FREE ESSAY ON PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

presidential powers 
From the inception of the Constitution, there has always been a power struggle between
the President and Congress. In the beginning, Madison and the Jeffersonians were placed
in a gridlock with Hamilton and his school of political philosophy. Andrew Jackson fought
to extend the powers of the President, then Congress spent 50 years fighting to repeal
the powers of the Executive. Abraham Lincoln refined Jacksonian presidential politics,
then Congress impeached his successor, Andrew Johnson, for fear of another quasi -
tyrannical President. Even today, a Congress, whose majority is of the same party as the
President, fights 24 hours a day to check the power of President George W. Bush. But why,
and how? Inherent Power Struggles Within the Constitution: Article I, Section I - "All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives" VS. Article II, Section I
- "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"
Article II, Section II - "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the
actual service of the United States" - The Founders' ambiguous and contradicting language
sets the stage for a power struggle between the Executive and the Legislative branches -
Being that the Founders were political masterminds, they realized that unique
circumstances would demand some deviations from the restraints that the Constitution
places on both the Executive and the Legislature - Founders anticipated that during times
of crisis', the nation would need a more unilaterally decisive Executive - Though the
Commander and Chief clause was, more likely than not, created specifically for
Washington, to assume that the Framers did not anticipate that in times of national
crisis' this power would be paramount, is to undermine the intelligence and foresight of
the men in question. - Thus, this study assumes that the Framers wrote the constitution
ambiguously to afford both, the Executive and Legislative, branches the ability to flex
and recoil political and constitutional clout in light of the crisis' that are presented
at any given time. To more simply present my thesis, I would like to explain my stand as
an opinion which holds that the powers of the President have not been enhanced or
hampered over the last 250 years; instead I am arguing that the power of the Executive is
enhanced during times of crisis', due to the need of a unilaterally decisive Executive.
The language found in the constitution, which was purposely written ambiguously, helps
precipitate this occurrence. The President's power is checked again by Congress once the
crisis' has subsided, maintaining a balance between the powers of Congress and the
President. This also explains why, as a rule, a great/powerful executive is never
proceeded by a more great/powerful president. Historically, the greatest friction between
the Congress and the President have been in relation to war, fiscal policy, social
policy, and Power. My course work has taken a historical survey of all of America's
Presidents, especially those in office during times of "significant" crisis', to support
my claims. To better elaborate on my thesis, I use Lincoln and the Civil War, FDR and the
Great Depression/ WWII, and George Bush and Operation Desert Storm as a means to gel the
given claims. - Lincoln and the Civil War - Powers assumed, unilateral decisions,
refinement of Jacksonian principles, intimidation of Congress, living legacy - Johnson
and the Attack on the President - Repeal of powers, stripping of authority, veto power
nullified, impeachment - FDR and the Return of the Jacksonian Executive - Passed
provocative legislation, unilateral decisions, waged war on the Great Depression, entered
WWII, most powerful Executive of the 20th century - Bush and the Contemporary Paradigm -
Operation Desert Storm, used of Commander in Chief, public polling before and after war
on Iraq, crisis as tool to pass tough legislation - Clinton and the Assault on the
Executive - Hard times with Congress, public opinion polls, lack of political clout with
chief legislators, non - living legacy Contemporary Implications: The greatest
implications the above stated project has is the fact that it affords a means to predict
the way a President will serve his term 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.