30 Markers
Evaluate the view that Presidents have been imperial since 1992 / that there is now an imperial
presidency?
Arthur Schlesinger brought about this idea in his 1973 book, 'The Imperial Presidency'. An 'imperial'
President refers to when a President misuses their presidential powers - such as ignoring
Congressional oversight (despite Congress and President being ''coequal''), or breaching the limits
set by the Constitution. This was aimed at Kennedy, Johnson, and especially Nixon with Watergate
(who openly used executive branch law enforcement agencies to attack his political opponents and
cover up his supporters' criminal activities). Arguably, it was revived with Bush - whose
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 without support of UN/US' allies - or the Trump
administration's "America First" foreign policy. However, after the passage of the War Powers Act
and in the post-imperial era of Ford and Carter, arguably presidents have become more 'imperilled'.
Their presidencies were characterised by ineffectiveness and weakness, resulting from
congressional over assertiveness and not allowing them control over an increasingly large complex
executive branch. Therefore, although the President can be seen as the 'most powerful man in the
world', he is not just 'imperial'. This fluctuates (cyclical nature of power - after a powerful president
follows one severely limited by Congress e.g. 'Imperial' Nixon, imperilled Ford and Carter, 'imperial'
Regan etc) so the idea of 'imperial' is over blown, and it can be seen there is an 'imperilled'
presidency - especially in this current era of hyper-partisanship where polarised parties refuse to
work together, especially with a divided government in Congress, and low approval ratings.
FOREIGN = The president appears most imperial in his Constitutional (Article 2 Section 2 gives)
power of commander in chief, which alongside his power of being the head-of-state and
diplomat-in-chief, provides for substantial power in controlling foreign policy and relations.
Historically, this power was checked by Congress who constitutionally had the power to declare
war, as well as ratify treaties by a 2/3 majority in the Senate. However they have not declared war
since 1941, despite being involved in numerous conflicts such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos,
suggesting that this check on presidential power has been rendered useless. It gives the President
sole authority of nuclear weapons (e.g. Trump / tensions with North Korea) and considerable
unilateral war making powers - without consulting Congress or facing accountability. This is
especially true post 9/11 where Congress passed the Patriot Act 2002 (giving the president
sweeping phone tapping powers) and the Authorisation for Use of Military Force 2001 (to give the
president broader powers to combat terrorism), and almost always defers to the president. For
example, Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden without Congressional approval & Libya 2011, or
Trump’s attempts at forcing Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son by holding back military aid may
also be seen as imperial & link to world leaders to help his business, and in 2020 Biden withdrew
troops from Afghanistan without congressional approval. However, the President's war powers are
limited. Although they are particularly powerful over short-term action, longer term action is more
easily regulated by Congress (who the Constitution gives the power to declare war to) and this was
enhanced by the War Powers Act (1973). Congress passed this in response to the Vietnam War to
reassert itself, requiring the President to notify Congress on military action, unless under national
emergency, and troops must be withdrawn within 60 days if they don't agree on actions taken. This
is why presidents mostly seek approval even if there’s no formal declaration of war. For example,
military action in both vote on Iraq (2003 - Bush) and Afghanistan (2001 - Bush) was authorised by
Congress. Likewise, in 2013 Obama was limited as he did not get approval for an attack on Syria
after there was clear evidence for their use of chemical weapons; in 2020 the House passed
restrictions on Trump in reaction to the assassination of Iran’s general. Not just Congress
limitations but SC has ruled against President's excessive power in war too - like Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) they ruled against President Harry Truman's seizure of steel
mills during the Korean War, or Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) ruled that Bush did not have the
authority to establish military commissions to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay without
authorization from Congress. While the attempts to limit the international power of the president
suggests elements of the ‘imperial presidency’ still exist in the post-imperial era, overall the
Congressional limitations on war powers suggests the president is not imperial.
