W3

5 The Presidency Associated Press/Kyodo Learning Objectives By the end of this chapter, you should be able to• Describe the sources of the president’s power and authority.

• Explain the presidential elections process.

• Analyze the difference between a domestic and a foreign policy president.

• Describe how presidents use their political power.

• Describe the organization of the White House.

• Evaluate the concept of a wartime president.

• Analyze how Congress limits presidential power.

• Analyze the role of presidential character in evaluating presidents and presidential candidates. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 107 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. In March 2011, an alliance of NATO countries, including the United States, launched air strikes against Libya in a humanitarian mission to assist rebels fighting against Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi. N AT O, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization , is an alliance of 28 countries that agreed to protect each other in case of attack. In justifying U.S. involvement in Libya, President Barack Obama insisted that the United States was part of a broad coalition.

As military operations reached the 3-month point, questions arose about the legality of Amer - ican involvement.

The Constitution states that Con - gress has the authority to declare war, while it also obligates the president to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. This obligation has led many presidents to engage in military acts without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war. President Obama claimed that his actions were in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires that the president notify Congress of the use of force.

Below is an excerpt from the War Powers Resolution. From Section 2:

The constitutional powers of the President as Com- mander-in-Chief to intro- duce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursu- ant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

From Section 3: The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circum - stances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostili - ties or have been removed from such situations.

According to the War Powers Resolution, a president who dispatches military units for any reason must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Congress then has 90 days to either authorize the operation or demand that the units come home. In the case of Libya, President Obama formally notified Congress of the U.S. military’s participation. However, the speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, demanded that the president explain the mission © Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press/Corbis Previous members of President Obama’s administra- tion, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on Ameri- can military operations in Libya on March 31, 2011.

Some congressional members contend that U.S. involve- ment in this operation violates the War Powers Act. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 108 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority to Congress and obtain its authorization to continue. The president insisted that he had no obligation to seek authorization before launching the air strikes because these actions were “hostilities” and not acts of war. This response angered many in Congress.

As the War Powers Resolution placed the ball in Congress’s court, the House of Representa- tives voted down a bill that would authorize the president to continue American involvement.

The president asserted that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it inter- fered with his commander-in-chief power. This episode raises questions about how much authority the president has to make decisions in the commander-in-chief role as framed by the Constitution.

In this chapter, we look at the American presidency and how it has evolved over time. The Constitution grants the president formal authority that is limited by Congress. The extent to which the president has any real power stems from the relationships that he or she estab - lishes and cultivates. The Framers did not fully address the issue of presidential war power because they were uncertain of what the president would do and they did not foresee all the contingencies that might arise that would require the president to exercise war power.

5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority The Framers of the Constitution created a presidency that would take direction from Con - gress. The president is given several formal constitutional powers, most of which are checked by Congress. Presidential power is intended to be used to preserve and protect the Constitu - tion through the president’s expressed and inherent powers. Expressed powers refers to pow - ers listed explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Inherent powers refers to powers that have been inferred from language in the U.S. Constitution. Together, expressed and inherent powers in the Constitution establish the office of the presidency and give its occupant the authority to preserve and protect the Constitution.

Article II of the Constitution establishes executive power and who may hold it: “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America .” Article II also establishes the president’s formal authority, which includes being commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces and chief executive. The president also has the authority to negotiate treaties, nomi- nate persons for high-level appointed office, veto acts of Congress, and grant reprieves and pardons. The language of the Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties as long as two thirds of the Senate concurs. This example of checks and balances is referred to as “advice and consent” in the U.S. Constitution. The Senate also has the power to confirm presi - dential nominations to high-level office. The veto power, which is the power of the president to reject bills passed by Congress, is found in Article I.

Authority as Commander in Chief Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall be 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.” This means that the president must authorize any use fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 109 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority of force by the military. It does not mean that he or she will personally lead troops into battle like a medieval European king. The requirement that presidents authorize the use of force establishes the sacred principle of civilian control of the armed forces. If the military estab- lishment were equal in power to other institutions, it could easily overthrow the civilian gov - ernment and thus upend one of the hallmarks of modern democratic governance, the peace - ful transfer of power.

Civilian control, at least in the early days of the American republic, was ensured by the absence of large standing armies. In fact, the Consti- tution mentions an army and navy only because these were the only two branches of the military that existed when it was written. They were separate departments, and each was equal to the other. The secretary of war and the secretary of navy both sat in the president’s Cabinet.

Today’s Cabinet includes a single secretary of defense, but that posi - tion was not created until after World War II, with the passage of the 1947 National Defense Act, the law that created a unified Defense Department. Until that global conflict, the United States called state militia—what are known today as National Guard units—into national service.

Much of the American fighting forces are still made up of National Guard units. They were called up in 2001 when the nation went into Afghanistan, and again in 2003 when it went into Iraq. Militia members of these units are normally under the command of their respective governors, but once called, they are under the command of the president.

Use of the state militias for national service was formally adopted with the Militia Act of 1792, which gave the president the authority, in the event or threat of an invasion, to call into ser - vice as many troops from state militia as would be needed to repel the invasion. The president would be able to call upon those militia companies that would be “most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action.” This meant that if the country were invaded off the shore of Maine, the president could call on militia companies in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Because they would be close to the place of invasion, they could respond quickly. This would also give the states a role in defending the nation. Instead of having to build national bases in all the states to house a standing army, the army would be formed as needed. Less than a week after the Militia Act was passed, Congress passed a second Militia Act of 1792, which required each able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in the militia of his respective state.

The organization of the country’s military forces fundamentally changed in the 20 th century.

In 1903, Congress passed legislation to organize the various state militias into the current National Guard system, which was to be administered jointly by the National Guard Bureau Associated Press/Pablo Martinez Monsivais President Obama speaks to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifically establishes that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 110 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority and the U.S. Department of Defense. With passage of the 1916 National Defense Act, approxi- mately one half of the U.S. Army’s available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organizations were National Guard units.

