closely following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the colonists were convinced that a unitary government would certainly result in suppression of natural rights and taxation with no legislative representation. The colonists first attempt at a self sustained new government was the Articles of Confederation. Subsequently, the Constitution established a stronger central government and an executive role that has fluctuated in economic and foreign capability.
Understanding the values and intentions that the United States government was historically created to uphold, the country would perform more efficiently if the President was given greater powers to counterbalance congressional influence to establish voter approved legislation. This would allow legislation to mirror popular opinions to bettor reflect the popular beliefs just as the framers had intended.

Colonial life thrived during the eighteenth century. The colonies lived an almost

independent life, “Free Riding” under the worlds finest Navy and contributing very little back to King George III and his English regime. The colonial legislators had the power to raise armies, levy taxes and pass laws. These quickly became inviolable rights in the eyes of the Colonists. (Salutary 2014) Preceding the French and Indian War, fought between the

Hechler 3 of 10
French and the English for provinces in nowadays Canada, discontent had grown in Great
Britain due to salutary neglect, and soon Britain began to rethink it’s mercantilistic ideologies and commenced the levy of duties on the American Colonies. (Salutary 2014)
The Colonies responded with cries of “Taxation Without Representation” and retorted with direct acts of disobedience. Shortly after the two were at war. The Colonies fighting for their freedom and independence from the monarch, and the English fighting to regain its foreign province. This resulting Articles of Confederation was the first official Constitution and was constructed during the Revolutionary War. (Kelly) The Articles of Confederation failed due to its inability to unite the Colonies because of the lack of a central power. (The Articles)
The Articles are important because it taught a young America the importance of a centralized government and more importantly established the need for a leader.

With this in mind, the framers of the Constitution constructed the Constitution so the

central government was stronger then before, and also introduced a legislature that created the law and a judiciary branch to interpret the law. Both the legislative and judiciary branch are both used to restrict and regulate the executive position. These dictums create a President who's role is very limited, but not only limited, also uncertain. While all other roles in the constitution are clearly defined such as the legislator “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Article 2014) the Presidents role isn't “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” (Executive
2014) The minute power given by the framers allow for flexibility in the executive role in times of crisis, but also ambiguity constrains his execution of power.

Hechler 4 of 10

"

The framers, hoping that history would never repeat itself, had encountered both an

exceedingly powerful central government and a very feeble central government. Neither was in the best interest of the American people. By limiting the powers of the President due to the checks and balances system, the President could under no circumstances possibly ever parallel a monarch. With that said, under a necessary situation the President could be given the flexibility to create legislation, go to war, and make any obligatory executive decision.
Finally and most importantly considering the time period the Constitution was drafted; the framers believed that the President would not serve a hugely significant purpose. The
Constitution initially intended to give states more power then the federal government. Before the judiciary branch had defined many unclear laws, the 10th amendment gave all undefined power, not enlisted in the constitution to the states. This limited the Presidents role, he was simply a figurehead for the country. Since then, the capability of President has oscillated greatly and concludes with a great decline in presidential power as of recent. According to
Professor Martin Kelly, the most influential and powerful presidents all presided before
1961, thus clarifying the fact that presidential power has decreased. Furthermore, a common motif all of these Presidents share is the inordinate circumstances pushed upon each one as they dealt with foreign and domestic affairs. The most significant President of this century, number two on the list, is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. On March 8th 1933, President
Roosevelt called Congress into a special session and the ensuing “Hundred Days” following, the President worked with extraordinary cooperation of Congress, and together they passed a flurry of new legislation that has been unprecedented and to date is and still a gargantuan example of collaboration between the executive and legislative branches. Eighth on the list

Hechler 5 of 10 is President Harrison Truman who succeeded Roosevelt. President Truman is most prominently remembered for ending the United States war with Japan. It was his decision to pulverize the Japanese provinces of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with two atomic bombs and save the blood shed of American troops, as well as send a direct message to the Soviet
Union.

