Imperial presidency thesis

                Any discussion about the presidency inevitably shifts at some point towards an assessment of his overall power. As previously mentioned, the President of the United States is widely depicted as the most powerful politician in the world. However, there is much that constrains the Head of State – particularly in the realm of domestic policy. This is most notable during a period of divided government, a situation that has confronted Obama since the GOP won the House mid-terms in 2010.

Those who claim the President is a very powerful figure cite the imperial presidency thesis of Arthur Schlesinger. The imperial presidency thesis was put forward in the early-1970s. The timing of the publication is important because it captures an era in which the powers of the President had grown over time. In doing so, it was claimed that the original intentions of the founding fathers had been circumvented by successive occupants of the White House. Schlesinger identified foreign policy as the key determinant in the expansion of the powers of the President. The scope and scale of America’s military arsenal had grown substantially both as a result of the Second World War and the cold war. Alongside this unprecedented growth, successive figures had to some extent undermined the Constitution and in a broader sense the conventions that characterize the American system. Take the case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He broke the convention set by George Washington that no President could serve more than two consecutive terms. He also imposed restrictions of civil liberties (including internment of Japanese Americans) to tackle the war effort. In later years, Lyndon Johnson managed to gain congressional approval to take “all necessary measures” to deal with the Vietnam War. From the Republican side, Nixon had been guilty of exceeding his constitutional authority in regards to the break-in at the Watergate building. This ‘imperial’ attitude was best summarized in Nixon’s response to a question from the British reporter Sir David Frost over Watergate (“when the President does it then it is not illegal”). It is hard to imagine a comment less in keeping with the intentions of the founding fathers than that!

                In order to substantiate Schlesinger’s argument further, one might consider the various sources of presidential power. In regards to the legislative branch, he can propose legislation via the State of the Union address or during a press conference. He can also submit an annual budget to Congress, sign legislation passed by Congress or conversely veto an item of proposed legislation. In regards to the executive branch, the President nominates members of his Cabinet and other related officials. In terms of the judicial branch, the President can nominate judges to the Supreme Court and for many other judicial posts. These nominations must gain the approval of the upper chamber.

                The President also wields considerable power in the field of American foreign policy. Most notably, he is commander-in-chief of the world’s leading military power. It is worth noting here that the Presidents’ legacy is often defined by foreign policy. Notable examples include the Star Wars Initiative under Ronald Reagan and Nixon’s attempt to split the Communist bloc via establishing diplomatic relations with China. The President also represents the United States on the world stage; which enables him to raise issues with other world leaders and sign international Treaties on behalf of the nation. In times of emergency, the President also has direct control over the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To take a recent example, FEMA was employed by Barack Obama in response to Hurricane Irene. Finally, the President can pardon felons.

                Taken together, the enumerated and implied powers at the disposal of the President are substantial. However, we must also consider the counter-argument which depicts the President as an embattled figure whose powers are constrained by the Constitution and by a system of governance centered upon the separation of powers. This is known as the imperiled presidency argument.