The Limits of Presidential Powers in the United States Under the Constitution - Essay Example

What Do You Think Are the Limits of Presidential Powers in the United s Under the Constitution? Introduction The United s government basically operates under a Presidential system, where the President is the head of the state. Among the nations of the world, the US was the first to adopt this kind of government system. Borne of the US’s status as the superpower nation, the US President is subsequently regarded as the most powerful person in the world, thus has earned the fame for the past and current US Presidents. Under the US Constitution, the President also acts as the chief executive of the federal government, as well as the commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces which now includes the navy, likewise to make foreign treaties, and to recommend legislation to the Congress. Although vested with a great deal of authority, the President’s legislative and governmental powers have limits. Limits to the US Presidential powers are basically outlined in the supreme law of the land, which is the US Constitution, specifically stipulated under Articles I, II and III. However, these stipulations have been subject to several interpretations resulting to opposing views and opinions. Outgoing President Bush’s administration, alleged to have gone beyond the Constitutional limits of his power regarding foreign relations (e.g. Iraq war policy) was the subject of much debates in recent times. This paper tackles this interesting and significant issue of the limits of the US Presidential powers. In the controversial power of the president as the Chief Executive, the opposing views and opinions will be presented as a matter of explanation. Limits of the US President’s Power The United States Constitution, being the supreme law of the land provides for the framework by which the nation shall be governed, stipulating the three branches of governance: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches. These three branches have separate powers, to ensure check and balance which is an important and indispensable element of good governance. Article II, Sections 1-4, outlines the power, duties, responsibilities, term and other such pertinent details of the Executive Branch which is headed by the President. From the said article, the limits to the power of the US President can be culled out, as follows: The president’s legislative power is limited only to advocacy as well as to provide advise for legislation. Nonetheless, only the congress can write it. On his role in shaping the legislation, the president is unable to directly commence and introduce the legislation. The president can elect and allow a member of the Congress to present the law for both houses of the Congress, since the executive branch cannot hold a seat in the congress at the same time. In general, the president’s role and duty is to implement the law given in the constitution and written by the congress, and ascertain that the law is faithfully performed. Despite his inability to legislate or participate actively in the legislation of bills, the president can exercise his veto power to any bill that he opposes. However, this presidential veto power is not without limits, because it is still limited by and subject to the consent of the Congress, which can overrule it through two-thirds or majority vote (Article I, section 7). This has usually been the bottleneck of legislation. The president’s responsibility to represent the country and to enter into treaties with other countries is also limited, since the Senate necessarily deliberate on these treaties and either consent on the president entering them, or advice him against it. In other words, the president cannot just enter any foreign treaty without the Senate approving it through a simple majority vote. This is a necessary process in the interest of check and balance, to ensure that the president does not compromise the interest of the country, among other reasons. Likewise, the president’s power to create a cabinet, and appoint ambassadors and judges of the federal court system is also subject to the Senate’s approval. Of the many roles and responsibilities inherent of the office, the President being the Commander In Chief of the US Army and Navy, as well as the militia of the states as provided in Article II, section 2, has been the subject of debates especially in recent years. Terrorist attacks like the September 11 have changed the landscape of military governance in the US. Understandably, swift actions out of quick decisions were needed in emergency cases such as the September 11 was. However, then President George W. Bush’s unilateral actions – taking the US into two wars without congressional approval, ordering detention of suspected terrorists even without trials or charges, as well as pulling the country out of longstanding agreements such as the Kyoto protocol – was believed by some critics to be against the Constitution. On the other hand, there are also some who say that Bush did not violate the Constitution, instead, he was in line with it like many other presidents in history. The first argument that Bush’s actions were against the constitution is anchored on the Constitutional provision in Article I, section 1 which provides for the Congress to have the sole power to create the military, enact relevant rules to govern the military, and the conduct of war. Given this constitutional provision, one can readily say that indeed, it was not within Bush’s presidential powers to do what he did, and therefore, did in fact violate the Constitution. The second argument is that Bush did not violate the Constitution but in fact was acting in line with it. According to Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, in an article in Legal Affairs (Nov. 14, 2005), the Congress does not necessarily have to pre-approve the President’s decisions regarding hostilities or wars. History has shown that the US has often been in military hostilities sans declaration of war. Yoo further writes that this does not mean, however, that the presidential power in this case is not limited. It still is, as the Congress can still decide against supporting the President’s foreign policy (e.g., hostility towards Iraq, etc.) by not approving the budget allocation for such. In this case, the President cannot really force the release of funds without Congressional approval. Conclusion The United States Constitution has sufficient provisions to define the limits to the presidential power. Interpretations may vary, invoking some technical arguments while others may use historical precedents. Whatever the arguments may be, the bottomline is that the office is not without boundaries, its actions and decisions are not without parameters. And this fact should always be remembered by any US president, in the interest of good governance. Works Cited http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presidential+Powers What are the Limits of Presidential Power? A debate between John C. Yoo and Neil J. Kinkopf. Legal Affairs Magazine. November 14, 2005. Retrieved online Dec. 9, 2008. http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_presidentialpower1105.msp Read More