"

These are undoubtably two of the most powerful Presidents of the past century, but

because the Constitution does not explicitly list the Presidential powers, how were each of them able to flex the full capability of the executive muscles? Both Roosevelt and Truman not only shared extreme circumstances faced during their presidency, but each President was notably granted power by Congress. As the legislative branch shied away, the President, who the public is carefully watching, was given not only the power of the executive order, but also a multitude of congressional power. When discussing Roosevelt’s bank bill during his first day in office, Representative Robert Luce captures the mood saying “this is a case where judgment must be waived, where argument must be silenced, where we should take matters without criticism lest we may do harm by delay.”(Editorial 2008) Representative
Luce makes it clear the President is the one in charge during crisis situations. President
Harrison Truman was faced with the jarring decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. This decision was ultimately left up to the President and the attacks resulted in the conclusion of
World War II. It is apparent that in times of crisis Congress must act accordingly and it is not in the best interest of the country to debate and amend, but to take decisive action. In time of domestic peace a President often isn't able to pass legislation promised during in his campaign. Internal issues are showing the Constitution’s true cracks in modern day society.

Hechler 6 of 10
If the public and President are adamantly in favor of an issue, it should not be the job of the
President to have to play negotiator with congress and allow the senate to take up valuable time to delay the bill. The inefficiency of Congress passing laws in the modern day is something that must be amended in the Constitution.

"

Evident in the Barrack Obama and George W. Bush presidencies, many popular pieces

of legislation died in Congress and some of the Legislation which was passed, the President argued he wasn't required to follow. In the case of President Bush, not a single piece of legislation was vetoed in his first term. President Bush supported negotiations that led to the passage of a multitude of complex bills, but when he disagreed with portions of bills he believed to be problematic he would use a signing statement to identify the sections he believed to be problematic and therefor not enforce. Signing statements have become more common in recent time. President Clinton used 80 signing statements while Bush used over
110 (Posner 2014). President Bush has made these statements popular because specifically his statements would specifically reserve the right to ignore the statute proposed by the passage of the bill at hand. Notably, included here, are laws pertaining to the Patriot Act and
“whistle blower protection laws.” Specifically the whistle blower act forbid the executive branch from releasing any federal employee who reported “possible illegalities to
Congressional oversight committees (Posner 2014).” The President “claimed the right to ignore these provisions as they encroached upon his powers to appoint and remove branch employees”, but signed the bill none the less. In a similar grapple to regain executive power,
Obama has also issued signing statements but not to the same degree has President Bush

Hechler 7 of 10
(Posner 2014). Ultimately these signing statements represent the struggle for the executive branch to secure power in a time where Congress refuses to concede any authority.

"

Obama has also faced limitations with his Presidential power. The New York Times

chief executive editor, Maureen Dowd begs the question “How is it that the President won the argument on gun safety with the public and lost the vote in the Senate? (Achenbach
2003).” A perfectly rational question. After the devastating mass shootings in Sandy Hook
Elementary School and Newtown High School in Connecticut, it is patently evident that provisions must be made to the second amendment. Dowd then argues that Obama has all the power he needs and is a poor leader due to his inability to “work the system (Achenbach
2003).” Dowd concludes her argument with praise of Lyndon Johnson and his dexterity in cooperating with Congress. In Dowd’s opinion it is apparent the President of the United
States must be an exceptional politician capable of compromise with the contrasting political party beyond conviction. Contrary to Dowd, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates believes the
President needs more power. He applauded the United Kingdom because they allow for more variation in policy of each president. “Some days I wish we had a system like the U.K. where, you know, the party in power could do a lot and you know, you’d see how it went and then fine you could un-elect them (Ballasy 2013).” Gates brings up reasonable points but there are indirect negative implication to sustaining policy if each President is quick to change the law. For instance Obamacare is heavily supported by the Democrats but shunned by most all Republicans. If Obama would have had the power, himself to pass Obamacare in his first term he would have, and if Gates was to have his way, where the next President hypothetically a Republican, the whole system would be changed and people would be out

Hechler 8 of 10 of insurance. The solution isn't to directly grant the President more power but to limit
Congress’s power which will incidentally allow for the passage of more popular legislation.
It is important not to give the power to one person but instead keep it in the hands of many popularly elected representative officials.

