The Presidency Flashcards
(39 cards)
The Cabinet - Basic Info
The POTUS, VP, 15 heads of departments (including the Secretaries of Defence, State and Treasury) and the Attorney General. Serve “at the pleasure of the President” - clear distinction from the UK’s principle of “first among equals.”
The Cabinet - Background
Not actually mentioned in the Constitution - only allows that the President may ask the opinion of the heads of each department. As the President’s executive role has expanded, so has that of the Cabinet, as the President is less able to do everything himself.
The Cabinet - Meetings
Full cabinet meetings are far rarer than in the UK - it is common for there to be only two or three per year. Bilateral meetings are far more common, as they allow for closer focus on particular issues, and as such are more productive.
The Cabinet - Constitutional Powers
- Article II, Section 2 - the Cabinet’s role is to advise the President on subjects relating to the responsibilities of each member’s department.
- Many in the Cabinet make up the Presidential line of succession, e.g. the Secretary of State is 4th.
- Act as the President’s representative in each policy area, though in reality the sheer scope of the executive necessitates some actual policy powers for the cabinet.
The Cabinet - Reasons for Appointments
- Experience - e.g. Obama retained Robert Gates, Bush’s Secretary of Defence.
- Neutralising potential critics/opponents - e.g. Obama appointing Clinton as Secretary of State.
- Shared specific views - e.g. Obama + Eric Holder on civil rights
- Avoiding tricky confirmations - e.g. Susan Rice withdrew her nomination for Secretary of State after Hillary’s retirement due to controversy over the Benghazi attacks of 2012, and was replaced by John Kerry, widely viewed as a safer option.
- Demonstrating bipartisanship - e.g. Obama appointed Republican Robert McDonald as Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs (a post often held by Republicans).
The Cabinet - Reasons for Leaving
- Cabinet members may be fired by the President, often due to ideological differences - e.g. Bush fired Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill over differing views on Iraq and economic policy.
- Future ambitions - e.g. Hillary did not seek a second term as Secretary of State, went on to announce her 2016 candidacy.
- Policy failures - e.g. Chuck Hagel resigned as Secretary of Defence over failures to properly deal with IS - underestimated the group, leading Obama to compare them to an amateur basketball team in January 2014.
- Revolving Door - e.g. Robert Gates has sat on several corporate boards since retiring as Secretary of Defence.
The Cabinet - Collective Decision-Making
In some matters, the Cabinet may take a significant role and work alongside the President in making a decision - in such cases, the President operates essentially under the doctrine of “first among equals.” E.g. Obama administration’s debate over a troop surge pitted Clinton and Gates on the pro-surge side against Biden, who cited growing opposition to the war in the Democratic party. Eventually, Obama did send troops, but not as many as Gates in particular had argued for, and also set a timetable for total withdrawal.
The Cabinet - Important
- Presidents have been known to use cabinet meetings to discuss important policy areas, e.g. Obama troop surge.
- Many individual members are “heavyweights,” who will hold significant influence over their own departments, and over the President in that particular area. E.g. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was instrumental in organising the TARP bailouts and conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The Cabinet - Not Important
- There is no real tradition of collective decision-making, which tends to be the exception rather than the rule - whilst individual members may hold power within their individual policy area, it is far less common for the cabinet as a single body to do so.
- The cabinet is unlikely to be able to act as a cohesive body, and is more likely to simply be a disparate collection of individuals, each appointed for a different reason, without a shared goal or even a shared basic ideology, due to the fact that cabinet members often have completely different political affiliations to one another. For example, during his time in office, Obama has appointed Republican secretaries of Defence (Gates, Hagel), Democratic Secretaries of State (Clinton, Kerry) and an Independent Treasury Secretary (Geithner). Having ideologically opposed individuals at the heads of arguably the three most important government departments is a significant barrier to collective decision-making.
- Cabinet members may be forced to compete for influence with their corresponding EXOP member, e.g. Ashton Carter (Sec of Defence) and Susan Rice (National Security Advsior) have both had input regarding the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Roles of the President
- Manager of the Economy
- National Leader
- Party Leader
- Chief Diplomat
- Commander-in-Chief
Roles of the President - Manager of the Economy
- The President is responsible for ensuring economic success for America, such as strong growth and low unemployment and inflation. He can draft and propose legislation for this purpose (e.g. Fiscal Stimulus), and sets the government’s annual budget.
