In American politics, the association between Congress and the President has been, as one would expect where there is a division of powers, challenging. The Founding Fathers developed a system of checks and balances as the foundation on which the States ratified the American Constitution. As a result, and with one branch of the government writing laws and determining budgets that another branch has to execute and spend respectively, an inherent tension has defined the American government. Now, every President seeks to influence policies. After elections, a country’s President is at liberty to bring his or her goals and objectives to office: public policy becomes the target. However, as already noted, any strategic initiatives require the head of State to work with Congress, and none of the two can have complete control over policymaking processes. So what happens when the constitutionally imposed interdependence between the President and Congress becomes too intense? This paper explores the constitutional, institutional, and political sources of power that are at the President’s disposal when compromise with Congress is impossible and the potential they have to influence American politics.
Foremost, the political environment in the United States revolves around two grounds. First, there is the Constitution, which defines the country’s system of governance from the State to national levels. The three branches of government operate based on the powers and limitations that the Constitution allocates to their offices. Nonetheless, delegates in the Constitutional Convention that took place in 1787 had no way of knowing the influence their resolutions would have in the future, hence the loopholes that tend to favor the President (BookTV 2012). In other words, there is a different system of government that has been active from the twentieth century and its informality does not mean it is not constitutional.
According to the United States Constitution, the legislative branch [Congress] passes the laws, the executive branch [the President] ensures the proper execution of legislation, and the judiciary branch “interprets statutes” (A Conversation on the Constitution: 3mins). By that logic, the judiciary branch mediates between Congress and the President in the event of a disparity. Either way, the Constitution also holds a solution for a bill that the executive branch may endorse but the President opposes. In Article I, Section 7, the Constitution declares that the President may sign a bill that passes both the Senate and the House of Representatives if he or she approves. In case he or she does not support the same, he or she “shall return it, with his [or her] Objections to that House in which it shall have originated” (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A13). Apparently, the head of State can veto a bill, and unless two-thirds of the members of both chambers object the veto, the bill does not become law (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A13). Aside from the veto, Article II Section 3 states that where permissible the President can use “Information of the State of the Union” to recommend to Congress’ “Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A13). In other words, a President can recommend that Congress pass a new law if he or she does not agree with existing legislation. For instance, the goals of the United States foreign policy include “security, economic prosperity, and securing the country’s influence” (DeSipio 2016: Module 10, Lecture 1). While the objectives remain the same, every president approached them differently: the Bush Doctrine called for “preemptive war and unilateral military action” and President Obama emphasized on “diplomacy and cooperation with allies” (DeSipio 2016: Module 10, Lecture 1).
Subsequently, and with the legislative powers of the President in mind, other areas of authority determine the Head of State’s relations with the Judiciary branch, the people, and other nations. Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution gives the President power to be the Commander in Chief of the “Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States” (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A17). At the same time, the President has the powers to conduct diplomacy between the country and other nations. By that logic, the Constitution grants the President authority to determine whether the United States goes to war or approaches a threat with a treaty to benefit both sides. Again, the mentioned example of foreign policies comes into play. George Bush was for the use of the armed forces while Barack Obama seeks to avoid armed conflict and advocates diplomacy. The President of the United States has the direct power within the terms of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses” against the country “except in Cases of Impeachment” (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A17).
According to Ginsberg, et al., the presented authorities of the President make up the “expressed powers of the office” and are irrevocable without an Amendment to the United States Constitution (2014: 309). Notably, while they are unalterable, the powers are not absolute. For a better understanding it is best to use an already given example and in this case the addition of the clause “except in Cases of Impeachment” is perfect (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A17). As mentioned above, the President can pardon offenses against the country; however, he cannot interfere with the judicial process. In yet another limitation to the powers of the President, Article II Section II gives the President power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls” but not without “the Advice and Consent of the Senate” (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: A17). The checks and balances system that the Founding Fathers sought is evident throughout the Constitution. Congress can constitutionally pass a law, but the President can veto it if he desires. Similarly, only the President can enforce a law but has to check with Congress. Only the judiciary branch can find a legislation to be constitutional or not: such as in the decision of the Marbury v. Madison case in which the court “asserted new power” by reviewing the acts of Congress (DeSipio 2016: Module 9, Lecture 1). A judicial review allows the judiciary branch of government to hold the other branches accountable by declaring their actions as “invalid or unconstitutional” if they act outside the powers given by the Constitution (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: 376).
Until recently, American politics have adhered to the constitutional framework. While different circumstances may allocate more powers to one branch at a time, such as during war where the people look to the President more than they do Congress and the court, the balance still exists. In recent decades, the Presidential office has gained momentum in garnering more powers within the State. Outside the expressed powers, the President can invoke his or her authority without consulting the legislative and judiciary branches. A perfect illustration of the given claim revolves around Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation that abolished slavery in the Confederate States during the American Civil War. Ronald Reagan used “signing statements” in the 1980s to enact policies without the consent of the Congress. Ginsberg, et al. mention the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 where President Reagan interpreted sections of the Act to allow “discretionary enforcement” as opposed to the Congressional “mandatory enforcement” (2014: 329). At the expense of the legislative branch, such developments have gone on to expand the powers of the President but are not necessarily unconstitutional.
When he became the President of the United States in 2001, George W. Bush utilized Reagan’s tactics and invoked presidential signing statements to push for policy endorsement. In some signing statements, Bush’s administration went ahead and divided some laws into parts that were acceptable and those that the President did not support. Article II of the Constitution tasks the President with taking “care that the laws be faithfully executed” and anything else ought to be unconstitutional (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: 309). However, the United States Presidents have waived parts of existing law to accommodate rising concerns in the country. President Barack Obama dismissed the terms of “No Child Left Behind” after “Congress [was] unable to agree on [a] new legislation” to curb the problems facing the execution of the mentioned law (Ginsberg, et al. 2014: 412). In other words, while “No Child Left Behind” remains applicable, some States can apply for an exemption to some of its requirement and that alone revokes the duty of the President to “faithfully” execute the law. The outcomes encompass a new form of government that emerged during the twentieth century and gained more power to become stronger today.
In conclusion, and contrary to the dictations of the Constitution where Congress enacts laws and the President has to “faithfully” execute them, today’s federal system works differently. The President decides whether or not to enforce legislations and interprets them based on existing situations. Consequently, the President has vast controls that were originally not intended for the head of State. What does that mean for the balance of powers in the future? Unless Congress reasserts its power by challenging the President’s privileges to issue presidential signing statements, the checks and balances condition that the Constitution seeks to uphold will become non-existent. There is an immediate need to limit such powers. Similarly, the Supreme Court has to declare the President’s tactics unconstitutional lest it loses the authority to issue judicial reviews. If unchecked, the same tyrannical rule that the Founding Fathers abhorred and prevented by ratifying the American Constitution will reemerge in the States. In effect, the country would have made a full circle and gone back to the years before the Revolutionary War.
Works Cited
"A Conversation on the Constitution: Judicial Independence." Annenberg Classroom. The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics, n.d. Web. 25 July 2016. <http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/conversation-judicial-independence>.
BookTV. "BookTV: Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" YouTube. YouTube, 02 July 2012. Web. 24 July 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdXxesXUtwE>.
DeSipio, Louis. "Policymaking (Domestic and Foreign)." Introduction to American Government Module 10, Lecture 1. 2016. Lecture.
DeSipio, Louis. "The Courts: The Foundations of Institutional Power." Introduction to American Government Module 9, Lecture 1. 2016. Lecture.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, Lowi Theodore J., Weir Margaret, Tolbert Caroline J., and Spitzer Robert J. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 9th. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. Print.
