Unit 5 Ch.14 Test

discuss in detail the office of the president and how it has changed over time

- 1857: president has private secretary that is paid - 1901: president given a Secret Service bodyguard - 1921: submit a single presidential budget - White House staff has grown significantly - additionally, opportunities for presidential appointments to the cabinet, courts, and various agencies and the resources at the disposal of the president would appear to be awesome - conclusion is partly true and false - if president was helpless for lack of assistance, he now confronts an army of assistants so large that it constitutes a bureaucracy he has a difficulty controlling - ability of president to assist is governed by rule of convenience - power is wielded by people in the room when a decision is made - appointment are classified in terms of their proximity, physical and political to the president

discuss in detail the positions within the executive office of the president and examples of them

- agencies in Executive Office report directly to president and perform staff services for him but are not located in office itself - their members may or not enjoy intimate contact with him - top positions in organizations are filled by presidential appointment - principle agencies: - Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - Director of National Intelligence (DNI) - Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) - Office of Personnel Management (OPM) -Office of the U.S. Trade Representative - Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is quite possibly most important - analyze figured that go each year into national budget submitted to Congress - studies organization and operations of executive branch, devises plans for reorganizing various departments and agencies develops ways of getting better info about government programs and reviews proposals

discuss historical examples of the veto as outlined in the notes

- 1996: Congress passed a bill, which the president signed into law; that gives gives president the power of "enhanced recession", which means the president could cancel parts of a spending bill passed by Congress without vetoing the entire bill - president had 5 days after signing bil to send message to Congress rescinding some parts of what he signed; recessions would take effect unless Congress, by 2/3 vote, overturned them - Congress could choose which parts of president's cancellations it wanted to overturn - SC decided that this law is unconstitutional' Constitution gives president no such power to carve up a bill; president must either sign the whole bill, veto the whole bill, or allow it to become a law without his signature - from Washington to Clinton, over 2500 presidential vetoes were cast; about 4% were overriden - Cleveland, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower made most extensive use of vetoes, accounting for 65% of all vetoes ever cast - W. Bush did not veto single bill in first term

discuss in detail historical examples of president transition due to death, resignation, or health (unfit to serve)

- 8 presidents died in office - of those 8, 4 were assasinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy - Nixon resigned - Ford became president

explain in detail executive privilege and the historical examples that accompany it

- Constitution says nothing about whether the president is obliged to divulge private communications between himself and his principal advisers, but presidents have acted as if they do have that privelage of confidentiality - claim on 2 grounds: 1. doctrine of separation of powers means that one branch of government does not gave right to inquire into internal workings of another branch headed by constitutionally named officers 2. principles of statecraft and of prudent administration rewure that president have right to obtain confidential and candid advice from subordinates - 1974, SC for first time met issue directly - federal special prosecutor sought tape recordings of White House conversations between Nixon and his advisers as part of investigation of Watergate scandal - in case of U.S. v. Nixon, SC held that while there may be sound basis for claim of executive privilege, there is no "absolute unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" - Nixon ordered to hand over tapes and papers to judge - 1997 and 1998, Clinton was sued while in office by private person Paula Jones, who claimed he had solicited sex from her in ways that hurt her rep - lawyers attempted to claim executive privilege for Secret Service officers and government-paid lawyers who worked with him, but courts held that not only could a president be sued, but other officials could not claim executive privilege

identify/discuss historical examples of gridlock and unified government and how those examples accurately represent each concept

- Dem president Johnson couldn't get many Dem members of Congress to support war policy in Vietnam - Dem Carter couldn't get Dem-controlled Senate to ratify strategic arms limitation treaty - Dem Clinton couldn't get Dem Congress to go along with his policy on gays in military or his health proposals - accurately represent gridlock in unified governments because even though both branches of government are controlled by the same party, gridlock still exists due to ideological differences

discuss in detail historical scenarios relating to the executive offices

- OMB played major role in advocating policies rather than merely analyzing them starting in Reagan admin - David Stockman (Reagan's OMB director); primary architect of 1981 and 1985 budget cuts proposed by president and enacted by Congress - Mitch Daniels (W. Bush's OMB director); 2001: participated fully in West Wing political strategy sessions - Peter Orzag (Obama's OMB director); 2009; former think tank and university researcher who had served aas economic advisor to Clinton and as budget analyst in Congress, to head of OMB

discuss in detail the differences regarding the selection process of a president/prime minister

- President: popularly elected (American creation) - Democratic alterntive: prime minister chosen by parliament - Prime minister: chief executive chosen by legislature - select other ministers from members of parliament - if parliament only hs 2 major parties, ministers usually will be chosen from majority party - if there are many parties, several parties may participate in coalition cabinet - prime minister remains in power as long as his or her party has majority of seats in legislature or as long as coalition he or she assembled holds together

identify specific historical examples of presidents as outsiders, choosing cabinet members, majority in the legislature, and war responsibilities

- Presidents as Outsiders: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush - Cabinet Members: George W. Bush has 4/15 cabinet members from Congress; rest were personal friends, campaign aides, experts, reps of important blocs, or combo of those - Majority: Kennedy and Clinton's party (Democrats) held big majority in House and Senate, but proposals were still hard to pass in Congress - Roosevelt and Johnson had brief success in leading Congress War Responsibilities: George W. Bush decided to fight in Iraq, had to cajole Congress even though it was controlled by his own party; Tony Blair decided to fight, could not be any meaningful resistance in parlaiment - public opinion turned against Bush, he constinued to fight b/c he couldn't be removed from office; public opinion turned aginst Blair, announced he would resign from office and turn over job of pm to another person of his own party

discuss in detail the significance of the uneventful succession of each president and how that is different from other countries around the world

