The Imperial Presidency: The Critical Tests Of The Imperial

The Imperial Presidencythe Critical Tests Of The Imperial Presidency

The critical tests of the imperial Presidency are threefold: the war-making power; the secrecy system; and the employment against the American people of emergency authority acquired for use against foreign enemies. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. highlights these as fundamental areas where presidential power is scrutinized. Historically, the U.S. Constitution, especially Article II, grants certain powers to the presidency, but these are often interpreted broadly or expanded over time. The founding fathers, wary of monarchic tyranny, intentionally left some powers vague, allowing for flexible but potentially expansive executive authority.

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, presidential power has markedly grown, often reducing the system's intended balance of power among branches. Two notable examples demonstrate this trend: the expansion of war powers, especially through the use of executive orders and military interventions, and the growth of the federal bureaucracy which has enabled greater executive influence over policy implementation.

The first example is the expansion of war powers, particularly during the Vietnam War and subsequent conflicts. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to check the president’s ability to engage militarily without congressional approval. However, Presidents Nixon and later successors often bypassed or challenged this resolution, asserting inherent presidential powers to conduct foreign policy and military operations (Tushnet, 2015). For instance, Nixon's decision to escalate the Vietnam War demonstrated a significant expansion of executive power, asserting the president's role as commander-in-chief with minimal congressional oversight.

The second example involves the growth of the federal bureaucracy, which has allowed presidents to influence domestic policy broadly. The implementation of social programs, environmental regulations, and economic policies are often executed through an expansive network of agencies that act with considerable independence, often beyond direct legislative control. The creation of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Homeland Security exemplifies this growth, reflecting an enlarged presidential capacity to shape policy and respond swiftly to crises (Carey, 2007).

The dramatic growth of the federal bureaucracy influences public policy by centralizing decision-making processes and operational control in executive agencies. While this can lead to more efficient responses to complex issues, it also risks reducing legislative oversight and accountability. When agencies act with considerable independence, legislative branches may find their policymaking authority diminished, which aligns with Fouad Rudalevige's (2006) argument that the modern "imperial" presidency often undermines Congress’s constitutional role.

The increase in presidential power, especially as demonstrated through wartime authority and bureaucracy expansion, challenges the balance envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. This trend tends to diminish the authority of the legislative and judicial branches in several ways. Congress’s power to declare war is often bypassed, with presidents initiating military actions through assertions of inherent executive authority. Similarly, courts have sometimes been hesitant to counteract expansive executive actions, reinforcing the trend toward unilateral presidential decision-making.

From a constitutional perspective, the increase in presidential power may be viewed as a response to the complexities of modern governance requiring swift executive action. Nonetheless, this growth can encroach upon the constitutional powers allocated to Congress and the judiciary. For example, the president’s exclusive control over military forces and national security matters, combined with broad emergency powers, can sideline congressional oversight and judicial review, thereby shifting the balance of authority toward the executive (Schlesinger, 1973).

In conclusion, the imperial presidency exemplifies a significant transformation in the U.S. government structure, driven by the need for rapid decision-making in a complex and often hostile international environment. While some expansion of presidential powers can be justified constitutionally, unchecked growth risks undermining the constitutional balance of powers essential for a healthy democracy. Vigilant oversight by Congress and the judiciary remains vital to ensure that presidential power does not overreach and threaten the constitutional republic.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of the imperial presidency has been a recurring theme in American political discourse, especially since the mid-20th century. The term describes a presidency that accumulates and exercises substantial powers, often bypassing or diminishing the authority of Congress and the judiciary. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in his seminal work "The Imperial Presidency" (1973), critically examines this phenomenon, identifying three fundamental tests—war-making power, secrecy, and emergency authority—that serve as indicators of presidential overreach.

Constitutional Powers of the Presidency

The U.S. Constitution grants specific powers to the president under Article II, including the roles of Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, and Chief Executive. These powers encompass executing laws, negotiating treaties (subject to Senate approval), and directing military and foreign policy. Moreover, the president has the authority to appoint federal officers and judges, granted by Congress, and to veto legislation. However, the Constitution deliberately leaves certain powers, such as war initiation and emergency decisions, somewhat ambiguous, reflecting the framers’ wariness of giving unilateral authority to any branch.

