Is tyranny is an unacceptable way of ruling people in the 21st century, or has it taken a new name in the form of Imperial Presidency. The American Presidency has become an Imperial Presidency, despite the fact that this is not what the founding fathers had in mind for the nation, as they opposed tyranny in government. This paper will thus demonstrate what an Imperial Presidency is, how it works in practice, and how examples from American Presidents, both past and present, have utilized the features of an Imperial Presidency to execute their power and attain their goals.
An imperial presidency can be defined as a U.S. presidency in which the president takes greater power than is constitutionally allowed (Schlesinger, 2). It was introduced in the literary text my Arthur M. Schlesinger, who used the phrase to explain the changes in Presidential power that had occurred over time, and how, from his point of view, they had damaged the constitution (Schlesinger, 72). Features include an increased internal security state, repeated circumvention of Congress in order to expand, extend, alter, or suspend federal law, and generally expanding the boarders of the presidency beyond their legal limit (Turley, 1).
As a result, such a presidency is characterized by a state in which the powers of the Executive Branch (including the President, his staff, and his agencies) become so concentrated that they overshadow the powers and responsibilities of the other two branches of the federal government -- the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch ("Restraining the Imperial Presidency" 1). This phenomenon has become more common with 20th-century Presidents (“Restraining the Imperial Presidency" 1).
Richard Nixon was the embodiment of an imperial president (“Restraining the Imperial Presidency" 1). When Congress appropriated funds for expenditures, he refused to spend them. On many administration decisions, he claimed executive privilege, refusing to disclose vital information to Congress and the public. Moreover, he made other unilateral decisions without Congressional approval or counsel; decisions such as objecting to allowing important decision makers to be questioned before Congress, and expanding the authority of certain cabinet members without a Congressional stamp of approval. During the Vietnam War, he also ordered the launching of bombing raids and the mining of harbors without seeking or obtaining the approval of Congress. These actions clearly extended his power above and beyond those granted to his position by the constitution.
Unlike President Nixon, President Obama's presidency cannot be considered an imperial presidency. Although many Republicans complain about Obama's number of military missions, unilateral directives and appointments while Congress is in recess, as well as his Internal Revenue Service audits of Republican organizations; he is merely exercising his power as the Chief Executive (Howell 1). He is not overreaching those powers, or creating powers as he goes along, in the way that Nixon did.
However, he does manage to create a sense of ire and disenchantment among his enemies when he uses powers reserved for the Executive Branch (Howell 1). Moreover, as James Madison foretold, the President can only act to a degree in which he is left unchecked by the other powers-that-be, powers vested in the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch (Howell 1).
One of the most basic realities of serving as a U.S. President is that every President comes under fire by both enemies and friends either when he is perceived to use too much power, or not enough power. In President Obama's case, he has endured a rollercoaster affair with supporters and opponents alike. It appears that no one has stood by his side, regardless of a consistent record of helping his constituents and the American public as a whole. For example, many people have wrongly attributed Obama as being the deciding force behind gay marriage. However, the decision to expand gay marriage in all states was made, not by the president, but ultimately by the ruling of the Supreme Court, and its nine justices.
However, it is important to draw a line between a president’s perceived actions, and his actual actions. Imperial presidency is not defined by what the public accuses a president of doing, but rather, his actions as they relate to power, and constitutionally established roles. The American Presidency has, in some cases, become an Imperial Presidency, as presidents have taken power that is not given to them constitutionally, in order to achieve their goals. This can be demonstrated in the actions of past presidents, as they relate to appropriate executive power.
Works Cited
Howell, William. "The not-so-imperial presidency of Barack Obama." Politico. 08 Aug 2013. Web. 19 Jul 2015.
"Restraining the Imperial Presidency." Digital History. 2014. Web. 19 Jul 2015.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Print.
Turley, Jonathan. “A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency” The American Legion Magazine. 2014 June 1. Web. 19 July 2015.
