The Us President Is Effectively Unrestrained Essay
“The US President is effectively unrestrained in the exercise of political power within the US system of government”. How far do you agree with this statement? (30 marks)
The power of the President has evolved since the constitution was ratified in 1788. It can be said that the President enjoys a more exercised form of power as American politics has developed and adapted but they are not “effectively unrestrained” due to the many checks are balances that a President must regard when asserting their power.
The constitution sets out formal powers of the President in article II. These include chief administrator, commander-in-chief, chief lawmaker and head of state. However, there has been a growth of informal powers that include chief legislator, party leader, world leader and chief diplomat. It is with these informal powers that President is able to have more freedom with exercising and asserting their power. Following this is Neustadt’s theory of “persuader in chief”. This can be expressed through the State of Union address. On the 25th January 2011, Barack Obama gave his state of the union address focusing on his views on the issues in …show more content…
America. Furthermore, Barack Obama gave a speech to Congress in September 2011 about his proposed American Jobs Act. This supports the “persuader in chief” theory because the speech was televised to the American nation and therefore Obama was not only trying to appeal to Congress but also the American public. This is significant in exercising power because if Obama can win over the public then Congress would be more likely to pass the act.
Aaron Wildavsky came up with the “two presidencies” thesis that claimed there are two faces of the President; domestic and foreign. When it comes to foreign policy, it can be said that the President enjoys a large amount of exercised power which may not be restrained. This is because in times of crisis such as war or terrorist attacks, the President can “wrap himself in the flag” and have emergency power on these extraordinary occasions because the President will have the nation’s best interests at heart. Congress is too willing to allow the President to make decisions when it seems they may be unpopular because they are not willing to take blame. As Truman proclaimed “the buck stops here” implying that it is the President who is scrutinized by the public when policies become unpopular. This can be said for Lyndon Johnson who, despite congress passing the Golf on Tonkin resolution in 1964 which was essentially a blank cheque for the war in Vietnam, received thorough unpopularity having rhymes such as “hey, hey, LBJ how many kids have you killed today?” chanted at him. However, Congress was more than willing to provide Johnson with whatever was required to win the war. Furthermore, the same can be said for George W Bush and the War on Terror following the 9/11 attack. This plays with the idea that the President is a “world leader” and can be seen as the world’s police officer as they are the ones making critical decisions even when it comes to situations that can affect politics globally.
The Supreme Court, which is supposed to be a faction to the checks and balances of the President, have also increased the President’s unrestrained power to an extent because they have failed to make decisions on critical areas like Vietnam and even the New Deal Industrial Recovery Act under Roosevelt. This is significant because if the Supreme Court isn’t participating in decision making then they are not effectively restraining the President because they are having no input towards the President’s actions. Furthermore, we have the increased use of veto. This can be interpreted in two ways. Some may say that the veto is detrimental to a President’s power because they shouldn’t have to use this act as a last resort because Congress should want to cooperate with the President and not force him/her to use a veto. However some may see a veto as an exacerbating power because they are willing to assert their authority. Early presidents only used the veto when they felt legislation was unconstitutional. Since Nixon, the practice of the veto has been widely expanded. In 1974, Gerald Ford used a veto to pass The Freedom of Information Act. From this we see an emergence of Schlesinger’s “imperial Presidency” thesis. Arthur Schlesinger recounts the rise of the presidency as it grew into the imperial, powerful position that it is today. His writing reflects a belief that the presidency is becoming too powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He analyzes the back and forth struggle for power between Congress and the Presidency.
However, there are formal checks and balances on the President that do try to restrain their exercised power, the first being the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution divides the powers of government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Generally speaking, the legislative branch, Congress, makes the nation's laws. The executive branch enforces the laws through the president and various executive offices. The judicial branch, made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, decides cases that arise under the laws. This division of government is called the separation of powers. The purpose of the separation of powers is to prevent tyranny, which is arbitrary (random) or unfair government action that can result when one person has all the power to make, enforce, and interpret the laws. In addition to the broad separation of powers into three branches, the Constitution keeps the legislative and executive branches separate with various specific provisions. Article I, Section 6, prevents members of Congress from serving as officers of the government in the executive branch. Article I, Section 5, says each chamber of Congress, namely the House of Representatives and the Senate, is the sole judge of who wins congressional elections and who is qualified to serve there. The same part of the Constitution gives the House and Senate sole authority to make their rules of operation. Furthermore, certain constitutional amendments have been made to ensure that the President does not exercise too much power. In 1951, the 22nd amendment was made to the constitution that declared that no President could serve longer than two terms. This is significant in controlling the President because if a were President were to be in power for a long amount of time then complacency might take affect and cause the President to take a more dictatorship form of government.
