Main argument in the paper is that the increase in the presidential power does not always mean the President is eager to increase his powers in order to achieve a unilateral system, as the majority of the scholars postulate I reflected other reasons that pushed the executive power to increase, such as the media and the nature of the internal affairs. However, mainly it comes from two reasons: Congress that is not exercising its full powers of checks and balance; and an Attorney General who does not counsel the President when the President exceeds the powers vested into his position.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
HISTORIC LITERATURE
REASONS BEHIND THE CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING PRESIDENTIAL POWERS
I-The Presidency and the Congress:
II- The Presidency and Foreign Affairs:
III- The Presidency and the Military:
IV- The Presidency and the Media:
V- The Presidency and the Government Agencies:
ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS:
I- The Presidency and the Department of Justice:
II- The Presidency and the Congress:
CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the dynamics of expanding presidential power in the United States, investigating the institutional factors that contribute to this growth, specifically the role of Congress and the Department of Justice in the system of checks and balances.
- The historical context and evolution of presidential authority since the nation's founding.
- The impact of institutional checks and balances, or the lack thereof, on executive expansion.
- The role of the Department of Justice in providing legal counsel versus acting as an advocate for the administration.
- External pressures such as national security, media influence, and party polarization that push executive power to expand.
Excerpt from the Book
HISTORIC LITERATURE
The debate over the powers that shall be vested in the President of the United States is as old as the Constitution itself, stretching from the first conference of the founders to the pages of modern law reviews (Prakash 329). When the Founders gathered themselves to sit and discuss how to formulate the Constitution, they did not have any earlier version to copy from. If in considering the nature of legislative power, it is, but natural that they should recur to the British experience from whence their very conception of legislative authority was derived; the same was not true when they directed their attention to the executive branch. As far as administrative power was concerned, the British example presented itself to the Framers, not as one to emulate, but as one to avoid. The fear of a strong executive power patterned upon the British Crown, prevailed widely in 1787. George III was, if anything, an object of aversion; he remained a bogey to successive generations of American children. "The example of executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evil in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt they were creating their new Executive in his image" (Schwartz 1).
Perhaps, that was the initial cause of the debates around the presidential powers. However, the desire for strong presidency to lead, balanced the fear of the delegates. The delegates knew they had to create a kind of effective office of the executive branch. Their mission was to provide national leadership without allowing an opportunity for tyranny (Janda, Berry and Goldman 386). Nevertheless, the main problem they created was that vague sections talking about the powers of the President in Article II of the Constitution. Section 1 of Article II is very clear. It clearly explains who is eligible to become a president and how he or she can be elected (U.S. Const. art. II, § 1). The Framers had undoubtedly many reasons for the lack of precision in the second article. One explanation was probably the difficulty of providing strong presidential power, yet at the same time reducing it (Janda, Berry and Goldman 388).
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Outlines the rise of presidential power following 9/11 and introduces the central dilemma regarding the adequacy of checks and balances.
HISTORIC LITERATURE: Reviews the constitutional origins of executive power and the Framers' inherent fear of creating a tyrannical executive model.
REASONS BEHIND THE CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING PRESIDENTIAL POWERS: Analyzes external factors such as congressional inaction, media influence, and party polarization that facilitate the expansion of executive authority.
ASSESSMENT OF THE FINDINGS: Critically evaluates the classification of presidential powers and the specific roles of the Department of Justice and Congress in legitimizing or checking these powers.
CONCLUSION: Proposes that the solution to executive overreach lies in Congress reclaiming its oversight duties and the Department of Justice restoring its role as an impartial legal arbiter.
Keywords
Presidential Power, Executive Branch, Constitution, Checks and Balances, Congress, Department of Justice, National Security, Party Polarization, Unilateral Action, Attorney General, Presidency, Information Age, Governance, Democracy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work regarding presidential powers?
The work argues that the expansion of presidential power is not solely the result of executive ambition, but is largely facilitated by the failure of Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities and the shift of the Department of Justice from an impartial advisor to an advocate for the executive.
What are the primary themes discussed in this paper?
Key themes include the constitutional ambiguity of Article II, the influence of party polarization, the impact of modern crises on executive decision-making, and the challenges of achieving transparency in the information age.
What is the ultimate goal of this research?
The goal is to enrich the academic debate on executive authority by providing an analysis of why presidential powers have historically trended upward and to suggest pathways for restoring institutional balance.
Which methodology does the author utilize?
The author employs a descriptive and analytical review of historical literature, constitutional provisions, and contemporary political science arguments to assess the interactions between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and government agencies.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body examines the relationship between the presidency and various institutions: Congress, foreign affairs, the military, the media, and government agencies, while also categorizing presidential power into structural and specific types.
Which keywords define the essence of the work?
The work is defined by concepts such as Executive Power, Checks and Balances, Constitutional Law, Oversight, and Institutional Accountability.
Why is the "liquidity" of presidential power definitions problematic?
The author argues that vague constitutional language regarding "executive power" allows the administration to justify expanding its reach during crises, making it difficult for the public and Congress to effectively challenge these extensions.
What role does the Department of Justice play in this dilemma?
The paper contends that when the Department of Justice acts as an advocate for the President rather than as an impartial judge of legality, it fails to act as a necessary check, thereby enabling the expansion of executive power.
Does the author suggest that Congress is completely powerless?
No, the author emphasizes that while the executive has a speed advantage in decision-making, Congress still possesses significant tools, such as control over information, budgeting, and the power to demand transparency, which it must use more effectively.
- Quote paper
- Karim Saba (Author), 2013, The Controversial Broad Executive Powers, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/215118
