GOVT 2305 The US Executive Constitutional Design

GOVT 2305

The US Executive Constitutional Design

In the last section we discussed the development of the executive

branch from the Norman Invasion through the British Bill of Rights, and the problems of executive

power as explained in the Declaration of Independence.

One of the principle points made was that over the course of British

history executive departments (what we could refer to as “the

state”) were developed.

These made it easier for the monarch to implement the law.

It also allowed for abuse – which led to the opposition of the House

of Commons, the signing of the English Bill of Rights, and the

establishment of the constitutional monarchy.

The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence argued that the king was usurping colonial

executive power by using the administrative capacity available to

him to circumvent that of the colonies.

The colonists would no longer be able to execute the law, it would be done for

them.

The lesson initially learned by the newly minted Americans was to not have a

national executive. None existed under the Articles of Confederation.

But this made governing the states difficult, so the decision was made to

establish an executive of some sort in the constitutional convention.

As we already know, the U.S. Constitution would establish a

singular executive on the national level. This was partly due to the

trust granted to George Washington since he seemed

capable of restraining his ambitions.

We also know that Texas established a plural executive

partly because governors during reconstructions did not seem

similarly capable.

See the adjoining set of slides for an overview of the Texas

executive.

In this section we look at the product of that evolution.

The executive branch as designed in the U.S. Constitution.

We will read through the Constitutional design of the

executive branch and discuss the various issues raised in each of

these sections.

We concluded the last section with a discussion of the problems the Federalists had with the lack of a

centralized executive. Policy implementation on the national level was impossible since there was no entity that could compel the states to implement national

policies.

The Federalist thought the inability to implement common

commercial, fiscal and tax policies across the states would be fatal to

the health of the republic.

But there were legitimate concerns that the establishment of a national executive branch,

especially a single headed office, with Commander in Chief powers, plus the power to collect taxes and

ion would be dangerous.

The central question addressed on the national and state level was

the basic design of the chief executive.

How can it both effective and restrained?

We want energy in the executive, but we also want to limit abuses of

executive authority.

How? What design decisions were necessary in order to determine

how best to accomplish this in the long term?

For good sources outlining these conflicts click here:

The Constitutional Convention: Day by Day Summary

LOC: Federalists Papers

The design of the executive was considered on the following days:

June 1June 2June 4July 17

July 18July 19July 20July 26

August 20August 24

August 25August 27

September 4September 6September 7September 8

Here is a sample of issues debated during the convention:

1 - The idea of a singular executive was introduced immediately and was subject to great debate from

the start.

The virtues of the singular design:

Unity, Consistency, Effectiveness

But an elected executive could turn into a monarchy, and elected monarchies are “the worst kind.”

2 - Should the president be elected by a direct vote by the general

population, or some other method?

A direct connection to the general population might allow the

president to gain the popular support that would allow for

increases in power.

Again, the principle lesson from history:

Julius Caesar

He gained power by stirring popular opposition to the Senate.

By doing so he undermined the vitality of the Roman Republic.

(is this a lesson?)

The general public has had a peculiar tendency over history to

support the establishment of strong executive authority.

Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler …

See the Wikipedia entry on Populares.

An indirect connection between the executive and the people

would moderate this tendency, but potentially allow executive power

to become intertwined with whatever institution selected the

office.

An electoral college – where individuals are selected to only

elect a president and nothing else – would be less likely than other

institutions to become intertwined with the executive.

3 - What control should the president have over the

bureaucracy?

Should the office have the sole power of appointment? Or should

some other institution?

Presidential control allows the institution greater control over the implementation of laws, but also

allows the bureaucracy to be used for the personal needs of the

president.

The bureaucracy needs to be both professional and independent.

4 - What relationship should the executive have with the other

branches? What checks ought they be able to place on the executive?

Checks and Balances

Each branch is given the power to resist any effort of the executive to control them, but they are limited

as well.

The executive helps limit the power of the legislative and judicial

branches.

It is also limited by them.