Historically, presidents have increasingly relied on their constitutional powers—particularly executive orders and military commands—to expand their influence. The growth of the presidency’s scope can be attributed to both constitutional ambiguity and external pressures—such as global conflicts and domestic crises—that demand swift executive action.

Examples of Presidential Power Growth

One significant example of executive power expansion is in war-making. Although Congress holds the constitutional authority to declare war, presidents have often initiated military actions unilaterally, citing their role as Commander-in-Chief. The Vietnam War exemplifies this trend, where Presidents Johnson and Nixon escalated conflicts without explicit congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to curb this tendency, requiring presidential consultation and reporting, but presidents have frequently viewed it as an unconstitutional restriction (Tushnet, 2015). Nixon's decision to invade Cambodia and expand the Vietnam conflict further highlights the president’s expansive authority in foreign wars.

A second example is the growth of the federal bureaucracy, which enhances presidential influence over domestic policy. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and Homeland Security exemplify the increasing delegation of authority, allowing presidents to shape policy implementation effectively. This bureaucratic expansion enables presidents to respond rapidly to issues but also reduces Congress’s power to directly oversee policy, as agencies develop their own authority and procedural independence (Carey, 2007).

Impact on Public Policy and Branch Authority

The expansive growth of the federal bureaucracy affects public policy by centralizing decision-making within executive agencies, often resulting in quicker responses to complex issues but at the expense of legislative oversight. When agencies operate with considerable independence, this diminishes Congress’s role in policymaking and oversight, as Rudalevige (2006) notes. These developments reflect an erosion of the horizontal separation of powers, creating a de facto imperial presidency.

Furthermore, the increase in presidential power impacts the authority of other branches. The legislative branch’s constitutional power to declare war or regulate agencies becomes diluted when presidents assert inherent powers to conduct military operations or invoke emergency authorities. The judiciary’s role becomes more challenging when courts are hesitant to oppose expansive executive actions, especially in national security matters, thus weakening judicial oversight (Schlesinger, 1973).

Constitutional and Democratic Implications

The surge in executive power can be justified by modern governance needs, but it raises constitutional concerns, particularly about the balance of powers. The Constitution envisions a system of checks and balances, with Congress and the judiciary serving as counterweights to the executive. When presidents rely on vague constitutional language or broad emergency powers, they risk undermining these roles.

In particular, the unilateral expansion of war powers and bureaucratic influence can weaken legislative oversight and judicial review, leading to a de facto imperial presidency. This trend, documented by scholars like Tushnet (2015) and Rudalevige (2006), suggests a need for renewed vigilance to ensure presidential actions remain within constitutional bounds.

Conclusion

The growth of presidential power over the 20th and 21st centuries has fundamentally altered the American constitutional landscape. While certain circumstances justify a stronger executive—such as in emergencies or rapid decision-making—unchecked expansion threatens the democratic foundations of the republic. Maintaining constitutional balance requires active oversight and reaffirmation of congressional and judicial roles. As Schlesinger (1973) argues, the danger lies not only in the accumulation of power but in tolerating it without adequate checks, jeopardizing the constitutional principles upon which the nation was founded.

References

1. Carey, G. W. (2007). The Problem of the Imperial Presidency. Modern Age, 49(4).
2. Schlesinger, A. M. (1973). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Tushnet, M. (2015). The Presidential Empire. Dissent, 62(2), 101.
4. Rudalevige, A. (2006). The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power After Watergate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Boyd, C. (2010). The Imbalance of Power: How the Manhattan Project gave birth to the imperial presidency. American Scholar, 79(2).
6. Savage, C. (2008). Takeover: Return of the Imperial Presidency. Washburn Law Journal, 2.
7. U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
8. Carey, G. W. (2007). The Problem of the Imperial Presidency. Modern Age, 49(4).
9. Schlesinger, A. M. (1973). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10. Tushnet, M. (2015). The Presidential Empire. Dissent, 62(2), 101.