To What Extent Is the Obama Presidency More Imperilled Than Imperial?

In his study The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate, Andrew Rudalevige examines the American presidency and how it has changed over time. First off what is an Imperial Presidency? An imperial presidency is a term that was coined around the 1960s by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. In the beginning of the book Rudalevige states, “Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. had affixed an enduring adjective to the Nixon Presidency: Imperial. This didn’t mean that the president literally had become emperor but suggested the occupant in office exercised more absolute power.”

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

The president of the United States is our commander and chief of the U.S. Armed Force. As we know the president leads the country in line with his job within the executive branch of government to enforce the laws created, tabled, and passed by congress. The pressure is enormous and being that it may look easy, it is not. Every president had to endure a great deal of work while in office. In order to be focus under pressure can be of great use during times of conflict (war). Presidential powers in dealing with domestic and foreign affairs through its co-existing of war will show how and why war is constitutional.

Throughout history, the term “Imperial Presidency” has been used in the 1960s to portray the United States presidents and their utilities. “Imperial Presidency” is grounded on many citations, observations that are devised by many historians. A numerous number of presidents follow the footsteps of presidents before them, in order to live in the shadow, they leave behind. Residing by the thought of, given that the president achieved his successes during his office, they try to repeat the same idea in order for the same successful outcome. However, there is a high chance for bad outcomes to occur, making it discreditable for the president in the current office. Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr’s use of “imperial” president is aimed to convey a president with noble personality with his constant accumulation of power in his presidency. The executive power given to the president, sanctions him to be totalitarian and may create a war-like decision that affects the country as a whole.

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

powerful and that very few people are making a real effort to stop it. He

C. Obama is an imperial president because he has violated the Constitution in many ways, including missing multiple budget deadlines, making appointments while the Congress is not in recess, and changing the Affordable Care Act without permission from Congress.

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.

When it comes to foreign affairs it is very important that the President has the ability to use executive privilege. For instance, if the United States was making a treaty with another country, both countries may have to give things up in order to come to an agreement, and everything considered by both sides as well as everything agreed upon should not be made public for everyone, including other countries to see. This is best stated in 1796 by George Washington after the House of Representatives requested that he give them information concerning his instructions to the United States Minister to Britain regarding the treaty negotiations between the United States and Britain. Washington replied by saying:

The modern presidency has in a sense become a double-edged sword in that presidents have become beneficiaries of anything positive that can be attributed to government, but also can be blamed for anything bad occurring in society. Quite simply, the modern president has become the center of our political system (The Modern Presidency, 2004). The men who have dealt with this double-edged sword known as the modern presidency have often walked a very fine line between effectiveness and ineffectiveness, but all have attempted to use their power in one way or another.

Thus the imperial presidency was born from foreign affairs, from “faith and duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world” at any moment without the approval of congress (Schlesinger). Past presidents have dealt with national emergencies, this pressure is responsibility that he “must take unto himself” and act accordingly (Schlesinger). Good government starts with the appearance of our leader, and the entire executive office. The president should be representative of the all people in the United States, an exceptional role model who takes the people’s needs into account. The best time for a strong imperialistic president is when faction, anarchy, and excessive ambitions threaten it. The energy put forth by the president “generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree” than that of a weaker and more dispersed power system (Hamilton). The importance of this energy highlights the respect our government continues to have for the constitution because of the importance it maintains in this day and age.

In this paper we will compare the formal and informal powers if the President and we will explore how and why the Presidential powers have increased over time. The history of the Presidency is an account of aggrandizement; one envisions, today, a President with far reaching power, however, when looking at the Constitution alone we find a President with significant limits. Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or merely a helpless giant?

Historian Arthur Schlesinger said the team Imperial Presidency is when a president uses more power than the Constitution allows, and were able to avoid the checks and balances of our constitutional system. In this paper, I am going to explore three presidents who many feel were imperial presidents. While doing the research I was surprised how many great presidents had people make a case that they were an imperial president. For example, I read many articles about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln running imperial presidency. Abraham Lincoln is widely considered one of our greatest presidents. The three presidents that I am going to focus my paper on are Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush.

Especially with a divided government, and even without, the president is challenged to gain the support of Congress (Heffernan, 2005:59). While the President is responsible for carrying out the law and can even issue executive orders ultimately Congress hold the purse strings. Without the budgetary support of Congress the President’s agenda will not be fulfilled. Treaties and all appointments from cabinet officials to Supreme Court justices have to be approved by Congress, specifically the Senate. “As a result, the White House is engaged in a constant process of persuasion” (Heffernan,