- Washington limited himself to 2 terms - every president until FDR (1933-1945) served more than 2 (Grant tried) - 1951: 22 amendment passed limiting furture presidents to 2 terms - first situation to evaluate was to establish legitimacy of presidency itself; to ensure, is possible, public acceptance of office, its incumbent, and its powers and to establish an ordlerly transfer of power to nect president - orderly succession of power transfer is unusual - in many nationals, new chief executive comes to power with aid of military force or as result of political intrigue; his predecessor often leaves office disgraced, exiled, or dead - founders could ony hope that an orderly transfer of power from one president to the next would occur

discuss in detail an acting appointee and an example of it

- acting appointment: holds office until Senate acts on his or her nomination - administration officials defend practice as necessary given slow pace of confirmations; senators attack it as an opportunity for president to fill up administration with unconfirmed officals - Ex. 1998: acting officials held 1/5 of all of Clinton admin's cabinet level (or subcabinet) level jobs

discuss in detail the Budget Reform and Impoundment Act of 1974

- among other things, requires president to spend all appropriated funds unless he first tells Congress what funds he wishes not to spend and Congress, wihtin 45 days, agrees ot delete the items - if he wishes simply to delay spending the money, he need only inform Congress, but Congress then can refuse the delay by passing a resolution requiring the immediate release of the money - federal courts have upheld the rule that presidents must spend, without delay for policy reasons, money that Congress has appropriated

describe in detail the Constitution in terms of how it directs/does not direct the President and their powers

- as president, Constitution is not much help in terms of dictating direction - directs you to report on state of union and to reccommend "such measures" as you shall judge "necessary and expedient" - beyond that, you are charged to "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed" - at one time, the demands placed on newly elected presidnet were not very good b/c president was not expected to do very much - speak on a tariff, or relations with England, or the value of veteran's pensions, or the need for civil service reform - was not expected to have something to say or offer everybody; today, he is

discuss in detail/identify examples/define inner cabinet and presidential character

- every president brings distinct personality to White House - public will judge presdient not only in terms of what he accomplished but aso in term of its perception of his character - personality explains presdiency much more than Congress - inner cabinet: the four most important seats in cabinet: secretary of state, treasury, defense, and attorney general Examples - Eisenhower: orderly, military style - Kennedy: bold, articulate, amusing leader who liked to surround himself with talented amatuers - Johnson: master legislative strategist; strength in ability to persuade other politicians in face-to-face encounters - Nixon: highly intelligent with deep knowledge and interest in foreign policy, deep suspicion of media, political rivals, and federal bureaucracy - Ford: genial man who liked talking to people - Carter: outside, voracious reader with wide range of interests and appetite for detail - Reagan: outsider, superb leader of public opinion, "The Great Communicator" - H.W. Bush: hands-on manager, made decisions on behalf of personal connections - Clinton: paid a lot of attention to foreign policy, preferred informal ad hoc, effective speaker who could make almost any idea plausible - W. Bush: outsider, deeply religious, "compassionate conservative" - Obama: electrifying speeches, first African American president

discuss in detail the effect of opinion polls, with historical examples, regarding the presidents and their programs, initiatives, etc.

- every president since FDR has used opinion polls - before polls existed, politicians often believed they should do what they thought public interest required - now, politicians act on the basis of what their constituents wants - polls can also be device for yes picking policy but also deciding what language to use in explaining that policy - choose policy that helps you get reelected but also explain it with poll-tested words - Clinton wanted to keep affirmative action but knew most voters disliked it; used poll-tested phrase "mend it but don't end it" and then did nothing to mend it - president's programm can also be radically altered by dramatic event or prolonged crisis - W. Bush ran as candidate interested in domestic issues and with little background in foreign affairs; but terrorist attack on WTC and Pentagon dramaticaly changed presidency into one preoccupied with foreign and military policy - Obama campaigned against war in Iraq but spent first months of his presidency focused mainly on country's sagging economy

explain in detail impoundment of funds and signing statements and the historical examples that accompany it

- from time to time, presidents have refused to spend money appropriated by Congress - Truman didn't spend all Congress wanted spent on armed forces - Johnson didn't spend all that Congress made available for highway construction - Kennedy refused to spend money appropriated for new weapons system that he did not like - by what has precedent is not thereby constitutional - Constitution is silent on whether presidnet must spend money that Congress appropriates - all it says is that president cannot spend money Congress has not appropriated - major test of presidnetial power in this respect occcurred during Nixon admin - Nixon wished to reduce federal spending - proposed in 1972 that Congress give him power to reduce federal spending so that it would not exceed $250 billion for coming year - Congress, under Dem control, refused - Nixon responded by pocket vetoing 12 spending bills and then impounding funds approproated under other laws that he had not vetoed - Congress reponded by passing Budget Reform Act of 1974, which requires president to spend all appropriated funds unless he first tells Congress what funds he wishes not to spend and Congress, within 45 days, agreed to delete the items; if he wishes simply to delay spending the money, he need only inform Congress, but Congress can then refuse the delay by passing a resolution requiring the immediate release of the money - federal courts have upheld rule that president must send, without delay for policy reasons, money that Congress has appropriated - since at least presidency of James Monroe, the White House has issued statements at the time the president signs a bill that has been passed by Congress - statements have had several purposes - to express presidential attitudes about the law, to tell the executive branch how to implemen it, or to declare that the presidnet thinks some part of the law is unconstitutional - naturally, members of Congress are upset by this practice - to them, signing statement blocks enforcement of law Congress has passed and so it is equivalent to an unconstitutional line-item veto - but presidential advisers have defended these documents, arguing that they not only clarify how the law should be implemented but allow the president to declare what part of the law in his view unconstitutional and thus ought not to be enforced at all - while Supreme Court has allowed signing statements to clarify the unclear legislative intent of law, it has never given clear verdict about the constitutional significance of such documents

discuss how gridlock/representative democracy is conducive to compromise and how it differs with that of a direct democracy

