The Relationship between the President of United States of America and Congress - Coursework Example

Political Science - The Government and Politics of the USA United s of America is considered as a paradise of democracy. Freedom has always beenworshiped in America and democracy assured that freedom for the Americans. Fostering of democracy is subject to the presence of a well-developed political system and the political system of USA is considered at its pinnacle of development. The President of America is the most important political individual within the realm of USA. (Hart, 2003, p.169) However in USA’s political system the President shares power with the Congress. (Owens, 2003, p.190) The relationship between the President of United States of America and the Congress lies at the centre point of American politics. These two political bodies are individually most prominent and important in USA politics. Being two power centres, conflict among them can easily result into anarchy, poor governance and gradual breaking of the democratic system of America. Owing to such mismatch in consent the political agents might find themselves in a situation of deadlock with none of the two bodies are willing to offer another any momentary advantage. Therefore mutual understanding and cooperation between these two political entities is much sought after in American Constitution. Scholars like Bowels has noted the importance of this relation and commented “The Presidency’s single most important political relationship is that with Congress.” (Bowles, 1993, p.117) The Congress and the President crosses their way regrading several political junctures. First of all the Congress can either accept or deny any potential presidential authorisation. Secondly the Congress has to back the President’s nominees for the Supreme Court. (Smith, Roberts, & Wielen, 2007, p. 324) Thirdly regarding all the legislative initiatives on behalf of the President; he must come into political association with the Congress. (Bardes, Shelley, & Schmidt, 2008, pp.383-384) The President has well and clearly constitutionally defined rights regarding his relation with Congress. However the Congress not only has the ceremonial power to call it a no to the President, it often does so in reality. (Owens, 2003, p. 190) It is important for the President to maintain a very good relation with Congress, other wise some major functions of the President might get to cease. Firstly the Congress might interfere into Presidential authorisations and stop it from passing at its very root. Secondly approval of the Congress related to any bill and appointment recommended by the President is immensely necessary. Otherwise the concerned bill or appointment might not get validation and materialise. Congress might also step back from supporting the Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. These functions and rights of the President if stopped from operating efficiently and without friction then the USA Democratic operation would be at a stake. Article I section 7 and article II section 3 has defined the relation between the USA President and the Congress. Article I section 7 provides the President with the power of veto. Any legislation can not become any sort of law unless the President signs it. A legislation presented to the President by the Congress if subject to his disliking might attract his veto. This stands for that the legislation has not been liked by the President and can not be accepted unless some necessary amendments are made. The Congress has only one way to get it accepted in its original form; it has to arrange a two-third majority at the Congress in favour of the original legislation. (Bowles, 1993, p.119; Vile, 2010, p. 36) Article II Section 3 on the other hand equips the President with a power of recommendation to the congress regarding measures that “he shall judge necessary and expedient.” (Vile, 2010, p.70) This particular power determines the Presidential leadership of Congress in terms of tactical and strategic sense. Hence President can determine the priorities among different options and thereby choose among them. (Bowles, 1993, p.119) An interesting feature of USA’s democracy is that the President can express his own views both in private and in public without the approval of the Congress. On the other for the Congress it is not mandatory to forward their unconditional support and approval to any views of the President. This reflects the fact that the representative of the people always has the right to reject the view of the most important individual of the country. This is in true form a mark of most developed democracy. Any conflict between the two at an unprecedented level and in public would eventually tarnish the image of both. The same had happened following the Lewinsky affair that left both Clinton and the Congress at a stake in public view. The use of mentioned articles as a source of special power is also carefully thought and opted when no other avenues are left to follow. Bill Clinton did use his Presidential veto against the Republican’s fiscal year budget that was seeking for a reduction in expenditure for environmental, educational, Medicare and welfare programmes. (Thurber, 2006, p. 8; Mckay, 2009, p. 240) On the other hand though Congress is capable of refusing Presidential recommendations yet in reality it seldom chooses an out and out refusal; rather it resorts to moderation of the recommendations to avoid any direct conflict with the President. It is believed that close coordination between these two most important bodies and harmony in operation in front of public ensures optimum result in terms of reputation for both the bodies. Yet over the history USA witnessed several not so friendly situations between the President and the Congress. The Great Reform bills of Lyndon Johnson were accepted by the congress only after much debate. Nixon was never renowned for his good relations with congress and experienced hardship while seeking to them for a funding expansion for Vietnam War. Kennedy got a Democrat dominated congress yet his recommendations were mostly put to grave in the Congress. The same is almost true for Carter who’s 1970’s bill of recommendation regarding USA’s energy sector reform in line with the environmental movement though finally came out of the Congress but the amended recommendations were anything but what Carter recommended. (Bowles, 1993, pp.117-118) For Clinton his health reform bill was turn down in 1993-94 by the congress, which was overwhelmingly Democrat in terms of majority. (Vile, 2010, pp.199-203; Conley, 2003, pp. 154-159) This reflects the presence of regionalism in American politics and shows same party as President and enjoying domination in Congress does not always bring any substantial change in the scenario. The congress members are often backed by regional interest and that is justified since they have to assure their