The Constitutional Design of the Unites States Executive (as you

know) is contained here:

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution

It has 4 sections - 1,072 words (compare this with the 26 sections and 4,243 word contained in the Texas

Constitution)

As with the legislative branches, the design of the United States

executive is vague and open ended while the Texas executive is

precise and limited.

For an exhaustive run through – click here.

Here’s a walk through the national Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section OneClause One

For further information about presidential power read The Power and the Scope of Presidential Power.

Background from the Founders’ Constitution.

The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United

States of America . . .

We looked at this part in the last section. This is the vesting clause.

It vests executive power in a single individual. This, in very simple

language, establishes the singular executive.

Hamilton was a strong proponent of an energetic executive, a

singular form was one of the factors necessary to allow for

energy.

He details the nature of the office in Federalist #69, and defends its

singular structure in Federalist #70

“The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision

for its support; fourthly, competent powers.

The ingredients which constitute safety in the republican sense are, first, a due

dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.”

“That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy,

and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of

any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities

will be diminished.”

Some proposals were made for an executive council, which would

have vested executive power in a group of people.

Others argued this would be too weak and indecisive to effectively

implement the laws passed by Congress.

A single person can also be held more responsible for actions

committed in office.

“. . . he cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the

weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he

makes.”

- James Wilson.

Note that there is no qualifier on his the extent of executive power (no phrase like “herein granted” which we saw in Article One) as

there is with the legislative power.

Is there significance to this?

Some argue yes, it means that the president possesses all executive

power.

The Unitary Executive Theory

The strong version of this theory holds that the Congress has little power to interfere with how the president implements laws, but

others argue this violates the checks and balances and allows for tyrannical power to evolve in the

office.

There is debate regarding how extensive this power should be, especially when it comes to the

inherent powers of the commander-in-chief.

The Inherent Powers can include anything a commander in chief

thinks is necessary to successfully fight a war. Often these can

involve the suspensions of civil liberties and the allowance of

unreasonable searches and seizures and detention without

due process.

These questions become especially important during times of conflict

– like the War on Terror - when president’s typically assert powers

far beyond what they can claim during times of peace.

Recent presidents have used signing statements to assert

expansive powers despite Congress’ attempts to restrict them. Is this consistent with a

Democratic State?

The term “imperial presidency” has been developed to refer to the idea that the presidency was “out

of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the

constitutional limits.”

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section OneClause One

Continued . . .

. . . He shall hold office during the term of four years, and together

with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as

follows

This refers to the term of office as well as the means that the office is

elected.

The four year term was considered to be too short for those who

wished an active government or too long for those who feared

tyranny.

From Cato number 4:

It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics, that in all

magistracies, the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration; and that a longer time than a year,

would be dangerous.

A favorite claim of the anti-federalists was that where annual appointments end, tyranny begins.

Longer terms allowed presidents to establish relationships with

private interests that would keep them in power for as long as they

liked.

But annual terms can be ineffective.

How short is too short?

When Hamilton introduced his plan to the convention he argued in favor of life time service in order to ensure that presidents

have the strength to carry out congressional laws.

In Federalist #71 Hamilton argues in favor of the four year term limit:

Duration in office has been mentioned as the second requisite to the energy of the Executive authority. This has relation to

two objects: to the personal firmness of the executive magistrate, in the employment of

his constitutional powers; and to the stability of the system of administration which may have been adopted under his

auspices.

As we know George Washington established the tradition of

presidents stepping down after two terms.

This established the tradition of the peaceful transition of

executive power.

This was similar to his stepping down after the end of the

Revolutionary War.

No president served more than 2 terms until Franklin Roosevelt ran for a third and fourth term in 1940

and 1944.

Roosevelt argued that it was necessary to maintain stability

during times of crises.

Opponents thought it was a power grab.

The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to limit presidents

to two terms.

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section One

Clause Two and Three

Read The Electoral College in Findlaw.com for further information.

Background in the Founders’ Constitution.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a

Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the

Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States,

shall be appointed an Elector.

What follows is the design of the Electoral College, which was an unusual way of

ensuring the office would not be directly elected, thus likely to merge with the

House of Representatives. It was felt that an electoral college would be composed of people aware of who could best serve as a president, and who were not in a position

to engage in any intrigue about it.