- gridlock causes delays, intensifies deliberations, and forces compromise - can be and is necessary consequence of representative democracy - opposite of direct democracy - president would be traffic cop w/ broad powers to decide in what direction traffic should move and to make sure it moves that way - political gridlocks are like traffic gridlocks where people get overheated and nobody winds except journalists and lobbyists

discuss in detail appointments the president can make (judges, agencies, etc.) and the difference between executive and independent agency

- president can appoint people to four dozen or so agencies and commissions that are not considered part of his cabinet - difference between executive and independent is not necessarily clearly defined - head of executive: serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed at his discretion - independent: serve fixed terms of office and be removed only "for cause" - can also appoint federal judges with confirmation from Senate - serve for life unless removed by impeachment or conviction - special barriers are in place to limit presidential removal power on this independent branch of government

discuss in detail the powers of the president

- has some formidable, albeit vaguely defined, powers - outlined in Article II of Constitution and are of two sorts: those he can exercise in his own right without formal legislative approval and those that require the consent of the Senate or of Congress - taken alone and interpreted narrowly, this list of powers is not very impressive - most of other constitutional grants seem to provide for little more than president who is chief clerk of country - how matters appeared to even most astute observers hundred years after Founding - president might as well be an officer of civil service - to succeed, he need only obey Congress and stay alive - president's authority as commander and chief has grown, especially in but not limited to, wartime to encompass not simply directions of military forces, but also management of the economy and the direction of foreign affairs as well - president's duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" has become one of the most elastic phrases in the Constitution - greatest source of power found not in Constitution, but in public opinion - increasingly since 1930, Congress has passed laws that confer on the executive branch broad grants of authority to achieve some general goals, leaving it up to the president and his deputies to define the regulations and programs that will actually be put into effect - American people also look to president for leadership and hold him/her responsible for large growing portion of our national affairs

discuss in detail the "rules" governing presidents and how they deal with their political problems

- if Congress is less able to control evetns, it does not mean the president is thereby more able to exercise control - fed governmen as a whole has become more constrained, so it is less able to act decisively - chief source of constraint is greater complexity of issues with which Washington must deal - in face of modern problems, all branches og government, including the presidency, seem both big and ineffectual - add to that scrutiny of the media and the proliferation of interest groups and it is small wonder that both presidents and members of Congress feel that they have lost power - presidents have come to acquire certain rules of thumb for dealing with their political problems - move it or lose it: get something done early in the term before political influences cease - avoid details: don't try to do too much, focus on three of four priorities - cabinets don't get much accomplished; people do: find capable White House subordinates and give them well defined responsibilities; watch them closely

discuss in detail the power of the "veto" and the difference between a veto message and a pocket veto

- if presidnet disapproves of a bill passed by both houses of Congress, he may veto it in one of two ways - veto message: a message from the president to Congress stating that he wil not sign a bill it has passed; must be produced within 10 days the bill's passage - pocket veto: bill fails to become a law because the president did not sign it within 10 days before Cogress adjourned - a bill not signed or vetoed within 10 days while Congress is still in session becomes a law automatically, wihtout the president's approval - bill returned to Congress with veto message can be passed over president's objections if at least 2/3 of each house votes to override veto - bill that has received a pocket veto cannot be brought back to life by Congress (since Congress has been adjourned) nor does such a bill caryy over to press the matter; it will have to start all over again by passing the bill anew in its next session, and then hope the president will sing it or if he doesn't, they can override it - president must either accept or reject the entire bill - does not have, unlike governors, the power to exercise a line item veto - nevertheless, the veto power is a substantial one - Congress rarely votes to override it

discuss in detail how the idea of a unified government, in some respects, can be myth

- just because republican control presidency and Congress doesn't meant the Republican president and the senators/reps will see things the same way - as result, periods of unified government often turn out to be not so unified - only time unified government truly exists is when not just party, but same ideological wing of party is in effective control of both branches of government - periods of ideologically unified governments are very rare - in unified government, things are not really unified - branches are still split by ideological differences within eaach party and by institutional rivalries (Congress and the presidency) that exist

discuss in detail why gridlock, according to some, may not be a bad occurrence

- magnifies effects of checks and balances built into our system - can be and is a necessary consequence of representative democracy - causes delays, intensifies deliberations, forces compromise - important laws have been passed as results of gridlocks - Ex. 1946 Marshall Plan to rebuild wartorn Europe - Ex. 1986 Tax Reform Act - see chart on page 362 for more examples

discuss in detail the terms of the first five president and what the highlights of their time in office were

- of first five, four served two full terms - Washington and Monroe weren't even opposed - first adminstration had at highest levels leading spokesmen for all major viewpoints - Hamilton was Washington's secretary of treasury - Jefferson secretary of state - Washington spoke out strongly against political parties, though they soon emerged - many believed it was wrong to take advantage of divisions in the country, to organize deliberately to acquire political office, or to make legislation depend upon party advantage - hostility to party was unrealistic; parties are natural to democracy - legitimacy of presidency was also doable because early on, the national government had little to do - established sound currency and to settle war debt occurred during Revolutionary War - Relations with France and England were important, but otherwise government took little time and resources - when appointing people to federal office, "fitness" emerged - those appointed should have something standing in their communities and be well thought of by their neighbors - presidency was kept modest - Washington has not sought the office and did not relish the exercise of its then modest powers - president's relations with Congress were correct but not close - Washington wanted advice on how to move forward with treaty for Indian Tribes - Senate told him they wanted to discuss it in private and he never went back to Senate again - ended responsibility of Senate to "advise" president - Washington only cast two vetoes; Adams and Jefferson none

discuss in detail the ongoing attempt to reorganize the executive branch and the historical examples of these attempts

