The U.S. presidential powers have been increasing exponentially without constitutional appreciation leading to imbalance of powers between legislature and executive. This is undermining the initial notions of whom the president ought to be as defined during the foundation of the president’s powers. During the foundation of the president’s powers, the president’s powers rested on his leadership prowess but not the formal powers. On the other hand, Senates role was to make laws and control actions of the president. Consequently, the two bodies were supposed to have equal powers. However, with the shifting of presidential powers and roles one wonders where the Senate or Supreme Court hides instead of controlling him.1
In the U.S., Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court plays similar role of the legislature.2 Consequently, they can easily abuse their power if not checked. In response, the constitution makers set series of checkers that ensures the three powerful branches check each others powers. Hence, the power balance spreads down to another institution and in the U.S., any entity, whether Senate versus the House of Representative; the states in opposition to federal government; or government powers against the right of citizens, has equal domination as defined in the Bill of Right.3
Nevertheless, the constitution draft was an incomplete contract that was supposed to administer a nation. It therefore fails to specify clear decisions needed under all contingencies. Instead, it gives mandate to the three organs: the president, Congress and Supreme Court, of overseeing powers and jurisdiction.4 Moreover, it provides a general framework to the president on how to deal with contingencies and making public decisions.
In reality, the plan of the constitution was to bring in a power struggle among the entities and they end up checking themselves. However, it fails to give details and clarity on how each organ is supposed to have its share of the powers of the legislature. Hence, the determination of legislative power has shifted to rest on other fate like politics where the president is a huge actor.5 As a result, despite the lack of single hand controlling the legislature, the president has become powerful over the years in attempts to establish legacies in a short ruling.
In addition, the president is highly favored by the working environment when compared to Congress. For instance, the president acts independently to ensure the laws are enacted faithfully and in case the congress wants to restrain president’s actions, they can only do that through writing statutes.6 To write statute is costly, time consuming because it requires court orders and needs summoning a team of delegate. In some instances, these delegations fail.
For example, when the delegation is extensive, the president’s powers act at their maximum. Additionally, the president has the power to veto any legislation and in case he does it, the matter becomes too hard on Congress to reverse or override. Moreover, when the new statute passes, it makes the president more responsible and more controlling. As a result, the president’s powers are more like a manager and that of congress fits the boots of employee who faithfully follows manager’s orders.7
In general, the congress is poorly set to defend its interest and has a general problem of it being a collection that is hard to coherent.8 As a result, despite the public shows when the congress and the president are having a fight over the institutional powers, congress is weak to defend against presidents unilateral actions. This is because the actions of the congress members are to boost their reelection and serve their own areas of representation.
Consequently, they are always divided by executive orders favoring some of their members. As a result, whenever they are defending their interests, the members of Congress must form coalitions and committees meant to coordinate them. Consequently, the current congress needs to change and there should emerge a strong congress that has the capacity to shape and limit the executive powers.9
Bibliography
“American Government”. Ushistory. Web.
Hamilton, Lee. Congress Work and why you should Care. USA: Indiana University Press, 2004.
Marshall, William. “Eleven Reasons why Presidential power inevitably expands and why it Matters.” Boston University Law Review 88, no. 505 (2004): 505-522. Web.
Moe, Terry and William Howell. “Unilateral Action, and President Power; A Theory.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1999): 850-871. Web.
Owens, John and Burdett Loomis. “Qualified Exceptionalism: The US Congress in Comparative Perspective.” The journal of legislative studies 12, no. 34 (2006): 258-289.
Rudenstine, David. “Roman Roots for an Imperial Presidency: Revisiting Clinton Rossiters 1948 Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies.” Cardozo Law Review 34, no. 1063 (2013): 1062-1078.
Footnotes
- Terry Moe and William Howell, “Unilateral Action, and President Power,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1999): 850. Web.
- “American Government”. Ushistory. Web.
- Lee Hamilton, Congress Work and why you should Care, (USA: Indiana University Press), 2.
- “American Government”. Ushistory. Web.
- David Rudenstine, “Roman Roots for an Imperial Presidency: Revisiting Clinton Rossiters 1948 Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies.” Cardozo Law Review 34, no. 1063 (2013): 1064.
- “American Government”. Ushistory. Web.
- William Marshall,“Eleven Reasons why Presidential power inevitably expands and why it Matters,” Boston University Law Review, 860. Web.
- John Owens and Burdett Loomi, “Qualified Exceptionalism: The US Congress in Comparative Perspective,” The journal of legislative studies 12, no. 34 (2006): 267.
- David Rudenstine, “Roman Roots for an Imperial Presidency: Revisiting Clinton Rossiters 1948 Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies.” Cardozo Law Review 34, no. 1063 (2013): 1064.