To call the militia into service during a time of crisis is to rely on civilian defense and to democratize the sense of sacrifice, a concept that still resonates today. As an example, when the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991, it amassed around 500,000 troops on Iraq’s border. Most of these troops were taken from state National Guard units. The United States certainly could have used its professional national army, but by calling on state units, the president gave all citizens a stake in the outcome.

Authority to Pardon Article II, Section 2 also grants the president the authority to issue pardons. The president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.” This would seem to suggest that the president can pardon anyone who has committed a federal crime.

Presidents may pardon convicted criminals who have already served part of their prison sen- tence. The president might issue a partial pardon, which often amounts to a commutation of a sentence, or pardon somebody who has long been a fugitive from justice. President Bill Clinton, for example, pardoned Marc Rich, a financier charged with evading $48 million in taxes and committing more than 50 counts of fraud. Rich had fled the country and was living in Switzerland at the time of his indictment.

As another example, in 1974 President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to Richard Nixon for Nixon’s role in the Watergate cover-up, which meant that the former president could never be charged for crimes related to Watergate. The Nixon pardon was viewed as an attempt to heal a badly divided nation and move forward.

A president does not usually decide on pardons by him- or herself. Most of the time, he or she does not know the person being pardoned. Rather, somebody may apply for a pardon, in which case White House lawyers and the Justice Department study the matter and make a recommendation.

Veto Authority As a check on the power of the legislative branch, the Constitution gives the president the authority to veto bills passed by Congress. One potential consequence of vetoes is that they might invite Congress to respond, if Congress has the votes, by overriding the veto. An over - ride is often seen as a political defeat for a president. Overrides are rare; only 7% of all vetoes have been overridden since the beginning of the republic.

When the president vetoes a bill, the president must veto the entire bill and not parts of it; the U.S. Constitution does not provide for what is called a line-item veto. Congress gave Presi - dent Bill Clinton the line-item veto with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The law was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). The Supreme Court fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 111 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.2 Presidential Elections struck down the law because the act violates the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7), which requires that bills passed by both houses of Congress be presented to the president for his or her signature. In essence, the Presentment Clause outlines the legislative process, which the Supreme Court argued was violated by giving the president the line-item veto.

Treaty Making and Effective War-Making Authority Section 2 also says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur .” This means that the president can make treaties with other countries, but they are not binding on future governments unless they are ratified by the U.S. Senate. A president may negotiate a treaty to end a war, but the Senate may opt not to ratify it.

In the aftermath of World War I (1914–1918), President Woodrow Wilson sought to make the United States a signatory to the Versailles Treaty, which was the agreement that effectively ended the war. Part of the treaty was a call for the for - mation of a new League of Nations, an intergovernmental organiza- tion that would foster peace and international disarmament. Wilson wanted the United States to join this league, but some members of Congress believed that it could lead to U.S. involvement in conflicts that did not concern the country. When Wilson refused to compromise on any parts of the treaty, the Senate failed to ratify it, and Wilson never recovered politically. When the Senate refuses to ratify a treaty, it puts the president and the nation in a vulnerable position because it can be construed as a sign of weakness. Another country, sensing that weakness, may view it as an opportunity to wage war against the United States.

5.2 Presidential Elections In addition to stipulating presidential powers, Article II also sets forth guidelines for presi- dential elections. For example, it states that the president “ shall hold office during the term of four years.” Presidential elections take place in two distinct phases. The first phase is the nomination phase, which normally begins in January of presidential election years. Through a Associated Press/Andrew Harnik Members of anti-war group Code Pink show support for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which was negotiated in the summer of 2015. The deal was controversial because Republican lawmakers felt the Obama administration had withheld information about the deal in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s treaty authority. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 112 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.2 Presidential Elections series of primaries and caucuses run on a state-by-state basis, delegates are chosen to attend party-nominating conventions. Following the conventions, the party nominees begin cam- paigning for the general election that is held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

Presidential Primaries Although the nomination season begins in January, those seeking the presidency often begin their quest as early as 2 years before a national election. Candidates may declare their inten- tions to run a year in advance of the nomination season. During this time, they travel around the country and meet voters, state party chairs, and potential donors. Running for office entails a lot of retail politics , which involves candidates interacting with voters one on one, such as by taking part in local events.

The season begins in earnest with the Iowa caucuses. During a caucus, individuals gather for a few hours at a local meeting place and move to a section of the room designated for their favorite candidate’s supporters. During this process, they can be challenged by another candidate’s supporters. At the end of the exercise, the number of delegates apportioned to a candidate is based on the percentage of support each receives.

Iowa does not produce many delegates, but, as the first state in the nomination season, it pro- vides momentum going into bigger contests as an indicator of party support. The next contest is the New Hampshire primary. Primaries are like elections in that polling places are open for at least 12 hours and registered voters come to the polling place and vote as individuals.

There are two types of primaries. Closed primaries require that voters be registered with the political party of the primary in which they are voting. Closed primaries exclude registered independents. Open primaries allow registered voters, including registered independents, to choose the party’s primary in which they would like to vote regardless of their party registra- tion. As with caucuses, delegates are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote that each candidate receives.

Candidates who win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary are often advantaged in the early weeks of the nomination season because money follows winners. Candidates who win either of these contests are able to draw significant contributions and media atten- tion, which in turn help them to spend money on advertising in bigger contests that produce more delegates. Those who do not fare well early in the season usually find it difficult to raise money and will likely drop out. Raising funds is critical because a successful candidate can spend more than $500 million. Voters living in states holding their primaries late in the season will likely choose between just two candidates unless all but one candidate has with- drawn from the race.