- one item on presidential agenda has been same since Hoover: reorganizing branch of government - in wake of terrorist attack on 9/11/2001, president, by executive order, created new White House Office of Homeland Security, headed by his friend and former Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge; depsite its obvious importance, however, Ridge's offcie, like most units with the executive office of the President, had only a dozen or so full time staff, little budgetry authority, and virtually no ability to make and enforce decisions regarding how cabinet agencies operated - to address this problem, Bush called for reorganization that would crete third-largest cabinet department encompassing 22 federal agencies, nearly 180,000 employees, and an annual budget of close to $40 million - important as it is, ongoing attempt to reorganize federal government around homeland security goals is neither first, nor even the largest, reorganization effort made by sitting president - every president has been apalled by number of agencies that report to him and by apparently helter-skelter manner in which they have grown up - reorganization serves many objectives and thus is a recurring theme - legally, president can reorganize his personal White House staff anytime he wishes - beyond this, president needs to consult Congress first - president submits reorganization form/plan that would take effect provided that neither the House nor the Senate passes, within 60 days, a concurrent resolution disapproving the plan - Reorganization Act of 1939 could be used to change, but not create or abolish, and executive agency - 1981: authority under the act expired, and Congress did not renew it - 2 years later, SC declared all legislative vetoes unconstitutional - today, any presidential reorganization plan would have to take form of regular law, passed by Congress and signed by President - what has been said so far may give impression that presidnet is virtually helpless - actual power of president can only be measured in terms of what he can accomplish - in office, president find burdens, restraints, demands, and complexities - every president since Truman has commented feelingly on how limited powers of president seem from inside compared to what they appear to be from the outside - FDR compared his struggles with bureaucracy to punching feather bed - Truman wrote that power of president was chiefly power to persuade people to do what they ought to do anyway - Kennedy spoke to interviweres about how much more complex the world appeared than he has first supposed - Johnson and Nixon were broken by office and events that happened there - FDR helped create modern presidency, with its vast organizational reach, and directed massive war effort - Truman ordered 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities - Eisenhower sent American troops to Lebanon - Kennedy supported an effort to invade Cuba - Johnson sent troop to D.R and Vietnam - Nixon ordered an invasion of Cambodia - Reagan launched an invasion of Grenada and sponsored an antigovernment insurgent group in Nicaragua - Bush invaded Panama and sent troops to Persian Gulf to fight Iraq - Clinton sent troops to Haiti and Bosnia - W. Bush ordered military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq

discuss in detail the sources from which a president creates a program and the strengths/weaknesses of each

- president pulls several sources each with particular strengths and weaknesses in order to put together program Interest Groups Strength: will have specific plans and ideas Weakness: will have narrow view of public interest Aides and Campaign Advisers Strength: will test new ideas for their political soundness Weakness: will not have many ideas to test; inexperienced in government Federal Bureaus and Agencies Strength: will know what's feasible in terms of governmental realities Weakness: will propose plans that promote own agencies and will not have good info on whether plans will work Outside, Academic and Other Specialists and Experts Strength: will have many general ideas and criticisms of existing programs Weakness: will not know detail of policy or have good judgement as to what is feasible

discuss in detail why presidnets sometimes desire "experts" for cabinet members, what that means, and why is it more common in the present day

- president's desire to appoint experts who do not have independetn political power is modified, but not supplanted, by his need to recognnize various poltically important groups, regions, and organizations - previously, cabinet had in it many people with strong political followings of their own - of late, tendency has emerged for presidents to place in their cabinets people known for their expertise or administrative experience rather than their political following - due to political parties being so weak that party leaders can no longer demand a place in the cabinet and because presidents want "experts"

discuss in detail the cabinet positions, how they are used, how it has changed over time and historical examples of each

- product of tradition and hope - used to regularly meet to discuss matters, and some people, espcially those critical of strong presidnet, would like to see this kind of discourse return - Constitution does not directly mention cabinet - 25th amendment implicitly defines it as consisting of "the principal offices of the executive departments" - when Washington tried to get his cabinet members to work together, its teo strongest members (Hamilton and Jefferson) spent most of their time feuding - cabinet as presidential committee didn't work any better for Adams, Lincoln, FDR, or Kennedy - Eisenhower almost only modern president who came close to making cabinet truly deliberative body; gave it large staff, held regular meetings, listened to opinions expressed; didn't have much influence over presidnetial decisions; didn't help him gain more power over govenrnment - cabinet officers are heads of 15 major executive departments - where one sits in cabinet meeting is determines by age of department one leads - president appoints or directly controls vastly more members of his cabinet than does the British prime minister - president gets more appointments than prime minister to make up for what separation of powers denies him - abundance of appointments does not give president ample power over departments - having power to make these appointments does give president one great advantage: he has a lot of opportunities to reward friends and political supporters Ex. - secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) reports to president and has few hundred political appointees to assist them in responding to president's wishes; heads an agency with over 60,000 employees, 11 operating divisions, hundreds of grantmaking programs, and budget of more than $460 billion - secreatary of House and Urban Development (HUD) spends most of his or her time on departmental business and vastly less on talking to president; largely rep of HUD to president than his rep to HUD; rarely finds much to talk about with secretary of defense at cabinet meetings

discuss in detail, with historical examples, the three constraints presidents face when constructing a program

