Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in the president and charges him with the execution of federal law, alongside the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic, regulatory, and judicial officers, and concluding treaties with foreign powers, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The president is further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, and to convene and adjourn either or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances. Since the founding of the United States, the power of the president and the federal government have grown substantially and each modern president, despite possessing no formal legislative powers beyond signing or vetoing congressionally passed bills, is largely responsible for dictating the legislative agenda of his party and the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. The president is frequently described as the most powerful person in the world.
The president is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term, and is one of only two nationally elected federal officers, the other being the Vice President of the United States. The Twenty-second Amendment, adopted in 1951, prohibits anyone from ever being elected to the presidency for a third full term. It also prohibits a person from being elected to the presidency more than once if that person previously had served as president, or acting president, for more than two years of another person's term as president. In all, 43 individuals have served 55 four-year terms. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the 44th and current president.
The first power the Constitution confers upon the president is the veto. The Presentment Clause requires any bill passed by Congress to be presented to the president before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:
Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:
If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto.
In 1996, Congress attempted to enhance the president's veto power with the Line Item Veto Act. The legislation empowered the president to sign any spending bill into law while simultaneously striking certain spending items within the bill, particularly any new spending, any amount of discretionary spending, or any new limited tax benefit. Once a president had stricken the item, Congress could pass that particular item again. If the president then vetoed the new legislation, Congress could override the veto by its ordinary means, a two-thirds vote in both houses. In Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such a legislative alteration of the veto power to be unconstitutional.
Most of the nation's Founding Fathers expected the Congress, which was the first branch of government described in the Constitution, to be the dominant branch of government; they did not want or expect a strong executive. However, numerous critics describe the presidency today as too powerful, unchecked, unbalanced, and "monarchist" in nature. Critic Dana D. Nelson believes presidents over the past thirty years have worked towards "undivided presidential control of the executive branch and its agencies. She criticizes proponents of the unitary executive for expanding "the many existing uncheckable executive powers – such as executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements – that already allow presidents to enact a good deal of foreign and domestic policy without aid, interference or consent from Congress.Constitutional scholars have criticized excessive presidential power and described presidents as "constitutional dictators" with "an incentive to declare emergencies" to assume "quasi-dictatorial powers."[68] David Sirota sees a pattern that "aims to provide a jurisprudential rationale for total White House supremacy over all government. Another critic wrote that the expanded presidency was "the greatest threat ever to individual freedom and democratic rule.
Some argue that images of the presidency have a tendency to be manipulated by administration public relations officials as well as by presidents themselves. One critic described the presidency as "propagandized leadership" which has a "mesmerizing power surrounding the office"; another described the aura surrounding the presidency with the word "cult. Administration public relations managers staged carefully crafted photo-ops of smiling presidents with smiling crowds for television cameras; in one instance of a televised photo-op, viewers were influenced by images and not by the story. One critic wrote the image of John F. Kennedy was described as carefully framed "in rich detail" which "drew on the power of myth" regarding the incident of PT 109 and claimed that Kennedy understood how to use images to further his presidential ambitions. Even presidential funerals are staged affairs with high production values to give an impression of "regal grandeur". As a result, political commentators believe that American voters have unrealistic expectations of presidents: voters expect a president to "drive the economy, vanquish enemies, lead the free world, comfort tornado victims, heal the national soul and protect borrowers from hidden credit-card fees.
Few presidents over the past hundred years have been adept at keeping spending within limits. Presidents who promised to rein in spending had difficulty controlling budgets. The long-term historical pattern has been for the nation to have moderate surpluses except during recessions or wars, and this pattern lasted until the 1980s. Reagan increased substantial deficits without a recession or war, and budget deficits as a percentage of the GDP climbed from 1.6% in 1979 to 4.0% to 6.0% for most of the 1980s, although there was a four-year period of surpluses beginning 1998 during the tenures of Clinton and Bush. After 9/11, spending returned under Bush and remained high. In 2009, the budget office estimated total federal debt would reach $12 trillion, including interest payments of $565 billion, or 4 percent of GDP. In the first decade of 2000, $632 billion was added to the budget. In 2009, the United States may be forced to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next ten years, according to one estimate. A critic and senator warned this "clearly creates a scenario where the country's going to go bankrupt. Obama inherited a budget deficit in 2009 of a staggering 10% of GDP. The high levels of federal employment brought about by Roosevelt's New Deal have held steady relative to increased economic output and population. In 1962, for example, there were 13.3 federal civilian employees in the executive branch per 1,000 population, while in 2007 there were only 8.7, an increase of about 151,000 employees. From 1962 to 2007, the total number of federal civilian executive branch employees increased by 6.1% while the population increased by 61.7%. However, in the same period, the number of employees in state and local governments almost tripled.
No comments:
Post a Comment