Each political party finishes the first part of the presidential election season during the sum- mer of the election year with its nominating conventions. Each party nominates a president/ vice-president ticket based on the number of delegates received by the presidential candi- dates. The presidential nominee is the person receiving the most delegates, and the presumed nominee selects the vice-presidential candidate. The official campaign for president then begins in September. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 113 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.2 Presidential Elections The Electoral College The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col- lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is dictated in Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a num - ber of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa - tive . . . shall be appointed an elector.

There are a total of 538 electoral votes cast (including three for the District of Columbia), and a candidate needs a simple majority—270—to win. For most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state wins that state’s electors. The only exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote in each state’s congressional district. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state also earns two statewide votes.

Each candidate’s party signs up a slate of electors, who are then pledged to vote for that can - didate. As an example, New York casts 29 electoral votes. In 2012, the two major candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, signed up slates of 29 electors each in the state (see Fig- ure 5.1). Because Obama won the popular vote in New York, his slate voted in the Electoral College and Romney’s slate did not. The winner-take-all system often results in candidates earning a far higher percentage of electoral votes compared with the popular vote. For exam - ple, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned 43% of the popular vote and President George H. W. Bush earned 38%. (Independent candidate H. Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote but did not win the popular vote in any state. This means that Perot did not win any Electoral College votes.) Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote with 69%; Clinton earned less than half of the popular vote and more than two thirds of the Electoral College vote.

In choosing where to invest resources, candidates and their campaign organizations usually choose states with close races (often called battleground states).

They tend not to spend too much time or money in states where they are already likely to win or lose that state’s Electoral College vote.

Because minority groups, whether racial, ethnic, or religious, tend to be concentrated in large, electoral vote-rich states, the electoral sys- tem provides representation for these groups that they otherwise might not enjoy. If they vote as a group, they can form a voting bloc Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin As president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Electoral College vote count that reelected President Barack Obama in 2012. Figure 5.1: Electoral College map of 2012 election The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote.

From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg ). fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 114 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.2 Presidential Elections The Electoral College The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col- lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is dictated in Article II:

In choosing where to invest resources, candidates and their campaign organizations usually choose states with close races (often called battleground states).

They tend not to spend too much time or money in states where they are already likely to win or lose that state’s Electoral College vote.

From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg ).

that can make or break the state for a candidate, because the winner of the state’s popular vote (no matter how slim the margin) will win that state’s electoral vote in all but two states.

Still, there are those who maintain that the Electoral College system is not democratic. It rarely happens that a candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral College, but it has happened four times, including 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In the presidential election of 1876, Samuel Tilden, a Democrat from New York, won the popular vote over Republican Rutherford B. Hayes from Ohio. The Electoral College vote was in question because Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each sent two sets of electoral votes to Congress.

In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote over Republican Texas Gov- ernor George W. Bush. Gore was leading in the Electoral College on Election Day, although the outcome in Florida was unknown. Without Florida’s 25 electoral votes, neither candidate would have the needed 270 electoral votes to win (266 for Gore, 246 for Bush). The number of total electoral votes cast was 537, and not 538, in 2000 because an elector from the Dis - trict of Columbia abstained from voting in the Electoral College that year, although Florida’s electoral votes would put either candidate over the top. After several recounts and an order from the Florida Supreme Court to have a full recount, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the recounting to stop. Bush was declared the winner, and Gore conceded defeat. Many Florida voters, especially minorities, believed that their votes were not counted because of confusion fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 115 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents about ballot design, misplaced ballots, and other concerns. This election especially left a sour aftertaste because it appeared to many that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of a presidential election for the first time.

5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents The president of the United States is the most important political leader in the country. When the president speaks, the words carry weight and have influence. But the president’s influ- ence is not even in all policy realms. Political scientist Aaron Wildavsky famously observed that from a political standpoint, the nation is usually led by two presidents embodied in one person. One is a domestic policy president, who tends to be weak, and the other is a foreign policy president, who tends to be strong.

The Domestic Policy President In the realm of domestic policy, Congress tends to dominate because Americans tend to be more concerned about issues closer to home than they are about issues abroad. Because most members of Congress are elected and reelected on the basis of local issues and their ability to deliver goods back to their districts, Congress is reluctant to defer to the president on those domestic issues. On the contrary, if a presidential agenda interferes with the interests of a member’s constituency, that member may choose to vote against the president even if he or she is of the same political party.

A domestic policy president is also reined in by changes in the composition of Congress. The president’s party most often experiences losses in midterm congressional elections, which weakens the presidential mandate. A mandate is the perception that an elected official can do what he or she thinks the people want because of the popular support due to an electoral vic - tory. Winning by a wide margin means a stronger mandate. Additionally, Congress members winning reelection may be anxious about the next election and may less often support the president’s agenda. In the midterm election of 2014, President Obama’s party lost 13 seats in the House of Representatives and nine seats in the U.S. Senate. In losing those nine seats in the Senate, the Democrats lost their majority party status. Midterm elections are best understood in the context of surge and decline theory. Surge and decline theory argues that midterm con - gressional elections, which are considered low stimulus because the general public pays less attention compared with high-stimulus presidential elections, attract core voters. Core voters tend to vote against the president’s party in midterm congressional elections. Consequently, the president’s party tends to lose seats in both houses of Congress during midterm elections.

While the end result may be gridlock, it may also be viewed as an assertion of constitutional checks and balances.

Still, the president is increasingly expected to play more of a role in domestic policy. During an economic recession, when more people are out of work, the public tends to hold the president responsible and expect that the president will pursue policies that create jobs. During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt actively pursued policies to get the nation fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 116 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents back to work. Following World War II, Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946, which specified a greater role for the president in economic policy. To that end, the law established the new office of the Council of Economic Advisors, a group that would monitor the economy and prepare reports that the president would submit to Congress each year. This meant that the president and his staff would be involved in planning the budget and, by extension, estab- lishing the nation’s domestic policy priorities.