win in election and unless they look after local interest the people has no reason to send them back again in congress. A policy or recommendation that is good at national level might not always hold the same potential at local level and eventually gets opposed by different congress members. Another interesting fact is that Republican Presidents fared better with a Democrat majority congress than vice versa. Ronald Regan through out his tenure as the President of USA has to deal with a divided house of Congress, yet in terms of legislation he is considered as one of the most successful of the Presidents. Regan became the President of USA during the cold war and carefully played the card of patriotism against USSR. This was clever since his urge for an increased finance for his stand against USSR and a rise in military expenditure met with minimal opposing force from the fellow politicians associated with Congress. This was so since any opposition of his policy might get considered at the end as a soft corner towards communism. Often before considering a Presidential recommendation the Congress takes into account the public sentiment regarding the issue. It ensures that its action should not harm its impression to the public and to the greater global community. This particular strategy was deployed by the Congress while providing approval for a military budget rise during the Bush administration. At that time the notion of the American people and the broader global community was profoundly in favour of the Bush’s much acclaimed global war against terrorism; disapproval of the budget extension would only portray the congress as passive against terrorism. (The President and Congress, 2010) However a changing environment had also witnessed a withdrawal of support of Congress regarding expansion of military expenditure in no time. It is quite clear by now that success or failure of the relation between the USA President and the Congress is an individualistic rather than holistic phenomenon. Far from being universal the relation is subject to the participation of a particular President along with a particular Congress body. In some cases the Presidents have been helped by the presence of a particular sentiment or political environment in passing their legislation through Congress; such as Regan and Junior Bush. It should also be kept in mind that the Constitution of USA has divided the executive and legislative branches of the government with the President bereft of any power to command the Congress. Adding to the problem none of the Presidential staffs are members of the legislative. All of his political appointments are outside the Federal bureaucracy. According to the Constitution the Congress is free to respond to any Presidential recommendation as well, so it is not mandatory. Facing this situation the President is left with only one option; to maintain a good relation with the Congress and to negotiate with them in order to persuade the Congress along his preferred line. However apart from the intelligence of the President and positive political will on behalf of both President and four other factors are also responsible for a successful relationship between these two political identities. It is apparent that the President of United States of America is left with three means namely clear agenda setting, recommendation and lobbying to maintain a good relationship with Congress. However individually it’s not possible for him to attain that and he has to appoint a group of Presidential staff that can look after his relation with Congress and can ease retaliatory effect or actions if any on behalf of the same. The efficiency of these staffs regarding optimisation of time and figuring out the right opportunity for any recommendation to the Congress is immensely important to pave a smooth successful relation between the President and the Congress. Their capability of identifying the hurdles that lay in front regarding each particular recommendation and identification of possible way of avoiding these hurdles are also very important in terms of ensuring a positive relation between the President and the Congress. These staffs also try to form a friendly relation with those Congressmen who are against the recommendation; this also often marginalizes opposition. Coordinating the lobbying across the entire administration so that the President’s goals and objectives gets priorities over narrow individualistic goals is also another important move that these staffs have to assure for a good and successful relation between these two political agents. The congressional relations staffs of the President conveys the President’s view to the congress and tries to identify problems if any regarding a recommendation in any house of the congress. They also present Congress’s viewpoint and feelings regarding any recommendation to the President. Successful attainment of this would ensure harmony and coordination between these two. (Bowles, 1993, pp.119-120) The division of power between the President and the Congress stops either of them to become an autocrat. This division reflects the true essence of democracy. However this also involves more time in passing the legislation and the possibility of petty politics while policy making. Theoretically what is true gets mostly washed away in reality. A turbulent relation between the President and the Congress will erode the country of time and resource and USA will become internationally vulnerable facing a decision making bottleneck. Substantial flexibility added with positive political will and patriotism over politics holds the key for future successful relation between these two most powerful political identities of America. References 1. Bowles, N. (1993), The government and politics of the United States, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, England 2. Vile, J.R. (2010), A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments, ABC-CLIO 3. Hart, J. (2003), “The Presidency”, In, Singh, R. Governing America: The Politics of a Divided Democracy, Oxford University Press 4. Owens, J.E. (2003), “Congress”, In, Singh, R. Governing America: The Politics of a Divided Democracy, Oxford University Press 5. Smith, S.S., Roberts, J.M. & R.J.V. Wielen, (2007), The American Congress, Cambridge University Press. 6. Bardes, B.A., Shelley, M.C. & S.W. Schmidt, (2008), American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials, Cengage Learning. 7. Thurber, J.A. (2006), Rivals for Power, Rowman & Littlefield. 8. Mckay, D. (2009), American Politics and Society, Wiley-Blackwell. 9. Vile, M.J.C. (1999), Politics in USA, Routledge, London. 10. Conley, R.S. (2003), The presidency, Congress, and divided government, Texas A&M University Press 11. The President and Congress, (2010), History Learning Site, available at: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/pres2.htm (accessed on November 30, 2010) Read More