|
The Historical Presidency |
With the end of the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, the development or evolution of the presidency occurs first
through the arguments revolving around the ratification of the new Constitution
and secondly through the actions of the individuals who occupy the office.
Many, of course, argue that the
nebulousness of the executive article (indeed, the whole document) is the key
to its longevity. It allows a strong individual to attempt to wrest power from
the other branches of government at critical moments. This is, of course, the
thesis of Pious' (and as you will see, Lincoln's) notion of "prerogative
powers", and the underlying dynamic of the presidential power
"equation".
How have presidents changed the nature of the presidency?
It is most easily seen through the
"pendulum of power"--an analysis of the evolution of the presidency
through the historical exploration of presidential actions---the opportunities
presented to them and the actions they took---the consequences of those actions
for that particular president and their implications for the institution of the
presidency!!! (This is, of course, the driving thesis behind the presidential
power equation!)
After the convention was over, and
people began to explore the new Constitution, many feared that the executive
article was vague enough for an "executive despot" to emerge. Indeed,
many supporters of the strong presidentialist approach, spent their time during the ratification
conventions trying to minimize fears of presidential power. The Federalist Papers 69-77,
especially 69 and 70 were, in part, wonderful propaganda designed to ease fears
of presidential power.
It is left up to presidential action,
institutional and public confirmation or rejection, to define presidential
power!
As we shall see, presidential power has
ebbed and flowed over time!
The Pendulum of Power
The analogy of a pendulum swinging back
and forth between a strong congress and a strong president is an easy way to
explore the evolution of presidential power over time. The pendulum is depicted
below.
|
|
For
pictures and short biographies of all presidents, click: here
|
George Washington |
As the nation's first president,
quasi-monarchical approach
This approach emphasized the president
as "the dignified branch of government" and the idea of the President
being "above politics". Washington did this with the help of
Alexander Hamilton, who, as Secretary of the Treasury, attempted to become
|
Thomas Jefferson |
Jefferson was a supporter of the
notion of party government, also known as the:
ultra-whig model.
This approach parallels the
parliamentary notion of the fusion of executive and legislative functions. (If
you've forgotten this notion, go back to the Vernay
article!).
While
|
Andrew Jackson |
Andrew Jackson won the presidency
in 1828 after nearly a decade of turmoil and party realignment and the
replacement of electors chosen by elites to chosen by "the people".
Jackson, who had received a plurality of the popular vote as an independent
candidate in 1824 (although Adams was chosen by the House of Representative
after no one received a majority of Electoral College votes), was a
representative of emerging western and southern elites and had challenged the
notion of party nominee selection via "King Caucus". When coupled
with the movement towards national conventions which began in the early 1820s,
the plebiscitary presidency.
After
|
Abraham Lincoln |
Abraham Lincoln came to power in an
era when Congressional Whigs had moved the pendulum of power towards a stronger
Congress. Their "president as figurehead" approach could be sustained
during calm times, but this approach falters during times of emergency or
"crisis".
"war powers". Many
scholars have argued that
After
|
Andrew Johnson |
Johnson's near conviction (he was
saved by one vote!) ushered in over 50 years of congressional dominance of
power. This is an era of "King Caucus" and, with the exception of
Teddy Roosevelt's attempt to reconnect to the public and to use the presidency
as a "bully pulpit", a period in which powerful congresspersons who
dominated important committees, dominated government.
That does not mean that a debate about
the presidency didn't emerge. Teddy Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard
Taft, articulated two opposing views: the stewardship and literalist
approaches:
|
The Stewardship Approach |
The Literalist Approach |
|
" I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition". |
"The true view of the Executive function is, as I conceive it, that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise. Such specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest...or in other precedents, warranting such an interference....My judgment is that the view of Mr. Garfield and Mr. Roosevelt, ascribing an undefined residuum of power to the President is an unsafe doctrine and that it might lead under emergencies to results of an arbitrary character, doing irremediable injustice to private right. The mainspring of such a view is that the Executive is charged with responsibility for the welfare of all the people in a general way, that he is to play the part of a Universal Providence and set all things right, and that anything that in his judgment will help the people he ought to do, unless he is expressly forbidden not to do it. The wide field of action that this would give to the Executive one can hardly limit". |
During this period a political
science professor at
|
Woodrow Wilson |
|
Franklin Roosevelt |
Franklin Roosevelt was able to pull
the pendulum of power towards a stronger presidency through the exertion of vast
powers during the twin crises of economic depression and world war. Arguing
that vast powers were necessary to wage war against other nations and against
economic hardship,
After the exertion of presidential
power during the
During subsequent presidencies, the
pendulum of power was gradually pulled towards a stronger Congress.
|
Lyndon Johnson |
Lyndon Johnson used the aftermath
of the Kennedy assassination and his extensive familiarity with the Congress to
pull the pendulum of power back towards a stronger presidency. He was
particularly successful in utilizing an "incident" in the
|
Richard Nixon |
Nixon attempted to pull the
pendulum of power even further towards a stronger presidency. However, the
revelation of the Watergate break-in and Nixon's subsequent coverup
brought about the pulling of the pendulum back towards a stronger Congress.
Subsequent presidents have had only
marginal success with pulling the pendulum of power back towards a stronger
presidency. Reagan's utilization of the "popular connection" assisted
him initially with the
"Iran/Contra"
scandal and mitigated its overall impact.
Prerogative Powers
According to Pious, presidential claims
amd exertion of prerogative powers
have three consequences for the President (as an individual) and the
President (as institution):
1) frontlash
the claim is exerted and accepted as one of the prerogatives of the president
2) backlash
the claim is made and rejected--no long term consequences
3) overshoot and collapse
claim is not only rejected, but presidential power in other areas is reduced
We can now explore the changes in presidential power
over time by looking at changes in presidential roles.
Looking
at roles expressly discoverable in the Constitution and those roles which have
accrued to
presidents over time, roles which presidents play because of
precedents!
Constitutional Roles of the President
1) Commander-in Chief
Art II, Sec. 2: Power as head of armed forces
2) Chief Diplomat
Art II Sec 2: Power to negotiate treaties and executive agreements
Art II Sec 2: Power to nominate ambassadors
Art II Sec 3: Power to receive ambassadors
3) Chief of State
Art II Sec 2: Power to grant reprieves and pardons
Art II Sec 2: Power to commissions officers
4) Chief Legislator
Art II Sec 3: Power to convene and adjourn Congress
Art II Sec 3: Power to address Congress on the State of the Union Art II Sec 3: Power to recommend legislation
Art I, Sec 7: Power to veto legislation
5) Chief Administrator
Art II Sec 2: Power to nominate judges
Art II Sec 2: Power to command the executive branch
Art II, Sec 2: Power to appoint top administrators
The Supra-Constitutional Roles of the Presidency
Supra-constitutional roles refer to roles
which have "accrued" to the presidency but are not discoverable in
the Constitution:
1) Chief
of Party
Source: dominance and expansion of the presidency/ power of appointment/ media coverage
2)
Protector of the Peace/ Global Leader of the Free World
Source:
3)
Manager of the Economy
Source:
Aftermath of stock market crash and depression/
4) Voice
of the People/ Opinion Leader/ Moral Leader
Source: media coverage of president
|
Interested in British Politics? |
|
|
|
Interested in Australian Politics? |