The president was to have more of a voice in domestic affairs, as his ability to appoint officials, even to independent regulatory agencies, meant that he would be able to appoint those who were sympathetic to his policy priorities. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” This means that the president is responsible for carrying out laws and implementing policies and programs that have been passed by Congress. As this responsibility falls on the president, the president’s role in domestic affairs only grows as Congress creates more programs, especially when power and authority (also discussed in the previous chapter) are delegated to the executive branch.

The Constitution gives the presi - dent limited formal roles in the legislative process (signing or veto- ing legislation). However, presiden - tial influence outside these formal roles is critical to the legislative process. For example, the Consti - tution requires that the president give Congress information on the state of the union “from time to time.” In modern times, the State of the Union has become a televised annual address to Congress. In hav - ing the State of the Union address televised, the president is using an informal power, the power of per - suasion, by encouraging the public to pressure Congress to go along with the requests being outlined in the State of the Union.

The Foreign Policy President In the realm of foreign affairs, presidents can often act with fewer congressional constraints compared with domestic affairs for several reasons. For instance, the president is the face of the nation when dealing with other countries. When it comes to negotiating treaties, there can be only one president, not 535. Even though treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Sen - ate to be ratified, senators tend to defer to the president on treaties because of the need for the country to speak with one voice. Further, the public does not perceive foreign affairs to affect their daily lives, so most people tend not to care about foreign affairs as much as they do domestic issues. A Congress that defers to the president in foreign policy is not perceived as shirking its representative function in the way that a Congress that defers to the president in the domestic arena might be. Associated Press/Charles Harappa President Obama, with his Council of Economic Advi- sors, speaks on financial reform in the wake of the eco- nomic downturn of 2008. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 117 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.4 Presidential Power Most of what the Constitution says about the president’s authority pertains to foreign policy, whereas most of what it says about the authority of Congress pertains to domestic policy, although both branches enjoy significant powers in both policy areas. With the federal divi- sion of power and authority between the states and the national government, the Framers assumed that states would naturally be responsible for domestic policy and the national government would be responsible for foreign affairs. The Constitution assigns the president, and not Congress, to be commander in chief of the armed forces. The president also has the express authority to conduct foreign affairs by appointing and maintaining ambassadors and counselors abroad, and to negotiate treaties with other countries. Congress can hold hearings and request reports from the president, but it does not have much foreign policy authority other than to ratify already negotiated treaties, raise armies, and declare war.

Arguably, declaring war and raising armies go hand in hand with Congress’s primary power of the purse. A declaration of war would require raising an army to wage that war, which in turn would require a congressional appropriation, or spending bill. Still, much of the president’s more expansive powers in foreign affairs are derived from presidential prerogative.

5.4 Presidential Power The Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to clarify presidential power to avoid the poten - tial abuse of power that might be found in a single executive. The Framers’ previous experi- ence with a single national executive occurred when King George III abused his power over the colonists. Consequently, the Framers feared the potential for abuse from a single execu - tive, which motivated them to list the specific powers of the president. Over time, though, presidents have argued that the U.S. Constitution suggests that the president has more pow - ers in order to ensure fulfilling the president’s responsibilities.

Presidential Prerogative Presidential prerogative is an implied power that enables a president to expand his or her authority in ways not specifically stated in the Constitution. In essence, presidential preroga - tive is the notion that the president may act outside the power specified in the U.S. Constitu- tion. Implied powers emerge from various elements found in Article II. For example, though it states that the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed ,” it does not specify how the president should use his or her constitutional power to ensure that the laws are enforced. Similarly, the Constitution does not outline the powers and expectations associ- ated with the president’s commander-in-chief role. Presidential prerogative may be inter- preted in much the same way that one might interpret Congress’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows Congress to take actions ensuring that its enumerated powers are car - ried out. Associated Press/Susan Walsh President George W. Bush speaks in support of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted as part of his War on Terror. The act allowed federal law enforce- ment to arrest those suspected of terrorism and hold them indefinitely without trial. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 118 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.4 Presidential Power Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror.” (Congress has the sole power to declare war; in making this declaration, the president was seeking public and congressional support in responding to the ter- rorist attacks.) President Bush made it clear that the United States would go after terrorists around the world as well as those countries that harbored terrorists. Bush’s approach initially led to undeclared war in Afghanistan because ter- rorist training camps were located there, and then the undeclared war in Iraq due to the assumption that the Iraqi government was also supporting terrorism. Bush justified his actions as a legitimate exercise of presidential pre - rogative because of his obligation to preserve and protect the Constitution. Earlier terrorist attacks against the United States, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, had been treated as criminal justice matters. The 2001 attack was of a different magnitude. Nearly 3,000 people died.

Political Power Presidential prerogative has had the effect of expanding the scope of presidential power over time. Historian Arthur Schlesinger argued that through the use of presidential prerogative, particularly during periods of emergency, presidents have taken on imperial characteristics (Schlesinger, 2004). Even with presidential prerogative, though, the president must be able to persuade others and wield political power to be truly effective.

Power as Persuasion More than 50 years ago, political scientist Richard Neustadt, who had served in President John F. Kennedy’s administration, defined presidential power as the power to persuade (Neustadt, 1991). Likewise, members of Congress are elected separately from the president, and the president has no control over their decisions. All the president can do is attempt to convince others that his or her ideas are preferable to the alternatives. A president who can get others to do what he or she wants through persuasion can be said to truly possess power.

The Importance of Public Support A president’s ability to persuade will be enhanced if the president is popular with the public and his or her party holds the majority party in one or both houses of Congress. Popularity is important because the president can point to it as a reason why critics should not be so Most of what the Constitution says about the president’s authority pertains to foreign policy, whereas most of what it says about the authority of Congress pertains to domestic policy, although both branches enjoy significant powers in both policy areas. With the federal divi - sion of power and authority between the states and the national government, the Framers assumed that states would naturally be responsible for domestic policy and the national government would be responsible for foreign affairs. The Constitution assigns the president, and not Congress, to be commander in chief of the armed forces. The president also has the express authority to conduct foreign affairs by appointing and maintaining ambassadors and counselors abroad, and to negotiate treaties with other countries. Congress can hold hearings and request reports from the president, but it does not have much foreign policy authority other than to ratify already negotiated treaties, raise armies, and declare war.