- Constraints: Congress has the power of the purse, and must approve any new spending, which constrains the President’s ability to dictate fiscal policy. Additionally, one could argue that it is businesses that really “manage” the economy, and that dictate its success/failure - most clearly demonstrated by the 2008 financial crisis.
Roles of the President - National Leader
- The President is responsible for setting the general direction of the nation, and for responding to national crises - the latter responsibility often transcends party lines, e.g. Obama pictured hugging GOP NJ governor Chris Christie after Sandy. Can use Executive Orders to accomplish his aims.
- Constraints: no power to pass legislation himself, relies on Congress for this. Cannot control Stuff That Happens, e.g. 9/11, Sandy, Ferguson Riots. Also has no control over public opinion and the media, both of which can impact his ability to influence legislative positions. The current trend of political polarisation and partisanship means that partisan concerns may become increasingly important, as opposition lawmakers will not wish to be perceived as being cosy with the President, e.g. long-serving Indiana Senator Richard Lugar lost to Richard Mourdock in a primary.
Roles of the President - Party Leader
- The President essentially acts as the face of his party, and is responsible, to some extent, for keeping some level of party unity, though this is not as significant as in the UK.
- Constraints: actions that the President considers to be necessary may result in him losing the support of his party, e.g. Johnson over Vietnam. Circumstances may require him to be bipartisan/unbiased in his approach, e.g. Chris Christie, Sandy, current GOP Congress.
Roles of the President - Chief Diplomat
- The President is responsible for negotiating treaties and executive agreements with foreign nations, e.g. Obama-Iran/Cuba, Clinton-NAFTA. As leader of the world’s most powerful nation, he is often also responsible for overseeing negotiations between other countries, e.g. 2000 Camp David Summit between Israel and Palestine (Clinton).
- Constraints: All treaties must be ratified by the Senate - this constraint can be circumvented by signing an executive agreement instead, but there are non-permanent. It is unfeasible to expect the President to be able to oversee the US’ relations with every country in the world (the US has relations with 189). In reality, tasks will be delegated to various ambassadors.
Power vs. Check - Propose Legislation
- The Constitution states that the President may recommend to Congress “such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” - this implies that Presidential involvement in the legislative process would be a relatively rare thing. However, the president has become increasingly involved with large amounts of legislation in recent years, e.g. Johnson - Civil Rights, Bush - NCLB, DREAM, Obama - Obamacare, Fiscal Stimulus, DREAM.
- Checks: Only a Congressman or Senator is actually able to introduce legislation - if the President cannot find someone willing to do this, his legislation will not be able to progress (this is rarely an issue in reality). Alternatively, Congress is able to block any legislation drafted by the President, e.g. Dream (Bush and Obama). Even if the legislation is not blocked, Congress can amend it beyond recognition, e.g. Obamacare lost the crucial clause allowing the federal government to set up a competitor to private healthcare firms.
Power vs. Check - Annual Budget
- Though the budget functions as any other bill would once in Congress, it is conventional that it will always be set out by the President (though alternatives are always submitted). The budget is particularly important with regards to the economy, as it essentially sets out the government’s fiscal policy plans for the year ahead.
- Checks: Budget can be, and often is, amended by Congress, which always has the final word. The President’s version is often not taken up, and can even be actively opposed by Congress, e.g. Obama’s 2015 budget rejected 413-2. Reuters described the President’s budget submission as an “annual ritual,” claiming that as soon as it is introduced, “lawmakers will promptly ignore it”
Power vs. Check - Veto
- The President can veto any legislation passed by Congress, either actively (e.g. Keystone XL, Feb 2015) or passively, whereby the 10-day response period runs into a Congressional recess, and the President simply ignores the bill, thus letting it die (e.g. Bush pocket vetoed National Defence Authorisation Act (2008) despite the House insisting there was someone there to receive the bill - the bill was eventually amended and passed according to Bush’s wishes). Threat of veto can also be effective, e.g. Obama/Iran sanctions.
- Checks: Veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress - most recently occurred with US Farm Bill (2007). Veto has become markedly less popular in recent years, e.g. Obama has only used 4 thus far, compared to over 600 by FDR.
Power vs. Check - Chief Executive
- The President has absolute jurisdiction over each of the Federal government’s various departments, and is able to direct them as he sees fit. E.g. Obama oversaw the NSA’s controversial data collection program, as was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
- Checks: Public opinion can force the President into altering his priorities, e.g. after initially defending the NSA, public outcry forced Obama into promising to scale back the program, culminating in the USA FREEDOM Act, which is currently being debated in the Senate, having passed the House with an overwhelming majority in May 2015. Overzealous (illegal) actions may result in impeachment, e.g. had he not resigned (and been pardoned), Nixon would almost certainly have been impeached for the involvement of the FBI, CIA and IRS in the Watergate scandal.
