Benjamin France

Pl Sc 405
October 2, y

Critical Review Essay

The President of the United States is the most powerful figure in
American politics. While the United States Constitution is set up to distribute
the power of the government between the Legislative, Judiciary, and
Executive branch, there is evidence that this is obsolete. Evidence of this is
the Presidents use of presidential war powers, use of unilateral powers, and
the bureaucracy. Though these prove decent points as why the separation of
powers is obsolete, the checks and balances are the idea the writers of the
constitution had so America did not turn into the kingdom they had just
fought so hard to break free of. The powers have served their purpose for
close to 250 years and will hold steady well into the future.
The United States of America has the largest military in the world and
thus the most powerful military. While the framers probably did not think the
United States Military would grow to such height, they did put the President
in charge as the Commander in Chief. The French Observer Tocqueville
stated, posses prerogatives that almost royal in magnitude. . .yet no
occasion to use them.1. This was true in the early years of the United States

1 Alexin de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Library
of America, 2004)

but since World War II the Unites States seems to be in a permanent state of
conflict, thus giving the Presidents job as Commander in Chief the
prerogatives of royal magnitude. Since World War II the United States has
been in countless conflicts around the world and yet none of them went
through congress to declare war but sent thousands of troops abroad to fight
in these conflicts. The Presidents by passed congress by using the war power
given to them stating, Purely defensive and strictly limited to attacks
against the United States2 and using the American publics support
presented the conflicts in the light of it being attacks on the U.S. If the
President can send troops abroad without the declaration of war, why is there
a need for him to go through congress at all. After 9/11 President Bush was
on a high of popularity and used this to create the war on terror, almost 15
years later and the United States military is still in the Middle East. While
congress retroactively supported this decision by passing joint resolutions
that gave the president the use of armed forces against Iraq3. There as been
countless examples through out the United States history that congress did
not declare war but supported the president in his decision to send troops
abroad. If time and time again congress supports the president, why is there
even an option for him to go through congress. While there was an attempt
in balancing this by congress known as the War Powers Act, presidents from
2 Mark Major, Presidents and Foreign Policy In Class lecture: April 12-14th

3 William Howell and Jo Peyehouse, Foreign Affairs: When Congress Stops Wars

Nixon to George W. Bush denied that the War Powers Act was constitutional.
Even President Obama sidestepped the question when he was asked about
the bombing campaign of Libya, he responded that it did not apply there
since it was not sustained fighting with hostile forces. The presidents
throughout history have sidestepped congress and gone ahead with what
they think is right for the country. It is not so much that the presidents have
overpowered congress but rather Congress has failed to insist that presidents
follow the collaborative mechanisms of the War Powers Resolution before
making these decisions4. If congress has continued to fail to make the
president follow the outlines of the constitution, then the constitution and the
power for congress to declare war has become obsolete. Besides the use of
war powers, the separation of powers have proved to be obsolete in the
Presidents use of the unilateral powers.
Unilateral powers are powers not listed in the constitution and not
delegated to the president by congress or the courts. These powers consist
of executive orders, proclamations, signing statements, and executive
agreements. These powers require absolutely no congressional oversight or
approval. The most popular unilateral power is the executive order. Executive
orders are legally binding orders give by the president to Federal
Administrative Agencies. Over the course of history the President of the
United states has issued over 15,000 executive orders. This number is

4Nancy Kassop, Richard M. Pios, Resolved, Presidents have usurped the war power that
rightfully belongs to Congress Pg-180

insanely high as there have only been 43 presidents. Though executive

orders only last the length of the presidential term and can be over turned by
the next president. Eos are used by the president to not change the law
permanently but change the status quo. President Franklin Roosevelt issued
executive order 88025, which was the first federal action to promote equal
opportunity and end discrimination. Presidents use executive orders to show
the nation the way the want the political statue quo to move in. If the
presidents use executive orders to change the status quo, which in most
cases throughout history as been the popular decision, why must the
president send a bill through congress if it is not likely to be passed. Even if
the 89th congress President Roosevelt had a hard time getting his new deal
policies to pass. The president does not usually sign an executive order into
policy if a he does not have support from a majority of the American public.
Congress serves more has a roadblock for presidential action then as a check
and balance. Another way the president has rendered the checks and
balance system obsolete is the use of signing statements. Signing
statements are statement by the president on how he and the executive
branch should interpret a law. This gives the president more power and say
then the simple signature of the bill or veto of it. The use of singing
statements is a hotly debated topic on whether it is constitutional or not, yet
there is no where in the constitution that says it is not thus it being a

5Zelizer, Julian E. The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for
the Great Society. Pg 98 New York: Penguin Press, 2015.

unilateral power. Signing statements give the president the last word 6 in
the legislative process 6. If the president is able to enact powers that are not
given to him in the constitution and congress and the supreme court an
unable to legally tie him to breaking the constitution, why is there a need for
checks and balances? The president is the face of the United States and
usually enacts change in the politically and social status quo that reflect the
American publics views. With the use of unilateral powers the president has
one more strong piece of evidence that renders the checks and balances
obsolete, the bureaucracy.
The President of the United States is tasked by the constitution through
delegated powers to be in charge of the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is the
largest government organization, consists of the department of education,
health, transportation, etc. The president is given the power to appoint
leader of the agency, he appoints approximately 4,000 people. The
bureaucracy controls most of our everyday life, and in turn the president is in
charge of it. While the American pubic does not interact daily with politicians
they do interact daily with schools, television, transportation. Laws that
effect these everyday lives are passed in congress but are filled with
ambiguous terms and conditions, the president and bureaucracy are then
tasked with interrupting those laws. Presidents have used this power of the
bureaucracy to create positions that undermine the constitution with out