Presidential Prerogative Presidential prerogative is an implied power that enables a president to expand his or her authority in ways not specifically stated in the Constitution. In essence, presidential preroga - tive is the notion that the president may act outside the power specified in the U.S. Constitu- tion. Implied powers emerge from various elements found in Article II. For example, though it states that the president should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed ,” it does not specify how the president should use his or her constitutional power to ensure that the laws are enforced. Similarly, the Constitution does not outline the powers and expectations associ- ated with the president’s commander-in-chief role. Presidential prerogative may be inter- preted in much the same way that one might interpret Congress’s Necessary and Proper Clause, which allows Congress to take actions ensuring that its enumerated powers are car - ried out. Associated Press/Susan Walsh President George W. Bush speaks in support of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which was enacted as part of his War on Terror. The act allowed federal law enforce- ment to arrest those suspected of terrorism and hold them indefinitely without trial. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 119 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.5 Executive Branch Organization quick to dismiss what he or she has to say. Party support in Congress is important because the president can appeal to party loyalty to put his or her agenda forward. The president’s ability to persuade members of his or her own party in Congress is also enhanced by his or her abil- ity to campaign on their behalf for reelection, especially if the president enjoys widespread public support.

But a president’s ability to persuade can easily be hindered by a drop in public support or by significant congressional midterm election losses in his or her own party. Presidential party losses in midterm congressional elections are often taken as a rejection of the president’s pre - vious 2 years of governing. President Bill Clinton, who was elected in 1992 with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, lost both houses in the 1994 midterm election. His party lost 50 seats in the House of Representatives and eight seats in the Senate. Losses of this magnitude make it more difficult for a president to use the power of persuasion.

5.5 Executive Branch Organization The Constitution provides for a president, vice president, and executive departments but is silent on presidential staff. Yet the president’s responsibilities have increased greatly since the office was created. The role of the vice president has become further defined. The Consti - tution does not identify any powers or responsibilities of the vice president, although mod- ern presidents have extended greater vice-presidential involvement in their administrations, which also adds to already increasing executive staff needs. There has been significant growth in the executive as to both breadth (the type of office) and expertise and number of staff per- sons, in order to accommodate increasing presidential and vice-presidential responsibilities in the modern era.

Cabinet The president’s Cabinet is composed of the heads of executive branch departments, most of whom carry the title of secretary. The term was coined by newspaper reporters during George Washington’s presidency to refer to his four department heads: the secretary of state, the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of the army, and the attorney general, who serves as the “secretary” of the Justice Department. There are now 15 Cabinet-level departments, which include Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Defense, Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Education, and, most recently, Home- land Security. The vice president and the ambassador to the United Nations have also been invited to join the president’s Cabinet.

The role of the Cabinet is largely undefined. A president may seek counsel from individual Cabinet members as well as call for regular meetings. Presidents will also use their Cabinets to demonstrate that they are not acting alone.

Executive Office of the President The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of staff members reporting directly to the president and multiple support staff levels. It is generally headed by a White House chief fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 120 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President of staff. The EOP originated in 1936, when President Franklin Roosevelt established a Com- mittee on Administrative Management to evaluate administrative procedures in the executive branch. The concern in establishing the committee was that the business of government had become so vast that it was too much for one person to oversee.

The original EOP, formally created by executive order in 1939, was to consist of six adminis - trative assistants to the president, along with three advisory bodies: the National Resources Planning Board, the Liaison Office for Personnel Management, and the Office of Government Reports. By the time Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, the EOP had around 1,700 full-time staff members. Today, the EOP consists of the president, plus 11 other councils and offices: • Council of Economic Advisors • Council on Environmental Quality • Executive Residence • National Security Council • Office of Administration • Office of Management and Budget • Office of National Drug Control Policy • Office of Science and Technology Policy • Office of the United States Trade Representative • Office of the Vice President • White House Office (includes the president’s immediate staff of advisors) White House Staff The White House staff is made up of analysts and advisors, such as communications advi - sors, political advisors, the press secretary, speech writers, legislative aides, and the White House physician. The White House staff is usually composed of people the president can trust.

Unlike Cabinet members, a staff member does not need to be confirmed by the Senate.

The White House staff is organized within several office units, each of which employs addi - tional staff members. The White House staff also includes persons on temporary assignment who are sent from other executive branch agencies and departments to work in the White House. The size of the White House staff has grown from a few dozen persons to several hun - dred more recently.

5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President We have already noted that foreign policy–focused presidents tend to be stronger than domes - tic policy–focused presidents. During times of war and international conflict, it is common for presidents to assume greater authority and claim greater power and discretion. As outlined earlier, presidents exercising more discretion during wartime and international conflict often begins with presidents exercising their prerogative. Add to that a tendency on the part of Congress to defer to the president on foreign policy–related matters, and it is apparent that presidents often have free rein during times of international crisis. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 121 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President As we will discuss in this section, even when the constitutionality of presidential actions has been challenged during wartime, the Supreme Court has tended to side with the president.

Scholars suggest that this is because the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the country being unified, especially during wartime. Once these conflicts end, the Supreme Court will often reassert the constitutional separation of powers.

Imperial Presidency We noted earlier Arthur Schlesing- er’s argument that the use of presi- dential prerogative, coupled with Congress’s tendency to defer to the president in foreign affairs, has at times led to an imperial presi- dency . By this phrase, Schlesinger meant a president who assumes he or she is above the law and can do what he or she pleases, whether it is because he or she can claim that there is a crisis and subsequent need to exercise authority, because he or she won the election by such a large margin that he or she can claim a mandate, or because of some other reason. Schlesinger was considering Richard Nixon, who famously observed in an interview with David Frost that an action that is, by law, illegal is “not illegal” if the president does it. It was not uncommon for Nixon to invoke a national emergency to justify exercising his prerogative. At other times, Nixon called attention to a “silent majority” of the public who supported him but were not vocal, thereby suggesting that a Congress that opposed him did so at its own peril.

