This is basically all due to the Founding fathers of America, who believed in a separation of powers, a system of checks and balances and a federal system of government. In this sense, the power would be evenly diffused, decentralised and also the tyranny would be avoided. The major implicit in the constitution is the principle of checks and balances, which refers to the belief that the founding fathers had that no one branch of the constitutional and government system would dominate the rest. Thus President and congress often have to approve the appointments and actions of each other, with the Supreme Court in the background protecting the integrity of the constitution. There the president is not all powerful.
The government of United State is structured in such a way that the power is balanced between the branches. Although, Presidents power is restricted in the hands and eyes of the other branches, Article Two of the Constitution defines the powers of the president, the power that is even greater than what is merely expressed in the Constitution. According to Neustadt (1990: -- ), he gives examples of Presidential commands and orders that were carried out. He first talks about the Presidents right as Commander in Chief. During the Korean War, President Truman made the unpopular order of removing General Douglas Macarthur from his Position in the far-east. Truman was within his constitutional authority as the sole voice of foreign policy in the U.S. Government to relieve General Macarthur as Commander, showing the presidents power to command. Furthermore, Truman’s seized the steel mills as necessary for national defense. The other instance discussed was Eisenhower’s use of the National Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas to restore order. Along the same lines, President Jackson when dealing with the Cherokee Indians wrote a treaty and removed the Indians from their land.
Nevertheless, after the Watergate, presidents continuously tried to find a struggle to assert their authority. For example, Regan’s authority was compromised by the “Iran gate” affair; Bush faced criticism for the inadequacy of his domestic policy agenda: and Clinton suffered the defeat of his main policy proposals. All of them were frustrated by congresses unwillingness to conform to the president’s agenda, highlighting again a weakness.
The constitution powers of the president, as seen as the perspective of 18th century conditions, were regarded as the minimum necessary to ensure efficient and unified government. The president has the constitutional power to recommend bills to congress and manage the governments’ budget, to make treaties with foreign states and direct federal administration. As well as being head of the executive branch with jurisdiction over the government bureaucracy – he was also to be the commander and chief of the armed forces.
The position of the President as chief diplomat and also commander-in-chief of the US armed forces strengthens further his position on the international scene. The status of the American military as the 21st century’s only true superpower (although Russia and China still posses vast conventional and nuclear forces) enhances the Presidents powerful image more. This would more than likely dissuade any sane and competent national leader from attempting a war with the US or has emerged in the last few years, harbouring terrorist groups that carry out attacks on American installations or civilians.
In contrast to this powerful image on the international scene and though, the growth of presidential power during the course of the 20th and in 21st century, has certainly been great, but has not been absolute, and the presidents’ powers are limited in many respects. Especially, the President is seen by many commentators to have limited powers on the domestic setting. The presidents’ powers under the constitution may have expanded but as have the congress and the courts and therefore the president still has to work within a “separation of powers”. Even with a friendly majority in congress, presidents’ proposals may be rejected or amended. Many foreign policy decisions have to be ratified by Congress, namely foreign treaties (of which the Kyoto climate agreement is among the most controversial) and the deployment of American troops.
The president may be the head of an economic super power, but it is not the only super power in the world, and domestically that power is not solely the white houses. Within the US a degree of economic power has been asserted by congress, and always the multinational organisations constitute a formidable power beyond that of the president.
Furthermore, in terms of military and diplomatic initiatives, America has not always been successful and, when power is personalised, it is the president who inevitably takes the blame. The growth of democracy may have enhanced the power of the president, but the trend towards personalised politics has also produced more polarised politics, with the president having as many political enemies as well as friends. Even though there is no doubt that the executive is powerful, it could be argued that the president is only the public spokesperson.
To conclude, the founding fathers would barely recognise the American presidency today. Yet its effectiveness is still influenced by the constitutional devices, which they employed to prevent an over-powerful executive. The president is the victim of a deep paradox within the American political psyche, a craving for clear leadership but a distrust of those who exercise power. The changing role of the USA also presents the president with another paradox, while it is now the world’s only super power it is no longer the world’s economic colossus: Japan, Europe and in the future China are major rivals. With the collapse of soviet communism even the president’s role as leader of the western democracies is no longer so clear-cut. In Mervin (1993:-- ) apt description “Presidents are ‘Gulliver figures.’, giants in theory but in practice tied by a multitude of restrictions.” (1,426 words)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. Barber (1992) The Presidential Character: Predicting performance in the White House (4th edn.) New Jersy: Prentice Hall
T. Cronin and M. Genovese (2004) The Paradoxes of the American Presidency (2nd edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press
J. Davis (1995) The American Presidency (2nd edn.) London: Preager
D. McKay (2005) American Politics and Society (6th edn.) Oxford: Blackwell
D. Mervin (1993) The President of the United States Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf
R. Neustadt (1990) Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: the Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Collier Mcmillan
R. Singh (2003) Governing America: the Politics of a divided democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lexis Nexis (2007) “Article Two of the United States Constitution”