- sheer limit of his time and attention span - every president works harder than he ever has before - unexpected crisis - FDR had to respond to worldwide depression - Kennedy: Failure of Bay of Pigs invasion in Cub, Soviets put missiles in Cuba, China invades India, Federal troops sent to South to protect black - Johnson: Vietnam War, black riots in major cities, war between India and Pakistan, civil war in Dominican Republic, Arab-Israeli war, value of dollar falls in foreign trade trade, Arabs raise price of oil - Carter: OMB director Bert Lance accused of improprieties, lengthy coal strike, seizure of American hostages in Iran, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - Reagan: plan suppresses Solidarity movement, U.S. troops sent to Lebanon, U.S. hostages held in Lebanon, civil war in Nicaragua, Iran-contra crisis - Bush (the elder): Soviet Union dissolves, Iraq invades Kuwait - Clinton: civil war continues in Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia, investigation of possible wrongdoing of President and Mrs. Clinton in Whitewater real estate development, Clinton impeached - Bush (the younger): terrorist attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon kill close to 3,000 people, U.S. led war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq - Obama: economic crisis affecting financial markets, industry, and employment - federal government and most federal programs as well as the federal budget can only be changed marginally, except in special circumstances - vast bulk of federal expenditures are beyond control in any given year - money must be spent whether president likes it or not - most of these program have strong congressional and public support as well - result of these constraints is that president, at least in ordinary times, has to be selective about what he wants - can be thought of as having a stock of influence and prestige the way that he might have a supply of money - if he wants return on his resources, he must "invest" that influence and prestige carefully in enterprises that promise substantial gains - in public benefits and political support at reasonable costs

discuss in detail concerns of the founders with regards to the President and the powers he should wield

- some Americans during this period (1787-1789) believed president would use state militia to overpower state governments - others worries that if president were allowed to share treaty-making power with Senate, he would be "directed by minions and favorites" and become a "tool of the Senate" - most frequent concern was that once electedm president would arrange to stay in office in perpetuity by resorting to bribery intrigue, and force - in hindsight, concerns seem misplaced, even foolish - power over militia had little signifance - real sources of expansion of presidential power - foreign affairs, ability to shape public opinion, head of executive branch - were hardly predictable at that time - was unique and unprecedented institution and framers and their critics can easily be forgiven for not predicting accurately how it would evolve - knew relations between president and Congress and manner with which president is elected were of profound importance - first plan was for Congress to elect president (quasi- parliamentary) - if done, Congress could dominate lazy president or scheming presidents might dominate Congress - at conclusion, was determined president should be popularly elected - question became: which voters? - direct elections would inordinate weight to lage, populous states, and no plan with that outcome had any chance of adoption by smaller states

discuss in detail the purpose of the Electoral College and why it was created as an alternative to popuarly electing a president

- states would select electors in whatever manner it wished - electors would them meet in each state capital to vote for president and vice president - many expected electors to pick their fave son and thus no candidate would win majority of popular vote - if this occurred, House would make choice, with each state delegation casting one voter - plan met many of thresholds: - large states had their say, small states would be protected by min of three electoral votes no matter their population - could show influence in House where many believed elections to be decided - Framers did not foreseem influence of political parties and producing support for slate of national candidates - once election process was determined, figuring out powers were much easier - if election process is "fair and balanced" then people are more confident in giving him more powers - Ex. right to make treaties and right to appoint lesser officials, originally slated for Senate, were given to president with "advice and consent from the Senate" needed

discuss in detail the reemergence of the president as a figure to devise national legislative prgrams and how it realtes to an enlarged role of national government in our lives

- today, we think president formulates legislative program to which Congress then responds - was not norm until 1930s - Congress ignored initiatives of such presidents: Cleveland, Hayes, Arthur, Coolidge - Wilson in 1913 was first president to personally deliver State of the Union address since Adams - first to develop and argue for presidential legislation - one popular conception of president as central figure of natonal government, devising legislative programs is very much product of larger govenrment - b/c government plays such a large role in our lives, president is natural focus of our attention and titular head of huge federal administrative system - popular conception of president as central figure of national government belies realities of present day legislative-executive relations - although presidents dominated budget policies making from 1920s to 1970s, they no longer do - instead, "imperatives of budgetary process have pushed congressional leaders to center stage" - thus, Congress proposes, president disposes and legislative-executive relations invilve hard bargaining and struggle between two branches of government

discuss in detail the president's ability to wield popularity and influence over others

- the object of the talk is to convert personal popularity into congressional support for the president's legislative programs -president cannot ordinarily provide credible electoral rewards or penalties to members of Congress - presidential support doesn't help particular member of Congress - most reps win reeelction anyway, and the few who are in trouble are rarley saved by presidetnial intervention - scholars thought congressional candiates might benefit from president's coattail - thought might ride into office on strength of popularity of president of their own party - there are good reasons to doubt whether pattern observed (Table 14.2) is result of presidential coattails - careful studies of voter attitudes and of how presidential and congressional candidates fare in the same districts suggest that, whatever may once have been the influence of coattails, their effect has declined in recent years and is quite small today - weakening party loyalty and of party organizations, combined with enhanced ability of members of Congress to build secure relations with their constituents has tended to insulate congressional elections from presidetnial ones - when voters choose as members of Congress people of the same oarty as an incoming president, they probably do so out of desire for a general change and as an adverse judgement about the outgoing party's performance as a whole, not because they want to supply the new presidnet with members of Congress favorable to him - president's personal popularity may have significant effect on how much of his prgram Congress passes, even if it does not affect the reelection chances for those members of Congress - though they don't fear president who threatens to campaign against them, members of Congress do have a sense that it is risky to oppose too admantly the policies of a popular president - how successful president is with Congress depends not just on members but on other factors as well - can be success on big bill or trivial one - needs to be successful on large issues as well as small to show us the victories matter - president can keep his victory score high by not taking a position on any controversial measure - president can appear successful if few bills he like are passedm but most of his legislative program is bottled up in Congress and never comes to vote - given these problems, "presidential victories" are hard to measure accurately - fourth general caution: presidential popularity is hard to predict and can be greatly influenced by factors over which nobody, including the president, has much control

discuss in detail examples/reasons why White House staffers and department heads often have a combative relationship