Wartime Dictatorship During times of war, presidents have taken actions to limit individual rights on the grounds that such actions protect the public interest. This has sometimes been called a “wartime dic - tatorship.” Among the most notable occurred during World War II, when President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the quarantine of Japanese citizens and U.S. citizens of Japanese descent with an executive order. Suspected of being loyal to Japan, these persons were rounded up in California, the state of Washington, and Oregon and brought to detention camps or subjected to a curfew that limited their ability to work and otherwise perform ordinary tasks outside the home. Two thirds of these persons were American citizens, a large percentage of whom were born in the United States or whose parents were born in the United States. These limi - tations on individual citizens’ freedom were challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, Gordon Hirabayashi was a university student who had never visited Japan and was never suspected of disloyalty to the United States. Nevertheless, he was convicted of disobey - ing a military curfew on the grounds that the curfew was a legitimate defensive measure during wartime. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hirabayashi’s conviction in Hirabayashi v. John Bryson/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty Images In a 1977 interview with David Frost, former President Richard M. Nixon explained his view of the imperial presidency. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 122 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.6 The Concept of a Wartime President United States (1943). In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Court found that forcing U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into internment camps during World War II was a legitimate exercise of presidential power, justified during times of “emergency and peril.” Once World War II drew to a close, the Supreme Court would defer less to the president’s actions to limit individual rights. In 1988, Presi- dent Ronald Reagan signed legisla - tion offering a formal apology and compensation to surviving victims of the internment camps.

Use of Military Tribunals During times of emergency, many American presidents have sought to use military tribunals to try enemy combatants. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the launching of the military action against Afghanistan, the question arose about what to do with enemy combatants captured by American soldiers. According to the Geneva Convention on war, captured enemy soldiers are to be considered prisoners of war and held in prison camps until the end of the conflict, at which point they are to be sent home. Suspected terrorists, how - ever, are neither soldiers, as they are not fighting for a nation state, nor civilians. Can enemy combatants be tried in military courts? Critics argue that to do so would not only violate the Geneva Convention but contradict basic constitutional guarantees. Defenders of the policy point to precedent, the most notable being Ex Parte Quirin in 1942.

This case involved four German marines who came ashore on Long Island, New York, from a submarine with orders to sabotage American war industries. After changing into civilian clothes and burying their uniforms and explosives, they headed to New York City. Several days later, another four marines came ashore in Florida with similar orders. The leader of the New York group then defected to the FBI, and the remaining seven were rounded up, tried, and convicted by a military commission specially appointed by President Roosevelt under a broad claim of emergency authority. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the “Nazi saboteurs,” as they came to be known, claimed that they should be tried in civilian court because they were not wearing their uniforms when arrested. The government argued that they were enemy aliens who entered the country as belligerents. The Court sided with the president, noting that the detention and trial of petitioners—ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger—are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted. Everett Collection/SuperStock The Japanese internment camp at Manzanar, California, in 1943. The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry might constitute a security risk, and therefore forcing them into internment camps was a legitimate wartime action. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 123 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.7 Limiting Presidential Power Suspects who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government are con- sidered enemy combatants and are not then entitled to use civilian courts. Since 2001, this has become a tricky question because the U.S. war on terror is levied against paramilitary terrorist groups that are not employed or otherwise sponsored by a government.

Recall that the USA PATRIOT Act allowed the executive to round up suspected terrorists in the United States and detain them without access to attorneys. In the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , the Court addressed whether such detention was legal. The case was brought by the father of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who wanted to know what charges his son faced. Because Hamdi was being held in a military facil- ity, the case constituted a request that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld produce the accused and announce the charges. In this case, the Supreme Court was not ready to give the office of the president the same authority it had had during World War II. On one level, the case was different from that of the Ger - man saboteurs because the saboteurs were not U.S. citizens. On another level, the situations were similar because both involved persons labeled enemy combatants and thus should be viewed similarly.

The Court held that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his or her classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his or her classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s claims. The Court held that circumstances might also dictate that “enemy proceedings” may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the executive at a time of ongoing military conflict. The Court concluded by observ - ing, “There remains the possibility that the standards we have articulated could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal.” A president in a time of war, then, has the authority to use military tribunals as an emergency measure. The problem remains, however, that because it was a “war on terror” being fought, and not a war declared against any nation, there was a potential that it could continue indefinitely.

5.7 Limiting Presidential Power As the preceding discussions of both presidential prerogative and wartime presidents show, a president can assume a great deal of authority and become quite powerful unless the other branches of government impose restraints. Historically, the balance of power between the Associated Press/Dana Verkouteren In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in time of war, the president may use military tribunals for emergency purposes. The problem with the ruling is that because of the War on Terror, tribunals could go on indefinitely. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 124 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.7 Limiting Presidential Power president and Congress has swung back and forth. Often, after periods of strong presidential authority or perceptions that a president has exceeded the bounds of prerogative, Congress responds with attempts to control the president’s power. There have been occasions when Congress has passed presidency-curbing legislation to reassert checks and balances. The two most notable examples were the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act.

War Powers Resolution The War Powers Resolution of 1973, introduced at the beginning of this chapter, was intended to make the president more accountable to Congress when it comes to using presidential war power. Presidents have seen their commander-in-chief role to include responding to attacks with force as essential to their obligations to preserve and protect the Constitution.

As outlined in the vignette that opened this chapter, Congress can fail to pass authorization.

In the case of Libya, Congress also voted down a bill to stop funding, perhaps recognizing that pulling the plug would have disastrous implications for the United States’ image abroad. In the end, President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution, claiming that it was unconstitu- tional. Congress’s response was to override the veto, and the War Powers Resolution remains in place today. Still, presidents have uniformly called the War Powers Resolution unconstitu- tional because it infringes on their commander-in-chief function.