Here’s the original text

(have fun)

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the

Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of

Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one

who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in

like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for

this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the

Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

In brief, each state was assigned a number of electors equal to its

total representation in Congress. Each elector had two votes. The

majority winner became president while second place became vice-

president.

This gives the states additional power over the selection of the

president. Smaller states are more significant with the electoral

college than they would be with a direct election.

Circumstance surrounding the election of 1796 – where the leaders of each party became

president and vice-president – led to the 12th Amendment, which made them run on one ticket.

Here’s the text of the 12th Amendment.

(I know the text is small, click on the 12th amendment link to read it more clearly.)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the

presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding

three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from

each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if

the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.--

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a

majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The principle change is that presidential candidates run on the same ticket with a vice presidential

candidate.

As we know from 2301, this change recognized the growth of parties. President’s are commonly

assumed to be the heads of their parties. A successful presidential candidate can have

coattails that benefit party members running for other offices.

There are 538 members of the electoral college

435 – based on the total members in the House

100 – based on the total members in the Senate

3 – based on the vote in the District of Columbia

A candidate needs 270 votes to win, since that is a majority of the

electoral college.

The popular vote winner is not always the electoral college

winner.

For more information about the electoral college:

National ArchivesA Procedural Guide

270 to WinCRS Report

Khan Academy LectureThe State Department

How the Electoral College Works

How does Texas select the members of its electoral college? Texas electors are not bound by state law to vote for a specific

candidate. Here is the Certificate of the Vote from Texas for 2008.

Click here for some history of Texas’ electoral votes.

For concerns about the electoral college, click here.

Click here for an organization pushing for a national direct vote

for the presidency.

Presidential elections are the most closely followed elections in the nation, which makes sense since this is the only elected national

office.

Conflict over presidential candidates tends to embody general conflicts in society.

Walk through the elections in the links in the previous slide to get an

idea of these conflicts.

For a quick look at the history of presidential elections, click on the

following Wikipedia entry, the page from the American

Presidency Project, and the Atlas of U.S. presidential Elections.

Presidential campaigns have changed greatly over history, especially since suffrage has

expanded, presidents became actively involved in campaigning,

and media technology has allowed people to connect directly with the

personality of the individual running.

This may be a contributing factor to the increased power of the

office.

This is a major subject for next week.

The increased reliance on visual imagery has been argued to impact

who is likely to be elected. Presidential candidates that are

able to connect effectively through the media have advantages over

those that cannot.

It also helps to not look like this:

Aside from the mention of the electoral college, nothing

regarding the presidential election is granted to the national

government.

The ability to conduct elections is given solely to the states. This includes the

ability to organize presidential primaries.

The national government does have the power to regulate the

financing of elections.

This is done by the Federal Election Commission (Wikipedia), which was established in 1975 after

evidence of corruption in election funding surfaced during Watergate

investigation.

An ongoing question in presidential elections is whether too much money is spent on them and whether it is a problem if funding is not balanced. Should these elections be publicly

funded?

For detail on current spending, click here.

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section OneClause Four

For further information about presidential power read Background from the Founders’ Constitution.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give

their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United

States.

This is a legislative check on the executive.

Congress sets election day.

Here are the key dates for the 2008 Presidential Election. There are actually

three dates to be aware of.

The Tuesday after the first Monday in November is when general election is held, mid December when the electors meet in their state capitols to cast their votes and early January when the votes are counted

by the President of the Senate.

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section OneClause Five

Founders’ Constitution.Findlaw.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United

States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office

who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen

years a resident within the United States.

This clause states that the presidency is the only office that cannot be held

by someone born in a foreign country. Exceptions have been made for people

born in US installations in foreign countries.

John McCain was born in Panama, but in a US Naval Air Station there.

President Obama is only the most recent president whose eligibility has been questioned due to birth

place.

This office has the highest age and residency requirement of any

office created in the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution Article Two Section OneClause Six


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same

shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of

removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act

accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected

If you read carefully you note that this does not establish that the

Vice-President becomes President on the death, disability or removal

of the President. He simply assumes the powers of the office.