- there is an inevitable tension between the White House staff and the department heads - political considerations must be taken into account in making cabinet and agency appointments -any head or a large organization will tend to adopt the perspective of that organization - staff members see themselves as extensions of the president and their pesonality and policies - department heads see themselves as origins of knowledge Ex. - staffers (young men and women in their 20s and 30s with little executive experience) call department haeds (people in their 50s with substaintial executive experience) and tell them "the president wants" this or "the president asked me to tell you" that - department heads try to concel their irritation and then maneauver for some delay so they can develop their own counterproposals - when department head calls White House staff person and asks to see president, unless they are one of the privileged few in whom president has special confidence, often are told that "the president can't be bothered with that"or "the president doesn't have time to see you"

discuss in detail the process of impeachment: what it is, the formal process behind it, and historical examples of how it has been used/attempted to be used

- there is ony way besides death or resignation by which the president can leaeve office before his term expires - impeachment: charges against a president approved by the majority of the House - all "civil officers of the U.S." can be removed via impeachment - cabinet secretaries are not subject to impeachment because president can remove them at any time and do if they do not behave or become a political liability - federal judges are most frequent objects of impeachment besides president and vp - to be removed from office, impeached offcier must be convicted by 2/3 vote of Senate, which sits as a court, is presided over by Chief of Justice, hears the evidence, and makes its decision under rules it wishes to adopt - 16 persons have been impeached by House, seven convicted by Senate - last convition was of 2 federal judges in 1989 - Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 are only two presidents to ever have been impeached - Nixon would have been has he not resigned beforehand - Senate did not convict either Johnson or Clinton by necessary 2/3 vote - enduring result of Cinton was expiration of Independent Counsel, created by law in 1978 - some Founders may have thought impeachment would be used frequently against the presidents, but as practical matter, it is so complex and serious an undertaking that we can probably expect it to be reserved in the future only for the gravest forms of presidential misconduct

discuss in detail the inevitable decline of the president's popularity

- though presidential popularity is an asset, its value tends inexorably to decline - president's popularity tends to be highest right after an election, political commentators like to speak of a "honeymoon" during which the president's love affair with the people and Congress take place - decay in reputation of president and his party in miderm is evidence as well

discuss in detail the Jacksonian era presidencies and how they different from the tems of the first five presidencies

- time of Andrew Jackson corresponded with broad changes in American politics - changes altered relations between president and Congress - few knew what to expect from Jackson presidency - was member of House and Senate but was elected military hero - used powers of presidency as no one had before - vetoed 12 acts of Congress; more than all of predecessors combines and more than any subsequent president until Andrew Johnson 30 years later - vetoes were on Constitutional grounds as well as policy ones - as only official elected by entire citizenry, he saw himself as "Tribune of the People" - none of vetoes were overridden - did not initiate many new policies but counteres ones he did not like - demonstrates what a popular president could do - didn't shrink from conflict with Congress and tension between two branches was intensified by personalities of those in government - conflicts included slavery and commercial policies - Jackson was against large and powerful government (in favor of agrarian simplicities of Jefferson era) and was believer in strong independent president - different from era of first presidents b/c president was more independently strong as opposed to government being more strong

discuss in detail the importance of proximity to the presidency and how power feeds into the need to have a close proximity to the presidency

- typically, White House staff are drawn from the ranks of the president's campaign staff; people whom he/she trusts - some will be experts brought in to deal with specific issues/topics - some attaches enourmous significance to whose office closest to the president's and who can see him and how often - it's not just about power plays - it's also about whose goals and beliefs will be wielded and embedded in policy

discuss in detail the law creating the Independent Counsel in 1978 and the potential limitations that exist regarding its oversight of "wrongdoing" by the president

- upset w/ Watergate, law directed attorney general to ask 3 judge panel to appoint an independent counsel whenever a high official is charged with serious misconduct; 18 have been investigated, half brought to court - a problem remains: how will any high official, including president, be investigated when attorney general, who does most investigations, is part of the president's team - one answer is to let Congress do it, but Congress may be controlled by the president's party

discuss in detail the role/purpose of the vice president and reasons why it is viewed as a seemingly "useless" position

- vp is just what so many presidents have complained about it being: a rather empty job - adams described it as most insignificant officer that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived - most successors agreed - if person chooses to become vp, he could vacate a job that is of great significance - Garner - Speaker of House for FDR and LBJ - Majority Leader Senate for JFK - only official task of vp is to preside over Senate and to vote in case of a tie - even this is scarcely time-consuming, as Senate chooses from among its members a president pro tempore, as required by Constitution, who presides in absence of vp - vp's leadership powers in Senate are weak, especially when VP is of different party from majority in Senate - on occasion, can be deemed to be more important due to circumstance

discuss in detail how efficient the transition of power has been for the president and why critics of the Constitution were proven wrong

- what appears to tedious is at heart of presidency: - first and fundamental problem is to make office legitimate - this was task Washington set himself, and that was substantial accomplishment of his successors - despite potential roadblocks, almost immediately after Washington stepped down, succession occurred peacefully - many critics of Constitution in 1787 didn't believe a peaceful succession would occur; they were wrong (obviously)

discuss the reemergence of Congress after the Jacksonian era presidencies and how/why those were different from the Jacksonian era