Congress is the most consistent form of restraint on the President. In order for a bill to be passed, Congress must have a simple majority in both chambers. However, as the President is not a part of the legislature, unlike the UK counterpart the Prime Minister, the President must solely rely on persuading the votes in Congress. Whereas in the UK the Prime Minister enjoys a more relaxed approached to government with the fusion of powers concept because he/she is the leader of the majority party in Parliament. Furthermore, Congress also has the power to make a President a “lame duck”. After the 2006 midterm elections George W Bush was a lame duck and similarly with Barack Obama in 2010 when the Republicans won the majority of seats in the House of Representatives with 255 to 178. This meant that it would be harder for bills that he favoured to pass through Congress when his party did not hold the majority. Although we said that the “two presidencies” thesis may prove that power is unrestrained, it can also convey how power is restrained when it comes to domestic policy. This is because Congress is a collective body that is elected to represent the people and the chances of their re-election is dependant to the success of their domestic policies as the people they represent are more concerned with these matters. Therefore, Congress will be more critical of bills passed if they relate to domestic policy as they are looking after “the folks back home” which makes it incredibly hard for the President to pass through any legislation. Professor Filner said that “President and congress are like two halves of a bank note, each useless without the other”. This is significant because although Congress works to balance the President’s power, cooperation is a must in order to achieve good results.
Lastly, we have the judiciary and its role of ensuring the President does not exert too much power. Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws, treaties, policies or executive orders relevant to cases before the court and nullify (overturn) those that are found unconstitutional.
Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.(1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president. Similar to this is the use of impeachment to reign in a President. This is when an investigation is taken out to delve into the actions of a President. Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment, Nixon was issued a Presidential pardon and Clinton who was actually impeached was acquitted. Impeachment can be seen as a form of deterrence for any President because results could be imprisonment.
To conclude, there are times when the President is restrained because that is how the Founding Fathers intended the President to be.
However, American politics has evolved and there are circumstances to which a President is allowed to exercise an increased amount of power because part of his/her “head of state role” includes people turning to them for answers and decisions and therefore emergency powers need to be at hand in order for them to be able to do this. However, they are not effectively unrestrained because there are always collective bodies there monitoring the President’s decisions. Even if the policies are dealing with foreign affairs, the media are always around documenting and reporting back to the republic and their opinions can be seen as restraining to a President much like Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam
War.
The power of the President has evolved since the constitution was ratified in 1788. It can be said that the President enjoys a more exercised form of power as American politics has developed and adapted but they are not “effectively unrestrained” due to the many checks are balances that a President must regard when asserting their power.
The constitution sets out formal powers of the President in article II. These include chief administrator, commander-in-chief, chief lawmaker and head of state. However, there has been a growth of informal powers that include chief legislator, party leader, world leader and chief diplomat. It is with these informal powers that President is able to have more freedom with exercising and asserting their power. Following this is Neustadt’s theory of “persuader in chief”. This can be expressed through the State of Union address. On the 25th January 2011, Barack Obama gave his state of the union address focusing on his views on the issues in …show more content…
America. Furthermore, Barack Obama gave a speech to Congress in September 2011 about his proposed American Jobs Act. This supports the “persuader in chief” theory because the speech was televised to the American nation and therefore Obama was not only trying to appeal to Congress but also the American public. This is significant in exercising power because if Obama can win over the public then Congress would be more likely to pass the act.
Aaron Wildavsky came up with the “two presidencies” thesis that claimed there are two faces of the President; domestic and foreign. When it comes to foreign policy, it can be said that the President enjoys a large amount of exercised power which may not be restrained. This is because in times of crisis such as war or terrorist attacks, the President can “wrap himself in the flag” and have emergency power on these extraordinary occasions because the President will have the nation’s best interests at heart. Congress is too willing to allow the President to make decisions when it seems they may be unpopular because they are not willing to take blame. As Truman proclaimed “the buck stops here” implying that it is the President who is scrutinized by the public when policies become unpopular. This can be said for Lyndon Johnson who, despite congress passing the Golf on Tonkin resolution in 1964 which was essentially a blank cheque for the war in Vietnam, received thorough unpopularity having rhymes such as “hey, hey, LBJ how many kids have you killed today?” chanted at him. However, Congress was more than willing to provide Johnson with whatever was required to win the war. Furthermore, the same can be said for George W Bush and the War on Terror following the 9/11 attack. This plays with the idea that the President is a “world leader” and can be seen as the world’s police officer as they are the ones making critical decisions even when it comes to situations that can affect politics globally.