Power vs. Check - Nomination of Officials/Judges
- The President has sole jurisdiction over who is to be nominated to the Supreme Court, as well as to other positions, such as attorney-general and other cabinet positions. Supreme Court appointments in particular can have a huge impact on court decisions, e.g. Bush’s replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito (2006) swung the court in a distinctly more conservative direction.
- Checks: Senate can reject or delay appointments of Presidential nominees, e.g. Susan Rice was forced to withdraw her nomination for Secretary of State in favour of the “safer” John Kerry due to concerns of rejection by the Senate. Nomination of incumbent attorney-general Loretta Lynch was delayed for over 5 months due to various political conflicts, including that of Obama’s immigration EO.
Power vs. Check - Negotiation of Treaties
- The President is responsible for negotiating and signing treaties with foreign nations - they can have profound effects on the US, e.g. Clinton negotiated NAFTA, ensuring free trade between Mexico, Canada and the US. Can also sign Executive Agreements, which, though temporary, are not subject to Congressional approval
Power vs. Check - Commander-in-Chief
- The Constitution names the President as Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, and is thereby empowered to direct all US military operations.
- Checks: Only Congress has the power to declare war. War Powers Resolution (1973) limits unapproved conflicts to 60 days, plus 30 days withdrawal time. Congress has power of the purse, and as such can refuse to provide funding for military involvements, e.g. Iraq Troop Surge (2008),
HOWEVER
War has only been declared 5 times ever, despite the US being seemingly perennially at war with someone or other. War Powers Resolution has never actually been used to force withdrawal from any conflict, and may actually work to empower the President in short conflicts, e.g. Reagan took 28 days to depose Grenada’s communist leader. If the President can get Congress on-side, he can garner access to funding, e.g. Iraq War Resolution (2002) - claimed that this bill’s passage was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, and was based on intelligence that was later proved to be inaccurate (WMDs), yet provided funding for years of conflict.
Dual Presidency - Basic Info
- Aaron Wildavsky
- States that there are two roles for the President - foreign and domestic, and that he prefers to operate in former, where he holds more power and is faced with fewer checks
- Influenced by period 1946-1964
Dual Presidency - For
- Has a strong basis in the Constitution, which grants the President the roles of Command-in-Chief and Chief Diplomat - the former of these is relatively unchecked. By contrast, Congress is granted domestic legislative powers, with the President only given the increasingly unpopular veto power.
- Foreign policy tends to be less ideologically driven, and thus, the President’s ability to direct it is less dependent on the ideological position of Congress. By contrast, the President’s ideological positions may result in him being severely constrained in his domestic legislative abilities, e.g. Obama’s attempts as gun control in 2013 failed due to Senate opposition.
- A good example is Bush - had a profound effect on foreign policy, for which his Presidency is largely remembered (going into Iraq, opening of detention camp at Guantanamo in 2002). However, faced struggles domestically - failed to pass immigration reform bills (DREAM, CIRA) and saw 1/3 of his vetoes overturned - even faced opposition on fairly innocuous subjects, e.g. US Farm Bill (2007) - last veto to be successfully overturned.
Dual Presidency - Against
- In this international age, the lines between foreign and domestic policy have become blurred, e.g. Bush was heavily involved in the response to 9/11 - gave rise to changes in both foreign policy (Iraq) and domestic policy (Patriot Act, NSA).
- In recent years, Presidents have become increasingly willing to involve themselves with and sponsor flagship domestic policies, e.g. Bush (No Child Left Behind (2001), Medicare Modernisation Act (2003)) and Obama (Obamacare (2010)).
- Regardless of their success in this area, many presidents undoubtedly to attempt to involve themselves in domestic policy issues, belying Wildavsky’s claim that they prefer not to do this - e.g. DREAM Act - failed, but was endorsed by two successive Presidents.
- President can access a relatively unchecked avenue to Domestic legislation via Executive Order, which can be used to influence both social and economic policy. E.g. Obama - Min. Wage (Feb 2014) and Immigration (Nov 2014).
- The President may opt to seek Congressional approval for military action even when it is not needed - e.g. Obama sought permission for airstrikes against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013 - Congress eventually delayed the vote for so long that an alternative diplomatic solution was reached.