The Executive Branch (original) (raw)
Article VII. Executive Department
, the evident intention was to invest the power holder with energy • Specific powers given to the president: ○ to appoint ○ to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, ○ to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, ○ to grant clemency, and ○ to contract foreign loans • The presidency that emerges from the 1987 text is still a potent institution largely because the primary source of his political authority, election by the people at large, is still there. • The executive branch, said Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the character and personality of the President. • NOT ACCURATE: "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it ○ Executive power is just one of the powers of the President • Justice Holmes [Personal Understanding: Presidential powers are not just as what is enumerated in the Constitution; there are residual powers too] ○ It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution requires. • Isagani Cruz ○ In holding that the President of the Philippines has residual powers in addition to the specific powers granted by the Constitution, the Court is taking a great leap backward and reinstating the discredited doctrine announced in Planas v. Gil (67 Phil. 62). This does not square with the announced policy of the Constitutional Commission, which was precisely to limit rather
Two hundred eighteen years after George Washington was elected to serve as the first President of the United States, the Constitutional Framers would likely be heartened to know that over a dozen people are vying for the right to run as their party's presidential candidate in the upcoming 2008 presidential election. However, these same Framers would likely be severely disheartened to learn that the powers and responsibilities assigned to the executive branch and the President of the United States - an office which these dedicated men created and shepherded through a vehement anti-constitution protest - have been eroded. Indeed, many of the key points which the Framers cited as evidence of and reasoning for the tripartite system they devised have been whittled away by constant intrusion into the powers and responsibilities of the President and the executive branch. This intrusion has become increasingly commonplace and accepted by a broad spectrum of governmental and political ac...
Research Paper, 2021
The executive branch, whose power is vested in the President of the United States, has undergone substantial developments since the inception of our nation. Despite the Founding Fathers’ original objective of limiting governmental power to avoid tyrannical abuse during the Confederation period in the U.S.A., they also recognized that a strong central government was necessary for the nation to prosper in unison and maintain stability. Hence, the enactment of the U.S. Constitution brought forth the separation of powers, among other details, thereby establishing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. These branches serve a distinct governmental purpose, concurrently counterbalancing each other via “checks and balances” to prevent the concentration of political power within individuals or groups. This *conspectus presents the foremost powers of the president as the head of state, along with the addition of the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in 1939, which subsequently augmented the president’s political influence and responsibilities. *Please Note: This paper is an independent essay which was completed at edX Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University for HKS101A_2 U.S. Political Institutions: Congress, Presidency, Courts, and Bureaucracy.
1983
Jeremy D. Bailey This collection of documents on the presidency continues the Ashbrook Center’s extended series of document collections covering major periods, themes, and institutions in American history and government. The volume begins with Alexander Hamilton’s commentary on those sections of the Constitution related to the executive branch; it ends with President Barack Obama’s address to the nation defending his interpretation of executive authority under the Constitution to use force against the Syrian regime. It covers not only the role of the executive branch in our constitutional order, but also the specific questions of presidential selection, term limits, and impeachment. Its documents also explore the president’s responsibility to oversee the executive branch (including the removal power, the power to remove executive branch officials from office) and his authority as commander in chief and in regards to foreign policy. This collection and its companion volumes — Congres...
2020
(co-authored with Ferdinand Müller-Rommel) Executive power has been and will continue to be a prominent and widely used concept in political science. This chapter shows that executive power has mostly been examined in context with political power and political institutions. After providing an overview of different concepts under historical perspective, the chapter introduces various definitions of executive power and advocates that executive power should be studied in context with the functioning of political institutions. In a third step, we examine different forms of executive power in authoritarian and democratic regimes. Fourth, we study the internal structure of political executives in democratic regimes particularly in light of their linkage to political parties and legislative support. Fifth, we discuss the issue of gender representation in the context of executive power. Finally, we tackle the pressing debate on how to measure executive power. We conclude that executive power should be treated not as a rigid, but as a flexible concept for analysing the complex interaction of political actors in their institutional environment.
'Presidential power' is a controversial concept of American politics. It has been evident how over time, presidents have obtained different amounts of power. This review will assess exactly how much power a president has in office and the tools he obtains to exert control. We will discuss the impact of presidential appointees, the role of Congress and the functions of multiple independent agencies. We will evaluate with empirical testing on the power of the president over independent agencies and assess the works of Morris (2010) and other leading theorists in this area of American presidency.
2019
The Unitary Executive Theory, which implies that the president should have plenary authority over executive branch functions, and is the sole arbiter of executive power, can be attributed to increasing the powers of the presidency and overall making a president more successful in his policy endeavors. I have concentrated my research to contextualize different variables for presidential success, including prior experience, bureaucratic loyalty, historical context, and, most importantly, the unitary executive. I apply these determinants to two case studies to determine which are most effective. Using the examples of Andrew Jackson and Jimmy Carter, I show how their contrasting uses of a unitary executive contributes most to their respective successful and unsuccessful presidencies. While other determinants of success for presidents can be considered, I find that a strong application of the unitary executive is the most influential for presidential success. v Introduction: Determining What Constitutes Presidential "Success" There are many ways that presidents can achieve success. Sometimes success is measured by the number of policy and legislative actions, supported by the president, that are passed and made into law. Success can also come in the form of good foreign policy initiatives, such as ending a conflict or engaging in international deals that greatly benefit the United States socially, economically, or militarily. If we can measure success of the executive, what then, are strong sources of a president's success? Scholars have pointed to experience, both military and political, of the individual in office as a contributing factor. 1 2 Additionally, loyalty of the bureaucracy that serves the president is considered an influence. 3 Perhaps the most likely factor, to many, is the idea that 1 Simon and Uscinki (2012), for example, note that while it is assumed that "experienced" presidents perform better, such good performance is attributed more to previous experience relative to specific policy realms. Presidents with military experience, according to the authors, can fare better in situations of military exercise, while former congressmen have extensive experience in dealing with the legislative branch, which can lead to increased cooperation with Congress. Nevertheless, they attribute experience to success. See: Simon, Arthur M., and Joseph E.