Political Science 102 Paper #2 In the U.S. government, the president has several constitutional powers and roles in the lawmaking process (Bianco, Canon). One particular power called unilateral power is a term described by William G. Howell as “actions such as executive orders to make policy independent of Congress” (Howell, 241). Historically, the presidents of the United States have used such power to make changes to policies without the approval or influence of Congress. For instance, President Roosevelt used the unilateral power to “issue dozens of executive orders that nationalized aviation plants, shipbuilding companies, thousands of coal companies and a shell plant- all clear violations of the Fifth Amendment’s “taking” clause” (Howell, …show more content…
Trump reflects both of these descriptions of presidential power because he has used unilateral power to make changes to policies on immigration, health care, climate change, pipeline advances and several more policies. His power to persuade is also exemplified by trade promises with the U.K. through “bargaining and negotiating about brokering deals and trading promises” (Howell, 243). One can say that he uses executive orders in his favor more than the power of persuasion to make decisions separate from Congress. His power and decisions to go against the policies President Obama worked on during his administration demonstrates his extensive use of the unilateral power that many of the Americans disagree with and are afraid of. However, "congressional policy announced in a statute necessarily prevails over inconsistent presidential orders... Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief , are subject to restriction by Congress"(Howell, …show more content…
An example of this is Executive Order 13765 signed by Trump to repeal the Affordable Care Act introduced by Obama to minimize the economic burden of such programs (Government Publishing Office). Although this order is still pending, Trump’s goal is to revoke this act and introduce a new health care plan that would not cost our country economic burden (Government Publishing Office). Another executive action is the power to “direct the heads of executive branch agencies to withdraw discretionary directives and guidance documents that were issued by an executive agency during a previous administration” (CRS Reports & Analysis, 1). The president can also repeal agency rules and regulations but the process has to follow specific procedures that can take a long time to complete (CRS Reports & Analysis, 2). Trump has passed an executive order recently to “to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform” (The White House). The order demands that a Regulatory Reform Task Force be established by each agency to eliminate or change various regulations that are considered unnecessary, outdated, or ineffective (The White
The case of Clinton v. City of New York brought about some constitutional issues like whether or not the president should be able to have the kind of power that he does. The Snake River Farmers’ believe that President Clinton, actually any president shouldn’t be allowed the power to delete a portion of any bill. I believe that it is okay for the President to have some sort of power. The question has been brought ...
As the President of the United States, a president has powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what presidential power is. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Richard Neustadt stated in his book Presidential Power that “Presidential power is the power to persuade.
... This precedent allows future presidents to take actions strictly forbidden by the executive branch in times of national emergency without congressional approval. The most important expansion of the power of the presidency happened during the Jackson administration. When Jackson used the veto power of the president to influence legislation as a matter of policy and not constitutionality, he arguably altered the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
An executive order is when a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law. United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Obama has less executive order throughout his presidency but just as many per year as those who have more.
It is obvious the president was not given enough power under the Constitution. This is in part because Article II of the Constitution was written in a short period of time with little thought. Many presidents have had to make unclear decisions with little information about the circumstance in the Constitution and the president is beginning to take over the government due to increasing implied powers. However the president’s power has recently proven that it has outgrown the constitution and is swiftly evolving. The Constitution gave the president broad but vague powers, including the authorization to appoint judges and other officials with the Senate’s consent, veto bills, lead the military as commander and chief and make sure “that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Many of these powers however are shared with the Legislative Branch, and cause conflict within the government.
... in office and how the congress will act toward the President; whether he be a President that demands respect or one who forfeits it and whether the Congress gives in to the demands of the Executive or if the Congress comes down on t he Executive like a hammer on a nail. This can be accomplished by viewing the circumstances in which a President takes office, the manner in which he carries himself during his term, and the way in which the President leaves as Commander in Chief. Conclusion: The President has neither gained nor lost power. There exists the same balance between Executive and Congress as there was when Washington was sworn in as America's first President. The only difference between then and now, is the fact that today we must wade through the layers of insignificance and precedents that history has forged against us, the political thinker and historian.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Executive orders are issued by the president and it is mainly a way to force a law into action. Executive orders go way back into history and are as old at the U.S. Constitution themselves. These orders were and are still currently being used by every president in our history all the way from George Washington to President Donald Trump. Executive orders stand as long as the current president wants them to and when a new president comes in they then have the power to cancel it. The most executive orders that were in place go back to Franklin Roosevelt’s days when he brought 3,522 different orders into play that he felt we needed in the country. Executive orders will be along for as long as everyone lives and will continue to be used by every
In response to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 the state of Mississippi brought suit against the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, claiming that the laws were un-constitutional. The opinion of the court was given by the Chief Justice, and ruled that an injunction against the president could not be made for duties performed by the president within his duties delineated in Article II of the Constitution. In the ruling the court explained the president’s role in this specific case was not ministerial as the state of Mississippi had argued but was rather an act based on his executive and political duties. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall the court explained that an attempt by the judicial branch to oversee such duties would be “an absurd and excessive extravagance.” The opinion further explains that even though the court in this case is not being asked to tell the executive what it must do but rather telling it what it cannot do, the court must not stray from the underlying principle. Thus, the ruling in this case is that the President of the United States cannot be sued to prevent the carrying out of his/her executive responsibilities.
Today Congress regularly issues directives so broad that the executive is tasked with formulating and executing policy. As a head of his representative party, the president appoints members of his own party to head agencies, in which he chooses agency heads that agree with his policies, so his appointments shape the political agenda. More importantly though, when president does this, he assumes an inherent power to direct them and their agencies on how to implement laws. So, he’s basically direct the way the government acts. Though one might argue president is not the only executive power in the government and that there are several different agencies with their own functions and ability. But these agencies are, in my opinion, just tools that the government has, to make policy and to implement
With his executive orders, Obama has put in restrictions and requirements of agencies that have been seen as excessive, says Nestle from New York University. These regulations include lowering emissions, preventing domestic violence, trying to create jobs for veterans, etc (Lyons, 223). Dan Epstein from Cause of Action says these orders have only served to create politicization of these federal agencies which are meant to be independent, especially of the executive branch. This has given the Obama administration more authority over the agencies and in turn, left the public’s say out of it (Lyons,
In William Howell’s “From Power Without Persuasion”, he defines “unilateral powers”. He also discusses the arguments of Richard Neustadt regarding the power of persuasion the president has in contrast to Howell’s own beliefs about the power the president has when using executive orders.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...