The Supreme Court, which is supposed to be a faction to the checks and balances of the President, have also increased the President’s unrestrained power to an extent because they have failed to make decisions on critical areas like Vietnam and even the New Deal Industrial Recovery Act under Roosevelt. This is significant because if the Supreme Court isn’t participating in decision making then they are not effectively restraining the President because they are having no input towards the President’s actions. Furthermore, we have the increased use of veto. This can be interpreted in two ways. Some may say that the veto is detrimental to a President’s power because they shouldn’t have to use this act as a last resort because Congress should want to cooperate with the President and not force him/her to use a veto. However some may see a veto as an exacerbating power because they are willing to assert their authority. Early presidents only used the veto when they felt legislation was unconstitutional. Since Nixon, the practice of the veto has been widely expanded. In 1974, Gerald Ford used a veto to pass The Freedom of Information Act. From this we see an emergence of Schlesinger’s “imperial Presidency” thesis. Arthur Schlesinger recounts the rise of the presidency as it grew into the imperial, powerful position that it is today. His writing reflects a belief that the presidency is becoming too powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He analyzes the back and forth struggle for power between Congress and the Presidency.
However, there are formal checks and balances on the President that do try to restrain their exercised power, the first being the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution divides the powers of government into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Generally speaking, the legislative branch, Congress, makes the nation's laws. The executive branch enforces the laws through the president and various executive offices. The judicial branch, made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, decides cases that arise under the laws. This division of government is called the separation of powers. The purpose of the separation of powers is to prevent tyranny, which is arbitrary (random) or unfair government action that can result when one person has all the power to make, enforce, and interpret the laws. In addition to the broad separation of powers into three branches, the Constitution keeps the legislative and executive branches separate with various specific provisions. Article I, Section 6, prevents members of Congress from serving as officers of the government in the executive branch. Article I, Section 5, says each chamber of Congress, namely the House of Representatives and the Senate, is the sole judge of who wins congressional elections and who is qualified to serve there. The same part of the Constitution gives the House and Senate sole authority to make their rules of operation. Furthermore, certain constitutional amendments have been made to ensure that the President does not exercise too much power. In 1951, the 22nd amendment was made to the constitution that declared that no President could serve longer than two terms. This is significant in controlling the President because if a were President were to be in power for a long amount of time then complacency might take affect and cause the President to take a more dictatorship form of government.
Congress is the most consistent form of restraint on the President. In order for a bill to be passed, Congress must have a simple majority in both chambers. However, as the President is not a part of the legislature, unlike the UK counterpart the Prime Minister, the President must solely rely on persuading the votes in Congress. Whereas in the UK the Prime Minister enjoys a more relaxed approached to government with the fusion of powers concept because he/she is the leader of the majority party in Parliament. Furthermore, Congress also has the power to make a President a “lame duck”. After the 2006 midterm elections George W Bush was a lame duck and similarly with Barack Obama in 2010 when the Republicans won the majority of seats in the House of Representatives with 255 to 178. This meant that it would be harder for bills that he favoured to pass through Congress when his party did not hold the majority. Although we said that the “two presidencies” thesis may prove that power is unrestrained, it can also convey how power is restrained when it comes to domestic policy. This is because Congress is a collective body that is elected to represent the people and the chances of their re-election is dependant to the success of their domestic policies as the people they represent are more concerned with these matters. Therefore, Congress will be more critical of bills passed if they relate to domestic policy as they are looking after “the folks back home” which makes it incredibly hard for the President to pass through any legislation. Professor Filner said that “President and congress are like two halves of a bank note, each useless without the other”. This is significant because although Congress works to balance the President’s power, cooperation is a must in order to achieve good results.
Lastly, we have the judiciary and its role of ensuring the President does not exert too much power. Judicial review is the power of the courts to review laws, treaties, policies or executive orders relevant to cases before the court and nullify (overturn) those that are found unconstitutional.
Judicial Review is not an American invention, but a standard part of British common law that became part of the legal process in the United States. The first recorded use under the US Constitution was in 1792, when the circuit courts found an act of Congress related to military veterans unconstitutional. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S.(1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president. Similar to this is the use of impeachment to reign in a President. This is when an investigation is taken out to delve into the actions of a President. Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment, Nixon was issued a Presidential pardon and Clinton who was actually impeached was acquitted. Impeachment can be seen as a form of deterrence for any President because results could be imprisonment.
To conclude, there are times when the President is restrained because that is how the Founding Fathers intended the President to be.
However, American politics has evolved and there are circumstances to which a President is allowed to exercise an increased amount of power because part of his/her “head of state role” includes people turning to them for answers and decisions and therefore emergency powers need to be at hand in order for them to be able to do this. However, they are not effectively unrestrained because there are always collective bodies there monitoring the President’s decisions. Even if the policies are dealing with foreign affairs, the media are always around documenting and reporting back to the republic and their opinions can be seen as restraining to a President much like Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam
War.