Introduction The Founders established a government designed to prevent a monarch from arising. They were so afraid of an overpowering ruler that they generated a system in which the chief purpose was to limit the authority of elected officials and maintain a sense of democracy. This system would require a delicate balance of power and one of many checks and balances to prevent each branch of government from acquiring too much power. Each branch had designated powers, but Congress was arguably the most powerful as it was granted the legislative powers in addition to the valuable powers of the purse. As the other branches of grown and Congress has become increasingly polarized, the Presidency has raised up fill some of the legislative voids left by Congress (Pika & Maltese, 2013). While the President taking a more active role in policy has been beneficial in many ways, Congress has posed a threat to Presidential involvement in these activities. Congress’s power of the purse, divided tendencies, legislative blocking maneuvers, and ability to override vetoes has given them the ability to obstruct Presidential goals and policies (Pika & Maltese, 2013). Our system was not designed for Presidents to take such an active role in policy making; however, it has evolved to accommodate this expansion of power. Tools such as the veto, signing statement, and executive orders give the President enough power to affect policy in addition to introducing policy, working with (and sometimes against) Congress, and having a larger impact on the legislative agenda and process (Lecture: Executive Orders, 2013; Lecture: Signing Statements, 2013). The Power of the Purse In a very large and expensive government such as the United States, money and funding f... ... middle of paper ... ... partisan policies through to legislation. This has created an environment where Congress often works to hinder the President’s policy agendas, and they often pose the largest threat to the President accomplishing his legislative goals while in office. Bibliography Danley-Scott, J. (2013, November 16). Lecture: Executive Orders. Denton, Tx, United States. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCzhoYUlzTU Danley-Scott, J. (2013, November 16). Lecture: Signing statements. Denton, Tx, United States. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkBajjIWV4o Estrin, D. E. (2011, April 1). Clean Water Act 101—A bit of legislative history. Retrieved from Green Law: Pace Law School: http://greenlaw.blogs.law.pace.edu/2011/04/01/cwa101/ Pika, J. A., & Maltese, J. A. (2013). The Politics of the Presidency. Los Angeles: Sage.
The United State’s Constitution, the shortest written Constitution in the world, only has twenty-seven amendments, and now it is time to add another. The power of a presidential line-item veto was denied to the Clinton Administration in 1998, but with this last Congress being the least productive Congress ever, it is time to re-think the power distribution in the legislative process. In Congress, on average, only 10% of the bills proposed make their way through, and ever reach the President’s desk. In this modern day and age a bill, on average, is 3,105 words. When Congress was first created the idea was that each proposed legislation would be contained in one bill, now bills are comprised of various provisions. Which is why the power of the line-item veto would be beneficial to expand presidential authority. This line-item veto authority is the ability to cross out certain provisions while still being able to sign in to law the entire bill. This would be beneficial to the United States government, as an amendment that would allow the president to cut out unnecessary spending to in turn lower the national deficit. The United States government needs to pass an amendment to allow Presidents to use the line item veto.
The Evolution of the Power of the Presidency The views of the presidency by the first sixteen presidents varied widely but all of their actions set precedents for their successors to use, expand, or even curtail the power of the office. Some believed in the Whig theory of strict adherence to the constitution, while others believed the president was the steward of the people with a loose interpretation of it. The power of the office expanded through the years, however it only expanded as far as the public and congress allowed. George Washington was the first President of the United States of America and realizing this he acted carefully and deliberately, aware of the need to build an executive structure that could accommodate future presidents.
For any national government to maintain order and ensure freedom they must first legislate the policy to which they feel its citizens should follow. The first portion of our checks and balances system is the legislative branch of government. Their share of the overall authority is addressed in the first article of the Constitution because the framers "thought lawmaking was the most important function of a republican government" (Janda, Berry, Goldman, & Hula, 2009). This branch is referred to as Congress and is split into two sections, one is the House of Representatives and the other the Senate. Together these two sections have powers that are directly listed in ...
Congress and The Presidency Congress as a whole makes laws. When Bills are addressed they must meet the approval of both the House and the Senate in order to become a Law, and then the President can always veto it. Congress also deals with matters of public concern be it something that needs to be investigated or something that needs to be put before the public to raise awareness. Congress is made up of two parts: The Senate and the House of Representatives. Each is granted different powers and responsibilities.
Congress has helped develop the Presidency as we know it today. This is because Congress argues over proposals and legislation proposed by the President. They are a major determent in whether bills turn into laws. But it’s not easy. One reason for this is because there are many powerful groups out there who argue about what should be discussed such as air pollution with the EPA or jobs.
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 preamble of the Constitution lays out six reasons for its establishment of which two reasons standout, the establishment of justice and providing for the common defense. The national security of the United States was of paramount importance to our founders and remains so today after over 200 years. While there is no clear answer on how to achieve security, our constitutional system of government provides the framework for seeking its ends. The Constitution itself, in its ambiguity and deliberate requirement for interpretation, along with the elements of division of power and the rule of law, play key roles in how our government provides the blanket of security for our nation. This paper will explore how these elements complement and contrast one another in providing our government leaders the tools to achieve national security.
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.
The subject of signing statements has created much debate among the houses of Congress, government officials, and the public alike. These signing statements fall under the categories of constitutional and legislative history signing statements. Constitutional signing statements are those in which the president deems certain provisions of the legislation as unconstitutional, therefore they should not be enforced (Bradley & Posner, 2006). Legislative history signing statements are executive interpretations of ambiguous legislation (Bradley & Posner, 2006). The Constitution very specifically outlines the process of a bill being passed up to the executive level, but the issue of presidential signing statements is not explicitly discussed, therefore it becomes a controversial grey area; specifically when a President uses a signing statement to express partial support and intent to enforce a law. This essay will discuss signing statements and the role that they play in the legislative process. In addition, the legality of presidential signing statements in respect to the constitution will be argued through the exploration of the origins, past applications, and attempts at limiting such presidential implements.
...alance of power between the President and the Congress has been shown to sway like a pendulum, conditional on key occurrences at the time, where as Justice Jackson argues at times the Presidency should be considered to be dominant, while at other times the Congress should be considered to be the dominant authority. In this perspective, it is essential that the Congress plays an important role in the foreign policy making process, since the most important feature of the U.S system is the division of powers.
Genovese A., Michael. "'What Have You Done For Me Lately?: The Demands Placed On The American Presidency.' National Forum 80 (2000): 30-40.
...n policy, especially in regards to the budget and treaties, the president remains the dominant power in decision-making with regards to foreign policymaking. This power is demonstrated by the authority that the president is given by the constitution and the way that is interpreted and how presidents have used their powers and challenged congress for more power. The power of congress has been asserted in many ways, and will continue to be as long as our nation remains. The balance between powers will also remain in fluctuation, due to events that change the course of history. I do believe Congress should have an important role in foreign policymaking because it is crucial to our system of checks and balances. If one branch maintains too much power, the work of our forefathers to create a system different from the parliamentary system in England would all be in vain.
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...
Ginsberg, Benjamin. "The Presidency." We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 9th Essentials ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. 306-26. Print.