,DOMESTIC = Presidents have increasingly used unilateral actions to enact their agenda
domestically, by-passing congress - including presidential vetoes, signing statements, and
executive orders. Although Wildavsky put forward the theory of the dual presidency, which
involves a president that is strong abroad and weak at home, the increased use of these suggests
that the president is imperial in domestic policy as well. Presidents are able to use their informal
power of executive orders in ways which have been seen as imperial. For example, Obama used
executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay after 2 days in office (41 prisoners there at the end of
his presidency, 250 at the start) and implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act /
Obamacare & on guns. Ted Cruz thought this was an executive overreach as it violated the
separation of powers. In turn, Trump used executive orders to reverse parts of Obamacare, to build
the border wall, and his 12 in the first week included withdrawing USA from Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Similarly, in his first 100 days in office, Biden signed more than 60 executive actions
(more than Trump who was accused of abusing this power did), 24 of which are direct reversals of
Trump’s policies. Therefore, President's can be seen as imperial as they can be seen as effectively
creating new policy without the need for a congressional vote. Similarly, presidents have
increasingly made use of signing statements, which arguably take the form of line-item vetoes,
enabling them to only enforce aspects of legislation which they like and leave out sections that
infringe on their authority. For example, Obama issued a signing statement questioning the
constitutionality of one aspect of a bill, arguing that he would only enforce it when it didn’t conflict
with his role as commander-in-chief - like in 2014 on the National Defense Authorization Act, where
he expressed reservations about certain provisions related to the detention of Guantanamo Bay
prisoners. Finally, presidents also have the power of the presidential veto, which have only been
overturned by congress a total of 111 times (8%), meaning that they effectively allow the president
to prevent certain legislation, despite it passing through congress successfully. Thus, clearly, all of
these domestic powers form a powerful argument to suggest that the president is imperial in regard
to domestic policy. However, there are limits on these unilateral powers. Signing statements only
function for the president who signs them, and it isn’t necessary for their successor to apply the
same interpretation. The presidential veto can still be overridden by a 2/3 congress majority,
allowing bills with bipartisan support to still pass - like Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow 9/11
victims to sue the Saudi Arabia government was overridden. Most importantly, executive orders
mostly only last as long as the president is in power, for example Reagan's Mexico City Policy
restricting support to organisations which give abortion advice - which was stopped by Clinton,
reinstated by Bush, stopped by Obama, reinstated by Trump, and then stopped again by Biden.
Similarly, their executive orders can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and
struck down - as seen with Obama's DAPA in 2016. Furthermore, executive orders are a sign that
presidents are facing problems with Congress and trying to persuade them, generally in divided
government - which Obama and Trump were in - showing overall they are not an indication of
imperial power.
STRUCTURALLY = The president can also be seen as imperial due to structural changes to the
presidency. Particularly the creation of the Executive Office of the President and the increase of
staff & new executive agencies - like Obama in 2013 creating the White House Council on Native
American Affairs or Trump stopping this council and in 2016 creating the Office of Innovation. Most
of which is not subject to Senate appointments approval and allows the president to appoint trusted
advisers (rather than Cabinet). For example, even family - Trump appointed his daughter Ivanka's
husband Jared Kushner as a senior advisor - or appointed oily/gas lobbyists & climate change
deniers like Soctt Pruitt as head of the Environment Protection Agency. This reduces accountability
created by the Constitution through the Checks and Balances. Furthermore, resources such as the
CIA and the National Security Council (coordinating all aspects of national security) means the
President has a key advantage over Congress as they have access to classified information - which
Congress finds difficult to review or argue with, and their organisational structure makes them ill
suited to make swift ad-hoc decisions decisively. For example, Clinton used this to justify bombing
Iraq, and Trump used these advantages to call immigration across the Mexican border an
emergency which gave him access to military funds. Overall, then the President can be seen as
imperial as the size of the executive has increased - especially in foreign policy - making it hard for
their power to be checked. However, the president is also structurally limited by Congress. Firstly,
they have expertise in foreign affairs in Congressional committees that receive sensitive information
- like the House Intelligence Committee, or the US committee on foreign affairs has included many
senators with huge experience who have greater knowledge of a policy than presidents e.g. Biden
, and John Kerry in the past. And 'power of the purse' to determine funding to the President - for
example, withdrawing funding for military involvement in Bosnia which forced Clinton to withdraw
troops in 1995, or in 2019 HoR blocking a $8.1 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and UAE. Similarly,
they are in control of authorising government spending and the executive budget, which they can
block from being approved - most notably in 2019 Congress did not agree with Trump that $5.7
billion to be spent on his border wall resulting in a government shutdown for 34 days, the longest in
history. Therefore, President's are still subject to legal and political constraints, and it is clear that
Congress can limit and influence the President in both domestic and foreign policy decisions. This
is especially true in this current era of political polarisation and congressional gridlock, where the
President cannot pass laws as there is no political consensus and do no more than implore and
comment - especially under Obama who after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting tried to strengthen
gun laws proposing a bill to expand background checks, but it failed to overcome a Senate filibuster
as Republicans and NRA opposed it. We can conclude then that the President is not fully imperial,
as Congress creates a balance of power and in some cases even fully limits Presidents in getting
the domestic/foreign agenda through.