Two amendments were added, 20th Amendment and 25th Amendment, to clarify that.

The 25th Amendment also allows Congress to establish a line of succession to the president.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection OneClause Seven


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a

compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been

elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from

the United States, or any of them.

The President is to be paid, but the amount of pay cannot be increased nor decreased. Either would create

the opportunity for corruption, either bribery or blackmail.

The Current salary of the president is $400,000.

This is an executive check on the legislature. Or at least it provides the executive freedom

from the manipulation of the legislature.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection OneClause Eight


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath

or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute

the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of

my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United

States."

Controversy: Did Washington add “so help me God” to the end of the

oath?

Click here for commentary.Some random

thoughts on the oath.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause One


The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the

United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

One of the arguments offered to support the ratification of the

Constitution was that a stronger national government would make

armed conflict less likely.

Federalist #4

”. . . the safety of the People of America against dangers from foreign force, depends not only on

their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and

continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as

just causes of war.”

Making the President Commander in Chief means that there is civilian

control of the military. This is to ensure that the civil power stays superior to the military power.

This is meant to avoid military rule – and old concern of republics.

Recall the following grievance for the Declaration of Independence:

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

Nevertheless, twelve presidents had served as generals prior to

holding office – including Washington – but none since

Eisenhower.

1. George Washington, Revolutionary War2. Andrew Jackson, War of 1812

3. William Henry Harrison, War of 18124. Zachary Taylor, Mexican War5. Franklin Pierce, Mexican War

6. Andrew Johnson, Civil War7. Ulysses Simpson Grant, Civil War

8. Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Civil War9. James Abram Garfield, Civil War10. Chester Allan Arthur, Civil War11. Benjamin Harrison, Civil War

12. Dwight David Eisenhower, World War II

Of the past five presidents, only George HW Bush was a member of the military – not including ROTC

and the Air National Guard.

Presidents have a substantive advisory system for military

matters, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense

Department.

Commander-in-Chief Powers

As mentioned above, these can be controversial powers during time of war since they can be taken to

imply that presidents have surveillance powers that go

beyond limitations stated in the Bill of Rights.

Presidents commonly claim that they have extensive Inherent

Powers in military matters that critics argue has allowed too much discretionary power without any

accountability.

For some thoughts about this matter read the following: Is There an Exclusive Commander-in-Chief Power? It argues that Presidents can “refuse to execute laws and

treaties that impermissibly encroach upon his inherent

constitutional power.”

Perhaps the most unusual use of Commander in Chief powers was

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in states that

were in rebellion. He did not have the authority to free slaves in the slave states that did not rebel. This would

not happen until the 13th Amendment was ratified.

But the Constitution creates conflict regarding military power

because Congress is granted significant powers over it,

especially funding, raising armies and navies and the ability to

declare war.

Was has only been declared five times in American history:

1 The War of 1812 2 Mexican-American War 3 Spanish-American War

4 World War I 5 World War II

Declarations of war were necessary to build up the military necessary to fight. But

a significant change in the military occurred in 1947 when the War

Department was substituted for the Defense Department and a peacetime

military was created.

Substantive resources were made available for the military so there was no longer a

need to declare war.

Some attempts have been made to by Congress to limit the President’s

ability to commit troops, most notably the War Powers

Resolution.

Now that the U.S. has a seemingly permanent peacetime military, is there any need for declarations of

war? Can the president use the military as he sees fit? Does this

include proactive uses?

All that Congress has to do now is authorize the use of military force,

not declare war.

Presidents often have their own “doctrines” which detail the theory they use to justify the use of force.

The Bush Doctrine was controversial because it advocated pre-emptive force, not retatiation.

A more recent, and controversial, justification for the use of force has been the Responsibility to

Protect, which requires nations to prevent mass atrocities from being committed. This was used to justify

support for the overthrow of Qaddaffi in Libya.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause One (continued)


. . . he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in

each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,

This alludes to the existence of executive departments, though it

does not establish what departments are to exist.