- with end fo Jackson's second term, Congress quickly reestablished its power, with exception of Lincoln and his wartime efforts and breif periods of Polk and Cleveland - often referred to as era where Congress was leading institution, strugging, unsuccessfully, with slavery and sectionalism - was also an intensely partisan era - public opinion was divided - only 2 candiates - Lincoln in 1864 and Grant in 1872 - received more than 55 percent of the popular vote - Lincoln was only one to break new ground for president - use of power of unexpected - though elected as Republican, was formerly member of Whig party (stood for limiting presidential power) - opposed America's entry to Mexican American war and had been critical of Jackson's use of executive authority - also used powers outline in Article II in unprecedented ways especially those that he felt were "implied" or "inherent" in phrase "take care that laws be faithfully executes" as commander and chief - raised an army, spent money, blockaded suthern ports temporarily suspended habeas corpus and issued Emancipation Proclomation to free slaves - did this all without congressional approval - justified his actions by emergency conditions created by Civil War - After Lincoln, Congress reasserted its power and became, during Reconstruction, the principal federal institution - however, it was clear a national emergency could equip president with great powers and that popular and strong willed president could expand his powers even without emergency - except for Wilson and Roosevelt, president was, until New Deal, a negative force, not a source on initiative and leadership for Congress - Cleveland had strong personality but was able to do little beyond veto bills he did not like - issued 414 vetoes, more than any other president before FDR - diff from Jacksonian era b/c Congress has more power as opposed to president being independently strong with much power

discuss in detail the significance of the 22nd and 25th amendments in relation to the presidency

-22nd amendment in 1951 made sure that no president could serve more than 2 terms - 25th amendment in 1967 stated that vp can serve as "acting president" whenever the president and a majority of cabinet declare that the president is incapacitated; if president disagrees with opinion of his vp/cabinet, a 2/3 majority vote can confirm he is unable to serve

discuss in detail the case of Clinton v. City of New York (1997)

Brief Fact Summary: - Respondant, Paula Jones Corbin, filed complaint containing four counts against Petitioner, Clinton, alleging he made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was the Governor of Arkansas Synopsis of Rule of Law - the Constitution does not automaticaly grant President of U.S. immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct unrelated to his official duties as President Facts - Respondent filed complaint against petitioner alleging that he has made unwanted sexual advances towards her when he was Governor of Arkansas - Petitioner filed motions asking district court to dismiss case on grounds of presidential immunity and to prohibit Repsondent from re-filming suit unil after end of his presidency - district court rejected presidential immunity argument, but held that no trial would take place until Petitioner was no longer President - both parties appealed to U.S. SC, which granted certiorari Issue: whether president can be involved in lawsuit during his presidency for actions that occured before the tenure of his presidency and were not related to official duties of the presidency Held: Affirmed - Preisdent of U.S. can be involved in lawsuit during his tenure for actions not related to his official duties as President - it was an abuse of discretion of the District Courts to order a stay of this lawsuit until after the President's tenure - District Court's decision to order a stay was premature and a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatsoever of the Respondent's interest in bringing the suit to trial - Concurrence. it is important to reorganize that civil lawsuits could significantly interfere with the public duties of an official - concurring judge believed that ordinary case-management principles were likely to prove insufficient to deal with private civil lawsuits, unless supplemented with a constitutionally based requirement that district courts schedule proceedings so as to avois significant interference with the President's ongoing discharge of his official responsibilities

discuss in detail the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)

Brief Fact Summary: - cost-management expert for Air Force was fired after he testified in front of Congress about cost overruns in certain military projects - defendant, President Nixon, claimed that he made the firing decision Synopsis of Rule of Law: - president is shielded by absolute immunity from civil damages for acts done in his official capacity as President Facts: - plaintiff Erndt Fitzgerals was fired from job with Air Force as cost-management analyst because he embarrassed his superiors by testifying about certain cost overruns - Air Force said he was fired b/c of reorganization and a reduction in force - internal memo was passed through White House staff saing plaintiff was "top nothc cost expert" but with "very low marks of loyalty" and recommended that they "let him bleed" - at press conference, Defendant said he personally made decision to fire plaintiff - White House later retracted statement saying Defendant had confused plaintiff with another employee - plaintiff brought suit and Defendant moved for summary judgement on ground of absolute immunity from suit Issue: - does president have absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in official capacity Held: - president is immune from suit from his official acts as matter of public policy rooters in structure of government mandated by separation of power principle - immunity stems from President's unique position in constitution scheme and immense importance of duties - SC worried about diverting President's energies to concerns related to private lawsuits

discuss in detail the two ways a president can create a program (Carter/Clinton) and (Reagan)

Clinton/Carter - have a policy on almost everything - worked endless hours and studied countess documents trying to learn something bout and then state their positions on large number of issues Reagan - concentrate on 3 or 4 major initiatives or themes and leave everything else to subordinates

discuss in detail advice and consent, Myers v. U.S., inner cabinet, National Security Council, OMB, National Economic Council, and the War Power Act of 1973