The last time that a president sought a declaration of war was on December 8, 1941, against Japan. Since then, presidents have used their commander-in-chief power to wage war absent a formal declaration of war. In some cases, such as the wars in Korea (1950–1953) and Viet- nam (1961–1975), presidents have circumvented the need for a formal declaration by label - ing the conflicts “police actions.” In Vietnam, President Johnson did seek and received a con- gressional resolution to respond to an attack on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

The deeply unpopular war, while undeclared, was only exacerbated with President Nixon’s secret bombings in Cambodia and elsewhere beginning in 1969.

The Budget and Impoundment Control Act The Budget and Impoundment Control Act was Congress’s response to Richard Nixon’s practice of refusing to spend authorized and appropriated monies for programs that he did not support. Nixon, who opposed the social spending programs of the 1960s, would request less money for these programs while Congress would respond by appropriating more. Nixon then impounded the difference. The effect of this practice was to use impoundment as a form of line-item veto. Historically, impoundment had been considered a sound fiscal practice because it enabled a president to move funds from over-funded to under-funded programs, or to reduce spending so that the government would not run a deficit. Like the War Powers Resolution, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act is about presiden - tial accountability to Congress. Title X of the Act expressly forbids the president from impound - ing funds, although the president can defer spending funds for 45 days. Congress has the right to veto that deferment, which means that the funds would have to be spent as appropriated.

If Congress fails to act within 45 days, the deferment continues indefinitely, which means, fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 125 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.8 Presidential Character in effect, that the funds have been impounded. The president can pursue another course by requesting that Congress rescind the amount of money appropriated for a program over what was initially requested. If Congress passes a rescission bill within 45 days, the funds are also effectively impounded. If Congress fails to act, the money must be spent as appropriated. This measure also created a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to offer independent analyses of budgets proposed by the president. The CBO was designed to be a counterweight to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House.

Impeaching a President The Constitution outlines the impeachment process as means of controlling the president.

Impeachment is the first step in a formal mechanism by which Congress can remove a presi- dent from office. To be removed from office, the president must be convicted by the Senate of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is often understood to mean a constitutional crisis where Congress believes that the president is usurping Congress’s powers or is refusing to abide by Congress’s wishes.

In Federalist No. 65 , Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachment deals with matters that have violated the public trust:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

In using the term “political,” Hamilton might be alluding to the separation of powers. When the president usurps the authority of Congress, the president has committed the political crime of violating the separation of powers. When Congress investigated the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel and the possible cover-up by the White House, it often requested information from the president. Nixon typically refused to hand over such information, claiming that it was a matter of national security. Congress tried to secure the information by going to court at times to force the president to do so. The House of Repre - sentatives Judiciary Committee voted to impeach President Nixon. Following a court order to turn over the White House tapes, President Nixon resigned before he could be impeached by the full House and tried in the Senate.

5.8 Presidential Character The president is the nation’s head of state and head of government, as well as a world leader.

Consequently, much is made about a president’s character and what that character says about the president’s ability to lead. Political scientist James David Barber (2015) has argued that the president’s character affects how the president handles his or her various roles, which will affect how the president works with Congress, responds to international issues, interacts with the public, and works with the Cabinet and the White House staff. There are four distinct fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 126 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.8 Presidential Character character types based on two questions: First, is the president actively involved in his or her presidency (active) or does he or she delegate responsibilities to others (passive)? Second, is the president happy being president (positive) or is he or she generally unhappy in how he or she engages with the office (negative)? Barber’s work focuses on presidents beginning in the 20 th century. The four character types are active-positive, active-negative, passive-positive, and passive-negative. Active-Positive Active-positive presidents come into office with an active policy agenda and set out to achieve it through hard work. These presidents have a positive outlook on life and are very energetic.

Examples of active-positive presidents include John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt. They were optimistic, especially Roosevelt during the Great Depression, and they were ready to work with members of Congress to get their agendas passed.

Active-Negative Active-negative presidents also come into office with good ideas, energy, and a desire to accomplish great things, but something in their personality brings them down and results in policy and political failures. Barber considered Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, and Rich- ard Nixon to be examples of active-negative presidents.

Passive-Positive Passive-positive presidents are often viewed as caretakers who do not come to office with any great enthusiasm but might rise to the occa- sion during a time of crisis. According to Barber, passive-positive presidents are responders and not initiators or pushers. These presidents like to accentuate the positive and be cheerleaders:

“In the Presidency they are, in many ways, nice guys who finished first, only to discover that not everyone is a nice guy” (Barber, 2015).

Passive-positive presidents often seek the office because electoral victory represents personal affirmation and boosts their self-esteem. Barber offered Warren G. Harding and Ronald Reagan as passive-positive presidents. © Bettmann/Corbis President Woodrow Wilson, who served from 1913 to 1921, was considered an active-negative president. He came to office with an active domestic policy agenda. However, his refusal to com- promise with Republican senators led to the failed ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 127 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Passive-Negative Passive-negative presidents do not really want to be president but will serve out of a sense of duty if called upon by their nation. Examples of passive-negative presidents include Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower.

Does Character Matter?

There are many who argue that presidential character is important, although it is not always clear that one can know a candidate’s character before the president takes office. Yet there are those who choose not to focus on political character and instead look to moral character as a good indicator of electability. If a president is not trustworthy, it may be extremely difficult for the president to form working relationships with members of Congress, and the end result may be inability to lead.

Ultimately, the issue of character speaks to whether the person is really fit to be president.

Other than a minimum age, residency, and that one is a natural-born citizen, there are no formal constitutional requirements for office. In many cases, voters choose a candidate based on a perception of whether this person comes across as presidential. Being president, in the minds of most, may mean acting appropriately, having good character, being dignified and trustworthy, and to some extent appearing to be above the political fray.

