Consider the growth of executive power when compared to other branches of government
Introduction to Politics
Consider the growth of executive power when compared to other branches of government. In what way has executive power increased in recent decades? What are the implications of this growth? How might this be constrained?
The executive arm of the federal government is under the leadership of a president whose powers keep changing in comparison to other arms of government. Expansion in the powers of the president takes place within constitutional structures of separation of powers, no matter the party that controls the White House. At the time of the framing of the American constitution, the framers thought that Congress was the most potent branch among the three arms, and that is why they supported the establishment of a bicameral parliament. Congress was to be in two branches so that it could not overwhelm the other branches of government. At the same time, the executive was made up of a single leader so that it could not be overwhelmed by the different departments.
After more than two hundred years of transformation, the executive is inevitably the most powerful institution of governance in the country. The powers of the president have expanded in areas such as national security and foreign relations. In some instances, the president declines to follow the advice of Congress and wage unpopular wars. For example, in 2006, the American people elected a new Congress to stop the Iraq war, but the president continued with the war until his last day in office. The president used the authority of the presidency to outmaneuver Congress.
Executive power has the advantage of concentration in a single person who becomes the center of public hope and expectations. The magnitude and finality of the president’s decisions makes all the other interventions from the other arms of government. No other person or institution can compete with a serving president for the public mind through any means of modern communication. Most modern presidents use the prestige and influence of the office to exert pressure on the institutions that are supposed to check and balance the power of the executive. The concentration of power in the executive is not about the character and charisma of the people who occupy the offices. It is about inevitable legal, social, and technological changes that take place in a society.
Many factors have made the presidency the most powerful institution in the United States. First, the executive arm of government delivers services to the citizens directly, and it appears to be the one providing solutions to the needs of the people. Second, the president exercises executive authority over the administrative arms of the government. He has the power to make appointments to these institutions. Third, the head of the executive has access to critical information that they can relay or decline to convey to the public. Fourth, the presidency has a working relationship with the media that any occupant of the office uses to communicate and gain public trust. Fifth, there is always a need for the government to act swiftly when the country I facing significant challenges and emergencies. The executive is still in a better position to make the interventions. Finally, the emergence of a two-party system has made party loyalty the most important consideration at the expense of institutional prerogatives.
The powers of the president continue to expand because the constitution is not specific on the duties and functions of the president. As a result, the institution of the presidency grows as the country advances. Article II of the constitution is indeterminate by using terms such as “executive power,” or the duty “to take care that the laws are dutifully executed.” Unlike the other arms of government, the presidency is deemed to have inherent powers. At the same time, some express duties of the president, such as the authority to act during emergencies and keep the advice of subordinate confidential, are not in the constitutions. In comparison, Article I of the constitution is definite on the role of Congress and its relationship with the other arms of government.
At the same time, case laws on the powers of the president are underdeveloped in the country. Although there are many cases of presidents addressing federal judicial and congressional power, Supreme Court decisions are analyzing presidential powers. Therefore, the question of whether a president has exceeded his or her authority is never apparent because the powers of the office are open-ended. As a result, a president can expand their power when dealing with national emergencies and military actions that need urgent attention and efforts. Without the prohibitions in law, expectations for quick response by a president force them to make the decision and, in the process, expand their reach.
The Growth of Executive Branch
The expansion of the federal executive branch of government is also responsible for the growth of president powers. The federal bureaucracy goes beyond what the framers of the constitution envisioned. After every election, the president gains control of this sizeable administrative unit and can direct it as he or she wishes. The president is the head of a bureaucracy that regulates labor relations, sets the standards for the private sector, enforces the federal criminal law, manages the nation’s lands and natural resources, oversees the banking industry, among many other functions. Although the modern bureaucracy may not be consistent with the framers of the constitution, but its expansion gives the president a lot of power that he can deploy at any time through appoints that the law gives him or her.
The president’s control over the government is enhanced by military and intelligence capabilities. The president doubles as the Commander-in-Chief as well as the head of the executive. As a result, the person is in charge of a large army in the world and directs other institutions such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. The control gives the president useful capabilities that they can use to diminish the political capacities of their opponents.