"

Although the power between the legislative branch and the executive branch

periodically shifts, the Constitution is static. There is no compensation for lost power or gains in either branch in the Constitution. There is no perfect government and as time progresses the government will become less and less efficient until a revolution creates a new government. The framers created a solid and efficient government system in the 18th century but just as the states powers have shifted to federal powers and as technology advances, there is no compensation for the power each branch has lost and the corresponding branch needs to obtain. Limiting the power of Congress will indirectly boost the power of the President and would give him a greater influence. What Dowd is forgetting is that
Johnson had a democratic majority in the house and senate. This allowed him to pass a plethora of legislation without constantly running into conservative walls. It is not the job of the President to appease both houses and additional parties in Congress in order to pass the legislation which was rudimentary to his winning presidential campaign. Alterations need to be made to the democratic process in which laws are passed. Disposing of the filibuster and allowing a simple majority vote to pass a bill into law would make Congress much more efficient and allow for the voice of the people to be heard and put into action. Specifically giving the President more power is also problematic because just as the United States witnessed in colonial times, a powerful central figure is often dis-advantageous in ruling a

Hechler 9 of 10 democratic nation. The reason Putin has eclipsed Obama as the most powerful man on Earth is due to the amount of power he has readily available to use without a legislative or judicial branch with significant strength. (Curry 2013) This power comes at a price because as the government becomes more increasingly powerful the citizens lose rights and are less involved in democratic processes. The legislature is a crucial part of keeping the United
States democratic because each figure is directly elected by the people, but the legislature is also responsible for the massive gridlock and unproductively associated with the United
States government.

"

The solution to the suitable amount of power the President should enjoy is not to

grant him more power but to suppress the power of the legislative branch. As the United
States moves farther away from the colonial lifestyle and corresponding culture, the
Constitution must pick up the lost power and appoint it properly so that it is appropriate to the time period and democracy of each citizen. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harrison
Truman, in their respective presidencies, had been given inordinate amounts of power due to the catastrophic events that each faced. Presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama have had little power and struggled to pass popular legislation and regain the presidential power.
When a majority of the nation can agree on a viewpoint then changes must be made, because that is the ultimate intention of democracy. Signing statements are an undemocratic and unacceptable feature, which Presidents have used in an attempt to regain power. Confining the power of the legislature to allow a 50% majority to pass any bill into law would make the United States government much more efficient due to technological advances that must be adapted to and opinions that must be recognized.

Hechler 10 of 10

References

ACHENBACH, J. (2003, May 3). Obama doesnt have as much power as you "
"
think.The Washington Post. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://" "
"
have-as-much-power-as-you-think/

"
"

Article I. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from"
"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ar

"

"
"

Ballasy, N. (n.d.). The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from "
"
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/14/bill-gates-some-days-i-wish-we-had-a-system-"
"
like-the-uk-to-give-obama-more-power-video/"

"

Curry, C. (2013, October 30). Vladimir Putin Tops Obama as ‘World’s Most " "
"
Powerful Person’. ABC News. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://" "
"
abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/10/vladimir-putin-tops-obama-as-"
"
worlds-most-powerful-person/

"
"
"

"

Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). Politics in FDR's New Deal. Shmoop.com. " "
"
Retrieved March 9, 2014, from http://www.shmoop.com/fdr-new-deal/politics.html

"

Executive power. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 10, 2014, " "
"
from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive

"

Kelly, M. (n.d.). Causes of the American Revolution. About.com American History. " "
"
Retrieved March 9, 2014, from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/" "
"
" revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm "

Kelly, M. (n.d.). Harry S Truman - Thirty-Third President of the United States.About.com !
!
American History. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from http://""
"
"
"
" americanhistory.about.com/od/harry "

Posner, E. (2014, January 29). A Powerful Tool to Use With Caution. The New !
!
York Times. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/"
"
roomfordebate/2014/01/29/presidential-power-vs-congressional-inertia/"
"
executive-authority-is-a-powerful-tool-to-use-with-caution

!
"
"

Salutary Neglect. (n.d.). American Institute for History. Retrieved March 1, 2014, "
"
from http://americaninstituteforhistory.org/pres

"

"
"

The Articles of Confederation Were Adopted. (n.d.). The Articles of ConfederationWere !
!
Adopted. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from http://" "
"
"
"
"
"
www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/revolut