The executive agencies are established by acts of Congress passed over the course of time.

This is true for almost all executive positions.

It suggests that the heads of the executive departments, what

would become the Cabinet, would serve as an advisory body.

Some discussion existed in the Constitutional Convention over what departments ought to be established, but these were not added to the Constitution itself.

The First Congress would do so.

Controversy:

Executive Privilege

Are the conversations that a president has with advisors fully

private? Can an advisor be subpoenaed and forced to testify

about the advise given the president or does this undermine

tha ability of a president to get good council?

The Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978 to ensure that

these records be kept in the public sector and be made available at

some point.

NARA descriptionNARA the bill

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause One (continued)


. . . and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for

offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

This is an historical check on judicial powers. Monarchs have traditionally been able to grant clemency to those they deem

worthy, or opportunistic.

These can be among the most controversial decisions a president

can make.

Ford’s pardon of NixonH.W. Bush’s pardon of Weinberger

Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich

A further controversy: What impact does this have on judicial

responsibility for wrong convictions?

Does the Supreme Court care about innocence? For justice? Or

do they kick this responsibility over to the executive?

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause Two


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the

Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present

concur; . . .

The President is Head of State, and is has authority over the country’s

diplomatic powers. The office is responsible for negotiating

treaties, but the Senate has a check over this power since they

get to ratify the treaties.

Presidents can by pass this check by negotiating executive

agreements, which are more limited in scope that treaties.

These do not need to be ratified by the Senate.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause Two(continued)


. . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,

Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which

shall be established by Law:

High level executive and judicial officials who are appointed by the President must be confirmed by the Senate. This is a legislative

check on executive power.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause Two(continued)


. . . but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think

proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads

of Departments.

Lower level officials can be appointed by the President, or

even lower levels officials, without Senate confirmation.

This includes the process for hiring people to the civil service.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle TwoSection TwoClause Three


The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may

happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of

their next Session.

This power is used when the Senate refuses to confirm, or

consider the appointments of the president. These are called recess

appointments.

The U.S. ConstitutionArticle Two

Section Three


He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the

State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge

necessary and expedient; . . .

This is a check on the legislature. The president can help set

Congress’ agenda. This is always a public event, which allows the

president to use the media to go public, take a message directly to

the general population.

. . . . he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of

Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of

Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think

proper.”

He can call special sessions to address both chambers in order to highlight a special initiative or for

some other special occasion.

The power to adjourn Congress is very limited. It only occurs when a disagreement exists between the two chambers regarding when to

adjourn. He lacks the power to force an adjournment over their

objections.


Section Three


He shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; . . .

The president has the unilateral power to recognize foreign

countries. The Senate does not have to approve the decision. This

is part of the president’s diplomatic powers as Chief of

State.


Section Three


. . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .

The president does not have the prerogative power to suspend the

laws. He is Chief Executive and bound by the laws passed by the

legislature.


Section Three


. . . and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

This is the last of the president’s constitutional military powers.


Section Three


The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from

Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or

other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This was a check the parliament had on many executive officials

that advised the monarch.

The definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is up for debate.

Study Guide

- Which executive positions are elected on the national and state level? - How strong did the framers of the respective constitutions of the US and Texas want their chief executive officers to be?- What factors have made the president and governor stronger or weaker recently? - What helps explain why the US has a singular executive?- Be able to answer specific questions about each of the articles in the US and Texas Constitutions.

- What powers does the Senate have over the President?- What impact does the President have over the bureaucracy? - Be able to answer questions about the electoral college- The President is Commander in Chief, but what does this power allow the President to do? - What is the extent of the President’s foreign policy powers? - How clear is the Constitution (US and Texas) about the design of the executive branch?

- What impact can the Senate have on the appointment powers of the President and how can the President check this power? - What factors allow the President independence from the legislature? - What disputes did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have over presidential power? - How broad is the President’s control over the executive branch? Is this an area of controversy?- What checks is the president given over legislative and judicial power?- What is executive privilege?

Documents

GOVT 2305 The US Executive Constitutional Design