‘In 1973 Schlesinger argued the modern presidency was imperial’ To what extent do you
agree that the presidency since 1993 has been ‘imperial’?
The term ‘Imperial Presidency’ was first used by Arthur Schlesinger in 1973, which described
a presidency which was characterised by the misuse of presidential powers, specifically
within foreign policy and congress. Contrasted to this, the term ‘Imperilled presidency’ was
coined by President Ford which is a presidency of ineffectiveness and weakness, resulting in
over-assertiveness. Between the terms ‘imperial’ and ‘imperilled’ there is also ‘post- imperial
presidency’ which can be viewed as an attempt of assertiveness but ultimate failure due to
the new era of hyper-partisanship. In this essay, I will be evaluating the presidents’ since
1993 within the categories of foreign policy, legislative success, and appointment powers,
and come to the conclusion that the majority of Presidents have wielded enormous amounts
of unrestricted and unrestrained power, making them imperial and the executive a tyrannical
and all powerful branch of government.
Foreign policy is a key role for the executive, and arguably they do not have an excess of
power within this criterion due to significant checks and balances. Congress imposes several
checks and balances on the president to prevent them from attaining too much power in the
foreign policy field. This is evident from the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, which
means that the president must notify congress within 48 hours of committing the armed
forces into military action, and the armed forces are forbidden from remaining for more than
60 days. Although this was clearly made before 1993, this Act has been invoked numerous
times since its passage, including conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq and Syria. For example, in 2013,
Obama had to ask congress for approval preceding military action in Syria. This displays a
limit on the president's power to engage in military action. In addition to this, due to Article 1
Section 9 of the Constitution, The House of Representatives has the ‘Power of the Purse’
which means the house can effectively limit the president’s ability to carry out foreign policy
initiatives. This can be seen when in 2019, the House utilised this power to restrict US
military support for Saudi Arabia’s actions in the conflict in Yemen. These key examples and
enumerated powers can clearly display that for foreign policy, presidents are not imperial.
Despite this, there is overwhelming evidence displaying that for foreign policy, the majority of
Presidents have had the power to act imperially. Presidents often do not ask Congress to
declare war and may avoid asking Congress to authorise military action. Presidents Clinton,
Obama and Trump have all bypassed Congress and behaved in a unilateral fashion with
regard to military action. For example, President Obama exerted unilateral power in the
military campaign in Libya in 2011, which was conducted without congressional
authorisation. In addition to this, in 2017 Trump launched the Shayrat missile strike against
the Syrian government, and an airstrike assassination of Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
This was sanctioned without Congressional authorization or consultation. As well as that, in
1994, Clinton was prepared to launch an invasion of Haiti without congressional permission.
The war powers resolution is undoubtedly an ineffective check on the president’s foreign
policy powers. The war powers resolution can, and has been, vetoed in certain instances.
For example, President Trump in May 2020 vetoed the Iran War Powers Resolution, which
would have limited the President’s ability to wage war on Iran. Congress may be reluctant to
challenge the president’s foreign policy decisions for fear of being seen as weak on national
security issues or risking a backlash from the general public, which gives even more
evidence to show how presidents are allowed to act imperially on foreign issues.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the power of the purse is clearly an ineffective check as it