- Lame duck/weakened power e.g. end of Obama's term as he struggled getting things past
Republicans BUT legacy building - pushed for the ratification of the Paris Agreement on
climate change & 142 pardons in last week
- Size of the electoral victory = Trump didn't win the popular vote, made it harder for him
- National events can make approval worse ^ - Bush had high after 9/11 at the start &
Obama had to deal with Tea Party & even when he had unified gov he couldn't convince his
party of Gunatanamo
- Congress - power of committees, to impeach, reject/support nominations in Cabinet + SC
etc
Evaluate the view that the President's control over foreign policy is their most significant
power. (Mock)
Argument = Foreign policy is their most significant power
FOREIGN = The President's most significant power is their control over foreign policy - which is
especially true through their Constitutional (Article 2 Section 2 gives) power of commander in chief,
which alongside his power of being the head-of-state and diplomat-in-chief, provides for substantial
power in controlling foreign policy and relations. On one hand, these war powers can be seen as
limited. Although they are particularly powerful over short-term action, longer term action is more
easily regulated by Congress (who the Constitution gives the power to declare war to) and this was
enhanced by the War Powers Act (1973). Congress passed this in response to the Vietnam War to
reassert itself, requiring the President to notify Congress on military action, unless under national
emergency, and troops must be withdrawn within 60 days if they don't agree on actions taken. This
is why presidents mostly seek approval even if there’s no formal declaration of war. For example,
military action in both Iraq (2003 - Bush) and Afghanistan (2001 - Bush) was authorised by
Congress. Likewise, in 2013 Obama was limited as he did not get approval for an attack on Syria
after there was clear evidence for their use of chemical weapons; in 2020 the House passed
restrictions on Trump in reaction to the assassination of Iran’s general. They also have 'power of
the purse' to determine funding to the President - for example, withdrawing funding for military
involvement in Bosnia which forced Clinton to withdraw troops in 1995, or in 2019 HoR blocking a
$8.1 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and UAE. Furthermore, the Senate has to ratify treaties e.g.
blocking Obama's UN disability treaty. Thus, Congressional limitations on war powers suggests the
president is not imperial. However, although historically this power was checked by Congress who
constitutionally had the power to declare war, as well as ratify treaties by a 2/3 majority in the
Senate. However they have not declared war since 1941, despite being involved in numerous
conflicts such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, suggesting that this check on presidential power
has been rendered useless. It gives the President sole authority of nuclear weapons (e.g. Trump /
tensions with North Korea) and considerable unilateral war making powers - without consulting
Congress or facing accountability. This is especially true post 9/11 where Congress passed the
Patriot Act 2002 (giving the president sweeping phone tapping powers) and the Authorisation for
Use of Military Force 2001 (to give the president broader powers to combat terrorism), and almost
always defers to the president. For example, Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden without
, Congressional approval & Libya 2011 + 2014 airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or in 2020
Biden withdrew troops from Afghanistan without congressional approval. This power is also
increased by resources such as the CIA and the National Security Council (coordinating all
aspects of national security) which means the President has access to classified information -
which Congress finds difficult to review or argue with - e.g. Clinton used this to justify bombing Iraq,
or Trump used it to call immigration across the Mexican border an emergency which gave him
access to military funds. Furthermore, they also have informal relationships with foreign policy
leaders - like Bush and Blair, or Trump's summit meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un,
driven by their personal relationships. Therefore, it is clear that the President's foreign policy power
is immensely strong and arguably their most significant power.