Summary and Resources Chapter Summary The U.S. Constitution grants the president the formal authority to be commander in chief of the armed forces, to make appointments and negotiate treaties subject to the consent of the Senate, to issue pardons, and to veto legislation. Beyond that, it has been up to presidents to carve out their own roles and define for themselves the scope of their power.

Because the Constitution specifically requires the president to preserve and protect the Con- stitution while it is silent as to what that means, presidents have inferred authority on the basis of prerogative. Historically, presidents have used prerogative to expand their powers, and in some cases to take on imperial qualities as president. A president’s power is limited by factors that include the president’s ability to persuade. During times of crisis and in the realm of foreign affairs, presidents tend to enjoy greater authority and power. At the same time, there are mechanisms by which Congress can control presidents and curb their power.

Presidential power has been curbed at times through legislation and at other times by a large loss of seats of the president’s party in Congress, especially during midterm elections.

Key Ideas to Remember • Article II establishes formal presidential powers such as commander in chief, par - doning, treaty making, and executing the laws of the land, but it also leaves much of the president’s power undefined. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 128 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources • Presidents enjoy prerogative because the Constitution is silent on several issues.

If the Constitution does not expressly forbid the president from doing something, the president may take actions not outlined in the Constitution as a matter of prerogative. • Ultimately, the basis of presidential power is political. It is the president’s ability to persuade others to do what the president believes is right. Presidents are often said to lack power when they are unsuccessful in their efforts to persuade. • Presidents are often said to have more power in foreign policy than in domestic policy. In foreign policy, there is a greater tendency for Congress to defer to the president and in domestic policy a greater tendency for Congress to check what the president does. • The presidency is larger than the president as an individual; the presidency includes the president, the vice president, the Executive Office of the President, the White House staff, and the Cabinet. • During times of emergency, presidents have tended to exercise their prerogative to the point of becoming imperial and, during times of war, even dictatorial. • Congress can control the power of presidents through hearings, legislation, and impeachment. • Presidential elections in the United States are unique in that they are long, drawn- out processes and take place on a state-by-state basis. • In selecting a president, voters often consider a candidate’s character, which might suggest something about how that person may perform in office if elected. Questions to Consider 1. What does it mean for the president to be commander in chief ? 2. By some accounts, the president might be the most powerful person in the world, and by others that person may be the weakest. Which do you think is the stronger argument, and why? 3. By what mechanisms can Congress limit presidential power? 4. Were it possible to understand presidents’ personality types prior to an election, would we be able to predict how they would behave in office? Why or why not? Key Terms active-negative Describes the type of presi- dent who comes to office with good ideas and energy but is ultimately prone to failure due to personality traits. active-positive Describes the type of presi - dent who comes to office with optimism, energy, an active policy agenda, and a posi - tive outlook. appropriation A spending bill in Congress. battleground states States that are not dominated by a single party such that the state’s Electoral College vote cannot be pre- dicted in presidential elections.

Budget and Impoundment Control Act Statute that makes it more difficult for the president to impound funds. Cabinet Collection of executive branch department heads who may advise the president when asked. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 129 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources caucus A meeting of individuals to choose a candidate for office. domestic policy president A president who is focused on issues and activity within U.S. borders; considered to be generally weaker because the president is granted less power in domestic policy relative to Con - gress; one of two versions of the American president according to political scientist Aaron Wildavsky.

Executive Office of the President (EOP) Created in 1939, a division that con- sists of White House staff and other advisors who help the president direct the activities of the executive branch. foreign policy president A president who is focused on the United States’ strategy in dealing with other nations; considered to be generally stronger because the president is granted more power in foreign policy rela - tive to Congress; one of two versions of the American president according to political scientist Aaron Wildavsky. Geneva Convention An international understanding about the rules of war between nation states. imperial presidency That of a president who assumes that he or she is above the law and can do as he or she pleases. inherent powers Presidential powers inferred from the Constitution. line-item veto When a chief executive can reject portions of a bill rather than having to veto the entire bill. mandate When an elected official believes he or she enjoys broad popular support because of the size of his or her electoral vic - tory, and this support allows the official to do what he or she thinks the people want. National Defense Act The law that created a unified Defense Department.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) An intergovernmental military alliance providing collective defense for its 28 member nations.

passive-negative Describes the type of president who does not want to be president but serves out of a sense of duty. passive-positive Describes the type of president who seeks office because he or she wants the adoration of the public. presidency-curbing legislation Legisla- tion passed by Congress in an attempt to control presidential power and reassert checks and balances. retail politics A campaign style where the candidate focuses on interacting with indi - vidual voters face to face, such as by taking part in local events. War Powers Resolution The requirement that the president notify Congress of the use of force. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 130 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Further Reading Barber, J. D. (2015). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House (4 th ed.). London, UK:

Routledge.

DiClerico, R. E. (2012). The contemporary American president. London, UK: Routledge.

Edwards, G. (2012). The strategic president: Persuasion and opportunity in presidential leadership . Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Fisher, L. (2014). Constitutional conflicts between Congress and the president (6 th ed.). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Fisher, L., & Harriger, K. (2013). American constitutional law: Constitutional structures, separated powers and federalism (10 th ed., Vol. 1). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Mansfield, H. C. (1993). Taming the prince: The ambivalence of modern executive power. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nelson, M. (2013). The presidency and the political system (10 th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Neustadt, R. E. (1991). Presidential power and the modern presidency (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Pious, R. M. (1979). The American presidency. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pyle, C. H., & Pious, R. M. (1984). The president, Congress, and the Constitution: Power and legitimacy in American politics. New York, NY and London, UK: The Free Press.

Schlesinger, A. M. Jr. (2004). The imperial presidency . New York, NY: Mariner Books. Skowronek, S. (1997). The politics presidents make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Belknap Press. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 131 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 132 3/24/16 1:42 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.