Constraints upon the President

                In a democracy, the power of any politician is limited in some manner. This is particularly obvious in the United States, where the whole emphasis of the governing system is upon checks and balances in order to avoid the abuse of power. However, successive Presidents have at times succeeded in working around these limitations. The skill by which he can achieve this is a fascinating area to consider.

                There are in total five main limitations upon the President’s actions; the Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, public opinion and the international community. Whilst there is inevitably some cross-over at times; notably public opinion and Congress, each of these limitations can be a considerable hindrance to the Head of State. For instance, the twenty-second amendment limits the President to a period of two-terms in office. Reagan, Clinton and Bush junior all had to leave office on the basis of this particular amendment. That said; the President has at times managed to circumvent such constraints. Whereas the Constitution strives to avoid the President acting in a manner akin to a monarchical ruler, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have at times acted in such a manner over the war against terror.

                In terms of Congress, there are two dependent factors that spring to mind. The first is the state of the parties within Congress. The room for maneuver awarded to the President is always greater during a period of unified government that it is during a period of divided government. The tone and character of the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill can change significantly when one party replaces another as the majority party. The second factor to consider is the ability of the President to persuade members of the legislative branch. Inevitably, some Presidents are more persuasive than others! A President skilled in the arts of persuasion will face less limitation from Congress than someone who is unable to persuade. Given the polarized nature of the electorate, the ability of the President to gain bipartisan agreement has become more and more difficult. As the academic David Mervin memorably observed, the President must be a “bargainer-in-chief” in order to get things done and thereby exert power in a meaningful manner.

                Given the separation of powers, the President has little direct control over the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is a genuinely independent body free from the political demands of the executive (and legislative) branch of government. This limitation manifests itself in a number of ways. For instance, once a nominee is accepted by the Senate the President may well be disappointed by the ideological stance adopted by that figure. For now, it is worth noting that the judicial branch can impose significant limitations upon the President. The Supreme Court can rule his actions to be unconstitutional, and can also pass judgments that are contrary to his interests and ideology (such as the Citizens United ruling under the Obama administration). That said; the President may circumvent this via pushing amended legislation through Congress – although any new item of legislation must be ruled as constitutional by the Supreme Court. There are also historical instances in which the President has engaged in court-packing; as in the case of FDR during the early stages of the New Deal. It is however easier for the President to pack the lower courts, as this will attract less controversy and opposition.

                The President must always be conscious of public opinion. However, the degree to which public opinion might limit his actions fluctuates greatly. During the run-up to the election in which he seeks to renew his mandate, the President will need to chart a course of action that maximizes public support. However, he can spend the last year or so of his second-term securing his legacy without concerning himself with re-election. Whilst he may be aware of public opinion and the impact it may have upon his party’s nominee; that does not mean the President is greatly limited at that stage of the electoral cycle. When considering the impact of public opinion, and the constraint it imposes; a President must show that he is listening whilst taking tough but necessary decisions. The President can easily be blown off course if he is too responsive to public opinion.

                In terms of foreign policy, the President is limited by the conventions and the distribution of power within the international community. That said; some Presidents are of course much more adept at exerting influence within foreign affairs than others. In order to get around the constraints imposed within the arena of international relations, the President must wield power on the basis of an iron fist in a velvet glove. This well-known aphorism is reflected in the presidential seal, where an eagle clutches both a bundle of arrows and an olive branch. As a result of the Vietnam syndrome, successive Presidents have sought a coalition of the willing when military action has been on the table. Although the commander-in-chief may well possess the ability to go it alone, he rarely does so. A vivid illustration of the constraints placed upon the President was shown in the case of Syria. Whilst Obama and Kerry voiced the need for military action, they could not persuade other members of the international community to support such action against the Assad regime. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was right when he called the presidency a “splendid misery.”

 

                In politics, one must always distinguish between the potential to act and the ability to act. In the context of the President, it should be acknowledged that he has considerable resources at his disposal. This is particularly notable in the field of international relations. The President is easily the most powerful man in the world when it comes to the potential to act in a military sense. However, the ability to act is a very different ball-game. Indeed, all Presidents must ultimately face the gap between capabilities and expectations. There are several quotes that illustrate the frustrations facing the man in the Oval Office. Harry Truman depicted the President as nothing more than a “glorified public relations man” whilst Bill Clinton once likened being President to running a cemetery, in that “you’ve got a lot of people under you, and nobody is listening.” However, for me the blunt language of Lyndon Johnson sums it up best (“The only power I’ve got is nuclear, and I’m not allowed to use that”).