DOMESTIC = Although Wildavsky put forward the theory of the dual presidency, which involves a
president that is strong abroad in foreign policy and weak at home, the increased use of informal
powers of unilateral actions like executive orders and agreements suggests that the president's
control over domestic policy is just as significant. Presidents can name treaties “agreements” to
bypass the need for congressional approval - for example Clinton's NAFTA in everything but name
was a treaty, or Obama's Iran nuclear & paris climate change executive agreement 2015. More
importantly, they can use executive orders. For example, Obama used executive orders to
implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare. Ted Cruz thought this was an
executive overreach as it violated the separation of powers. In turn, Trump used executive orders to
reverse parts of Obamacare, to build the border wall, tried to construct the Keystone oil pipeline
(would have gone through indigenous lands, which is significant considering he didn’t appoint
anyone to the White House Council on Native American Affairs) and 12 in the first week included
withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Similarly, in his first 100 days in office,
Biden signed more than 60 executive actions (more than Trump who was accused of abusing this
power did), 24 of which are direct reversals of Trump’s policies. Therefore, presidents can be seen
as having strong control over domestic power as they can create new policy without the need for a
congressional vote. So arguably their control over domestic policy is greater as unlike foreign policy
- where the president must often navigate complex international relations, engage with diplomatic
channels, and consider the interests of multiple nations - the power to issue executive orders allows
the president to directly shape domestic policy without extensive external constraints. However,
there are significant limits on president's unilateral powers. Most importantly, executive orders
mostly only last as long as the president is in power, for example Reagan's Mexico City Policy
restricting support to organisations which give abortion advice - which was stopped by Clinton,
reinstated by Bush, stopped by Obama, reinstated by Trump, and then stopped again by Biden.
Similarly, their executive orders can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and struck
down - as seen with Obama's DAPA in 2016, or Trump's initial travel ban executive orders in 2017.
Furthermore, executive orders are a sign that presidents are facing problems with Congress,
generally in divided government - which Obama and Trump were in, showing overall that the
President's struggle to control domestic policy as well as foreign policy. Executive orders' temporary
nature and susceptibility to legal challenges shows the limitations of presidential power in this
domain, whereas the president's control over foreign policy has more long-lasting consequences
that transcend their term in office - shaping international relations, the nation's image on the world
stage, and impacting national security.
LEGISLATIVE = However, the President's control over legislative agenda setting and informal
role as 'Chief legislator' can be seen as their most significant power - 40-60% of legislation passed
by congress is the president’s legislation. As a single executive office holder who is nationally
elected, the president is in a strong position to claim a national mandate and legitimacy to set the
national policy agenda. This was especially seen with Trump who got populist support and the
mandate received made it easier for him to ensure that Congress debated his political priorities, like
immigration, in 2017, OR Biden who received over 81 million votes surpassing the previous record
set by Barack Obama in 2008. President's have the power to veto bills proposed by Congress
(Obama used 12 - and even though president's haven't used many in recent years, the threat is
powerful in itself) or pocket vetoes at the end of a congressional session, submit the annual
budget, sign legislation (Trump signed the COVID relief bill despite criticising it and threatening
veto), and most importantly propose legislation in their state of the union addresses to direct
Congress measures they want to be put into law - like Obama with gun control, Trump for building
the wall, and Biden on codifying Roe v Wade. This is enhanced by their informal 'powers of
