The concept that presidential power has increased drastically over the years is uncontestable. The extent of the growth is, however, not fully embraced by the public. The gradual increment of the presidential power, contrary to common belief, is not a recent development. The famous Justice Jackson had acknowledged the trend five decades ago in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Marshall, 2008). It is pertinent to concede that there is a gap between the powers stated in the constitution and the actual powers exercised by the president. The law does not definitively disclose the power wielded by the president in the modern days and, as a result, executive power has been abused or underused. The founding fathers of the United States of America had a plan to separate powers in a system that would ensure balance in the government. Presidential power is the most crucial yet often abused executive authority and should thus be controlled for more effective governance.
In an era of polarized politics, unilateral presidential power has become a fierce point of dispute. During the former president’s reign, 43 senators who happened to be republicans filed the popular but rare friend-of-the-court brief contesting former President Obama’s “Extra-constitutional use of the unilateral executive power” (Howell, 2005). The claims became rampant with the reformation of the immigration implemented by President Obama. Whether controversial or otherwise, numerous executive orders have implications. For instance, when Barrack Obama banned all federal employees from using their mobile devices while driving, the action decreased the number of accidents happening annually. Additionally, the then president asserted unilateral power to curb the threatening gun violence in society. As acknowledged, gun violence was the cause of loss of lives. Through placing stringent executive orders regarding selling and ownership of guns, the president was able to reduce the rate of crime amid protests from many representatives. Many people have argued that in cases where Congress may seem to be reluctant, the president is allowed to use executive orders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The constitution in Article II, Section 2 asserts that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces thus includes both the land and naval forces. The act generally awards the President with the sovereign rights to use the armed forces in cases of attacks against the country (Manuel José Cepeda & David, 2017). Nonetheless, the act has raised concerns as critics question the president’s power to send the army into hostile territories across the borders without any declaration of war or any authorization from the Congress. The debate became more vocal after the former President, Barrack Obama, acted unilaterally and ordered the series of air strikes on the Islamic state of Libya in 2016 (Kennedy, 2017). The act faced much opposition from many humanitarian organizations which were of the perception that the bombing was unnecessary. Additionally, the current President has been seen to continuously rely on unilateral action as a tool to wield power (Marshall, 2008). President Trump who granted clemency to felons implied that he had the mandate to pardon himself in the case of any legal action filed against him. The rate at which presidents use unilateral and executive orders to exercise power has become overwhelming.
On the other hand, presidents may also act according to the commands of Congress. The recent trending topic is on the border wall. President Trump had run a campaign based on the “harsh on crime” platform (Kennedy, 2017). An amicable solution for the rise in crime rate in the country was according to the President, building a border wall that would prevent illegal movement of individuals into and out of America (Howell, 2005). However, recently Congress voted against the act and President Trump was forced to stop the construction. Although the President remains intent on completing the wall, he is restricted by the Congress decision. It is intriguing that the even the President of America, who is presumed to be amongst the most influential individuals in the world, may be compelled to comply with the decisions of the Congress.
In Article II Section 1 of the constitution endowed the president of the United States of America with executive power. The president is not only the head of state but also the government (Manuel José Cepeda & David, 2017). Also, the Commander-In-Chief is charged with the responsibility of promoting democratic values such as suppressing disputes and conflicts both nationally and internationally. Thus POTUS is faced with the primary role of maintaining peace and cohesion while elevating the living standards of the citizens (Howell, 2005). It is indisputable that the president has an impact on legal, social, and economic matters; however, there are stringent institutional limitations on what he may or may not do. The office of the president also does not offer the individual occupying office full immunity as they may be held legally responsible for their actions. In cases where the legislature may pass a bill, the president has a Veto power which stops the legislation from becoming law (Manuel José Cepeda & David, 2017). The veto power is considered to be one of the tools that separate power and balances it in the government of the United States. Thus, all arms of government have equal and reversible control over critical issues in the nation.
The separation of mandate mainly related to foreign affairs has spawned a considerable debate over the duties and responsibilities of the president and Congress. Consequently, individuals have argued that the powers granted to the office of the president and Congress should be limited. Experts have however argued that the office of the president has accumulated more control over the years at the cost of Congress (Kennedy, 2017). The former assertion is derived from the apparent observation that in times of crisis, the executive arm of government appears to overshadow the legislature. The constitution is, hence, a guide that offers affirmative grants of power on specific matters. Both the constitution and Congress possess the ultimate ability to control the extent of presidents preventing tyrannies. Marshall (2008) elaborates that equally, the other arms of government are responsible for regulating the power of the Congress. The central subject of power balance has further fueled the skepticism of entrusting individuals with unilateral authority.
The growth of presidential power has become more evident over the decades but has not yet become absolute. Thus, the ability of the President is still constrained in various respects by Congress and the constitution. The powers of the legislature and Congress have also increased significantly in recent years. Therefore, despite the President having a substantial majority of congressmen, his or her proposals may still be voted against or amended. In some extreme cases, the President may be forced to act unilaterally especially when the matter is an emergency. Both presidents Trump and Obama have been exemplary candidates who have used both single and Congress power during their rule. The constitution provides regulations that keep both the Congress and the President from misusing their powers. In the case that the legislature votes a motion into law, the president may be obliged to use the veto power, if he is of the contrary opinion, to eclipse the legislation. The powers of the United States President are numerous as the office comes with significant responsibilities. Nevertheless, it is pertinent for such a mandate to be regulated to avoid misuse of power.
References
Howell, W. G. (2005). Unilateral powers: A brief overview. Presidential Studies Quarterly , 35 (3), 417-439. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00258.x
Kennedy, J. B. (2017). The Limits of presidential influence: Two environmental directives and what they mean for executive power. Journal of Policy History , 30 (01), 1-24. doi:10.1017/s0898030617000367
Manuel José Cepeda, E., & David, L. (2017). Part three: The separation of powers, 9 the president: problems of executive overreach. Colombian Constitutional Law . doi:10.1093/law/9780190640361.003.0009
Marshall, W. P. (2008). Eleven reasons why presidential power inevitably expands and why it matters. BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW , 88 (505), 505-522.