Myers v. U.S. (1926) - affirmed president's ability to fire those executive-branch officials, without Senate approval or any other legislative body, even though they were intiially appointed with Senate approval - judges may be removed only through the impeachment process, so presidents have little power over them once they have been appointed Inner Cabinet - original four positions of the cabinet: Secretary of State, Treasury, Attorney General and War (now known as Defense) - hold most power and influence of all cabinet positions National Security Council - advises president on American military affairs and foreign policy - consists of president, vice president, and the secretaries of state and defense - The National Security Advisor runs staff and advises president National Economic Council - helps president with economic planning - consists of three leading economists and is assisted by about 60 other economists, attorneys, political scientisis, etc. War Powers Act of 1973 - requiring president to consult with Congress when activating military troops - president must report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, and unless Congress approves the use of troops within sixty days, or extends the sixty day limit, the forces must be withdrawn

identify differences between members of a parliamentary system cabinet and members of the president's cabinet

Parliament - all cabinet members come from legislature - are usually full time politicians President - most of cabinet members are "in and outers" (people who alternate between jobs in federal government and ones in the private sector - law and universities) - president's cabinet officers and their deputies usually have not served with chief executive in the legislature - come from private business, universities, etc. - prsident is fortunate if most turn out to agree with him on major policy questions - men and women appointed to cabinet and to subcabinet usually will have had some prior federal experience

discuss/identify in detail the aforementioned sections of responsibilities with regards to the president

Presidents as Outsiders: - for presidents, showing you are not "a part of the mess in Washington" can help aid victory - prime ministers are always insiders because they are selected from among the people in parliament Presidents Choosing Cabinet Members: - under Constitution, no sitting member of Congress can be in office in executive branch - people chosen to be in cabinet by prime minister are always in parliament - one way pm exerts control over legislature - if you are ambitious member, eager to become pm yourself, then likely wouldn't antagonize person doing appointing Majority in Legislature - prime minister's party or coalition always has majority in parliament - if not, somebody else would be pm - president's party often does not have majority in Congress - known as divided government - cooperation between two branches is hard to achieve but needed to create legislation - even with one party in control, each branch works for cross-purposes - system is designed for each branch to share power and for conflict between branches to occur, which certainly happens in practice War Responsibilities: - Ex. seen during Iraq war - Bush had to entice Congress, even though it was controlled by his own party, to support him - once Blair decided, there could not be any meaningful opposition in parliament - when public opinion changed about war (for to against), Bush kept fighting because he could not be removed from office until the next election - when public opinion turned against Blair, he announced he would resign from office and turn job to someone else in his party

discuss in detail the three types of organization styles pertaining to a president's staff and historical examples of each

Pyramid Structure - president's subordinates report to him through chain of command - orderly flow of information and decision, but does so at the risk of isolating or misinforming the president - Ex. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton Circular Structure - several of the president's assistants report directly to him - gives president great deal of info bu at the price of confusion and conflict among cabinet secretaries and assistants - presidents try to use this structure to show that they are open to many sources of advice - Ex. Carter Ad Hoc Structure - several subordinates, cabinet officers, and committees report directly to the president on different matters - flexibility, minimizes bureaucracy and government officials who are ultimately responsible for translating presidential decisions into policy proposals and administrative action - Ex. Cliton Examples - Reagan - pyramid and circle: put White House under control of three keys aides - pyramid: placed all assistants under single chief of staff - Clinton - ad hoc to pyramid: each assistant has others working under them

analyze and evaluate the historical examples/data tables that represent the president's popularity and influence

Table 14.2 Year - President - Party: House, Senate 1932 - Roosevelt - Dem: +90; +9 1936 - Roosevelt - Dem: +12; +7 1940 - Roosevelt - Dem: +7; -3 1944 - Roosevelt - Dem: +24; -2 1948 - Truman - Dem: +75; +9 1952 - Eisenhower - Rep: +22; +1 1956 - Eisenhower - Rep: -3; -1 1960 - Kennedy - Dem: -20; +1 1964 - Johnson - Dem: +37; +1 1968 - Nixon - Rep: +5; +7 1972 - Nixon - Rep: +12; -2 1976 - Carter - Dem: +1; +1 1980 - Reagan - Rep: +33; +12 1984 - Reagan - Rep: +16; -2 1988 - Bush - Rep: -3; -1 1992 - Clinton - Dem: -9; +1 1996 - Clinton - Dem: +9; -2 2000 - Bush - Rep: -3; -4 2004 - Bush - Rep: +4; +4 2008 - Obama - Dem: +21; +9 Ex. - Eisenhower won 57.4% of vote in 1956, but Republicans lost seats in House and Senate - Kennedy won in 1960, but Democrats lost seats in House and gained but one in Senate - when Nixon was reelected in 1972 with one of largest majorities in history, Republicans lost seats in Senate - big increase in Republican senators and reps accompanying election of Reagan in 1980 - 2001; W. Bush's rating was 57%, nearly identical to what Clinton received in his initial rating (58%) in 1993 - Bush has highest disapproval rating (25%) of any president since polling began - 9/11 attack through mid 2002, approval rates never dipped below 70%, and approval ratings he received shortly after attack (around 90%), were highest ever recorded - through first 6 months in office, Obama's approval ratings averaged 63%

identify/discuss in detail the three audiences with which the president aims his persuasive power

Washington D.C. - president's reputation among his colleagues is of great importance in affecting how much deference his views receive and thus how much power can wield - if he is thought to be smart, cool, etc. he will be effective Party Activists and Officeholders outside Washington - want president to exemplify their principles, trumpet their slogans, appeal to their fears and hopes, and help them get reelected - these activists expect "their" president to make fire and brimstone speeches that confirm in them a shared sense of purpose and incidentally help them raise money from contributors to state and local campaigns The Public - president on campaign trail speaks boldly f what he will accomplish; a presidnet in office speaks quietly of the probems that must be overcome - president learns quickly that his every utterance will be scrutinized closely by the media and by organized groups here and abroad - his errors of fact, judgement, timing, or even inflection will be immediately and forcefully pointed out