The expansion of presidential powers results in a constitutional imbalance with other arms of government. The framers of the constitution envisioned a situation where the three arms of government can check and balance the powers of each other. Therefore, an expansion of presidential power is an affront on the capabilities of Congress to check the excesses of the executive. Congress has not expanded its power in a way that can keep pace with the executive. However, there are significant developments that have guarantees Congress of its authority to oversee the activities of the executive. The Supreme Court has pronounced that Congress has the power to oversight the executive. In some cases, Congress has performed this duty effectively. It has, on several occasions, uncovered the misdeeds of the executive. For example, former President Richard Nixon was forced to resign after learning that Congress had enough evidence to convict him and for a trial in the Senate to succeed. Although Congress has the power to investigate the executive, it cannot compensate for the ability of the presidency to control the flow of information.
Although Congress has the power to investigate, it has no structure to implement its resolutions. It would still rely on some agencies under the control of the executive. Some of the decisions of Congress can be frustrated by a combative president such as the Bill Clinton and George Bush presidency shows. In some instances, a president can order the federal agency holding the information not to release it to Congress.
Congressmen and women have broader powers over the president as far as terms of office are concerned. Whereas the president can serve for a maximum of two-four year terms, Congressmen and women do not term limits and can serve as long as their voters can elect them. However, it is not clear about the advantages that Congress derives from this leverage in the quest to check the excesses of the executive. Some members of Congress even use the expanded power of the president for personal benefit by directing government programs to the constituencies and being reelected in every election. What is certain is that there is erosion on the power of Congress to check the presidency that is always expanding. Today, the check and balances that the framers of the constitution anticipated is much weaker. The institution that was established to represent the interest of the people against a rogue presidency is weak than the structure expected it to be. The purpose of the checks and balance system was to check on the excess of the executive and by curbing incompetence. In the absence of such measures, the ills that the framers of the constitution were afraid of happening may take place.
One way of ensuring the executive ceases to expand its power is by promoting the independence of the US Department of Justice. The Senate can help the country in this measure by confirming only the most qualified individuals for the positions of judges and Supreme Court judges. The confirmation of independent individuals would ensure that the institution is independent and does not make decisions for political or any other partisan reason. At the same time, it is essential for Congress to combat the secrecy that is prevalent in the executive. The primary role of Congress is to guarantee the accountability of the executive, which can only take place through transparency that entails availing all the necessary information to the public. Thus, Congress can still play an essential role in ensuring that the Department of Justice is independent through the confirmation process.
Although the power of the executive branch headed by the president has expanded, it is still possible to restrain it to prevent future leaders from tilting the balance of power in their favor further. One of the first measures that the country can take is to relook at the role of executive branch precedent in the governance of the country. Although the use of executive authority in the past may give future leaders the impetus to act in a similar manner, it is essential to appreciate that it is not conclusive. It is not as authoritative as the decisions of the Supreme Court. The expanding power of the president has no constitutional bearing. Some leaders do not even follow the precedence set by their predecessors under similar circumstances because the precedent set by the previous president may not apply in modern. For example, although Abraham Lincoln could suspend the habeas corpus in the middle of the Civil War, no author president has done the same because the precedence is not legal. Thus, it is essential for the country to ignore some overreaching powers that a president uses during their term in office because they have no basis in law, nor are they appropriate ways to review constitutional powers of an institution.
Congress must also execute its mandate in fidelity to the constitution. Although adhering to its obligation, it may conflict with the executive and the demands of the majority political party. It is crucial to do so for posterity. Thus, efforts should be made to have Congress perform its oversight role without favor even when the president and the executive and majority of Congress members are from the same political party. At the same time, the American people have to resist the temptation to perceive all decisions of the president as constitutional because some are not. It is also time that the country decided to define the powers of the president so that they do not expand further. Thus, although the framers of the constitution envisioned developing a check and balancing system of governance through the separation of powers, the expanding capabilities of the executive threaten the other arms. Therefore, it is essential to control the expansion and ensure that it does not interfere with the rest of the arms of the government.