6 Peter M. Shane, Nelson Lund, Resolved, Presidential Signing statements threaten the rule
of law and the separation of powers. Pg 210

breaking it. These positions are called Czars or members of white house
staff who have been designated by the president to coordinate a specify
policy that involves more then one department in the executive branch, not
Senate confirmed or officer of the United States7. These czars are in charge
of a certain problem or aspect the president is facing. In President Obamas
case, he appointed one called his pay czars who was in charge of
regulating executive pay, this revived $700 billion dollars in federal bailout
money8. This evaded the checks and balance system in that someone who
was not approved by the senate and did not hold a formal office in the United
States government was in charge of $700 billion dollars of United States
money. Though this sounds that it could spell trouble, Obama did this
because he needed someone who could focus and find a solution that was
plaguing the American public. The bureaucracy and the president are tend to
the American publics needs more than congress and the senate do. The
American public wants to see that their transportation is running smoothly,
that their children are learning in public schools, and that the tv is rated
appropriately for the viewers. The bureaucracy does this with the help of the
President and with no advice or help from congress.

7 Mitchell A. Sollenberger, Mark J Rozell, Justin S. Vaughn, Jose D. Villaobos, Resoled,

Presidential czars undermine Congress and the Constitution. Pg 227

8Mitchell A. Sollenberger, Mark J Rozell, Justin S. Vaughn, Jose D. Villaobos, Resoled,

Presidential czars undermine Congress and the Constitution. Pg 231

If the checks and balances were created in the constitution to spread

power out equally among the three branches of government why does the
President and the executive branch hold so much unchecked power. Even
with the power the executive branch as the president is able to undermine
congress on multitude of things which is deemed constitutional by the
Supreme court. Is there really a need for the three branches of government?
Even though this evidence tries to prove there is no need for the distribution
of powers, with out these checks and balances are constitution and country
would not look like what it is today.
The framers of the constitution wanted to build a government that did
not resemble to the British monarchy they had just fought a war against for
their independence. With that in mind they drafted the Articles of
Confederation, which proved to to be too weak to get anything really done in
the new nation. The Constitution was a blend of the Articles of Confederation
and the idea of three branches of government. With out checks and balances
the executive branch would not be a true democracy and more closely
resemble the British monarchy. The President of the United States is not truly
popularly elected by the people, but rather through the electoral college. The
electoral college is essential for the true meaning of checks and balances.
Originally the president was thought to be popularly elected by the people
but that proved to be impractical due to the thinking that there would be to
many candidates and the electorate not being able to decide on whom to
pick. The solution as the electoral college, it gave the president

accountability to the public but secured that the executive branch was not
interfered by the legislative branch9. While the electoral college does not
make the president a true popular elected leader, congress is there for that
aspect. This gives congress the upper hand in the legislative process due to
them using their constituents in their districts voices. The checks and
balances also bring into the light the myth of the presidential mandate.
The presidential mandate suggest that since the president won a majority of
the vote in the popular election they should be able to take action on their
campaign promises and move the country into their direction10. Though this
is not true due to the conception checking the executive branches power.
The myth of the presidential mandate proves that presidents can not do
what they want because in most elections they barely won a majority and
the other party still exists in the legislative branch who were truly voted on
by the people.
The design of checks and balances does allow the president to have a
great of power in the executive branch but even with that presidents still
rarely accomplish their campaign goals in office. They are not able to get
most of their campaign promises done do the the political atmosphere
around their term as well as the legislative branch slowing them down. If the

9 David Nichols, Terri Bimes, Resolved, the framers of the constitution would approve of the
modern presidency. Pg 4

10Robert Dahl, The Myth of the Presidential Mandate, pg 358

president was allowed to do all of their stated campaign promises the United
States would be in upheaval every four to eight years depending on what
political party took control of the White House. Checks and Balances serve to
keep the American government and society relatively steady. As argued in
Presidential success and failure have more to do with political time than
with a presidents character and leadership qualities presidents personal
attributes have very little to do with how much they get done in their term.
An example of this is President Obama, during his first campaign for election
he was portrayed as highly intelligent speaker, debater, and overall great
politician. The plans he had for his campaign included pulling troops out of
the Middle East, HealthCare reform, and closing Guantanamo bay. These all
appealed to the American public and yet only one of these has actually
happened and only happen by pulling tooth and nail. Why? Because of
Checks and Balances. The division of power sets up a political atmosphere
that renders most of a presidents attributes and popularity useless11. Though
these seems counterintuitive, this distribution of power allows our
government to not turn into a dictatorship.
The President of the United States is the face of American life and
politics. While the constitutions current division of power does not make him
the center of political life, it should since it obsolete and unnecessary. The
president is able to undermine congress to get his goals accomplished by the
11 Stephen Skowronek, Fred I. Greenstein, Resolved, presidential success and failure have
more to do with political time than with a presidents character and leadership qualities. pg.
98

use of war powers, unilateral powers, and the bureaucracy which are all
legitimate democratic means in policymaking. If the president is able to get
all this done without congress and it is deemed constitutional by the
supreme court, it shows the division of powers is obsolete. Though these
powers were created by the framers of the constitution would not evolve into
the British monarchy. They put these checks and balances to make sure none
of the branches became to powerful and took the over the government. It
targeted the executive branch more since the president would have no peers
it was the closet thing that would resemble a king in the new government.
The electoral college, legislative process, and political atmosphere all prove
that the division of powers between the branches keep American
government running.

10