POL 510 ABS Presidency Formal vs Informal Powers Discussion

1 POLS510 Week 1 Discussion Board Topic Jeffrey Tulis, in “The Two Constitutional Presidencies,” argues that there is a formal presidency and an informal presidency. As a result, he states, “many of the dilemmas and frustrations of the modern presidency may be traced to the president’s ambiguous constitutional station, a vantage place composed of conflicting elements.” Comment on Tulis’ thesis, with reference to a specific president. Please Interact with these student’s posts. Don’t forget to ask them a question, please. Student #1 (TK) Hello Everyone, My name is TK, I have an undergraduate degree in Mechanical Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. I am a U.S. Air Force pilot stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, New Mexico. I am currently deployed and using my time away from family to pursue my master’s degree. This will be my first course in Political Science after transferring from Liberty University, and my first course in 2 years after pausing my studies following the birth of my daughter. I am excited to get back into school and use this course as a change of pace to my day during my deployment. -TK Jeffrey Tulis’s thesis regarding “a formal presidency and informal presidency” is rooted in the vagueness by which presidential powers are outlined in the Constitution. Like many things in the constitution, this was likely done intentionally to allow the executive branch to 2 adapt and change as world events and politics required the president to assume different roles. These new presidential roles and powers, either assumed or authorized should be held in check via designed checks and balances by both Congress and the judicial branch. Many presidents have used this vagueness along with public support to garner powers that are not specifically outlined, or in some cases specifically given to another entity. Under the constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. In the wake of September 11th President George W. Bush sought and was approved by Congress the Authority to Use Military Force (AUMF) to combat terrorism. Typically, an AUMF would provide guardrails by which a president could use such force such as outlining a specific enemy, a location, and a duration. However, the 2001 AUMF only specified the enemy as “terrorism.” This vague definition gave the president power to conduct military operations anywhere he could loosely associate with terrorism. The passing of this AUMF along with another in 2002 has allowed the president to commit U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and parts of Africa without direct congressional approval. In a democratically elected government, public support often holds more power than the written constitution, as elected officials are ultimately judged at the ballot box on election day. In the case of the 2001 AUMF, any vote against the adoption of this bill would have been perceived in the court of public perception as being against bringing to justice the perpetrators of September 11th. Using this narrative, President Bush, and the presidents after him were authorized powers typically reserved for a congressional vote. Reference Krent, Harold J.. Presidential Powers. New York: New York University Press, 2005. Accessed November 9, 2023. ProQuest Ebook Central. 3 Student #2 (BC) Hello Everyone, My name is BC. I am an active-duty Staff Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I have been serving for nearly 10 years and am currently deployed overseas. I completed my bachelor’s program through AMU and majored in Criminal Justice. I decided to pursue Political Science because I will be transitioning to work with the Department of State for the next 3 years. I will be working as a Detachment Commander within the Marine Corps and will provide security to the American personnel at U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad. Overall, I just want to pursue a higher education and challenge myself which is why I have returned for the next challenge. I look forward to working with everyone pursuing the same goal. Jeffrey Tulis, in “The Two Constitutional Presidencies,” Regarding Jeffery Tullis thesis I think the main point he is trying to drive is that the roles and responsibilities of the President of the United States are very complex. Formally you can find the powers of the President outlined in article 2 of the constitution in writing of what is expected of the elected official. However, as times have changed the powers of the presidents’ capabilities have been skewed based off their leadership style and public opinion. Meaning that they have limitations to their power in writing, however if they can gain the popular support of the people than they will have a more successful presidency to ultimately get things done. Comment on Tulis’ thesis, with reference to a specific president. 4 President Andrew Jackson who was viewed as a champion of the common man held office from 1829 to 1837 (Kelly, 2013). He was known for his sporadic and violent behavior but was one of the most respected individuals to ever occupy the White House. His most controversial presidential role came through his actions in the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case President Andrew Jackson took a back seat and chose not to exercise his large Constitutional powers even though the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional for the state of Georgia to pass laws against Indian land. I believe he took this stance on the matter because he was in favor of the removal of Native Americans as he had previous administered the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Kelly, 2013). He believed that by relocating the native settlers he would be protecting them from further persecution and claimed the movement to be voluntarily. This was obviously not the case as in history the Georgia Cherokees, The Choctaw, and other neighboring tribes would all be driven off their land and resulting in countless casualties. In this case I believe Jackson chose the public interest of the country to continue growing and colonizing over what the constitution deemed to be correct. References McBride, Alex. 2006. “Cherokee Indian Cases (1830s).” The Supreme Court. Kelley, Melissa. 2013. “Worcester v. Georgia (1832).” Early Republic and Antebellum America 5 Student #3 (NM) Hello everyone, My name is NM. I am a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force and have just recently graduated from the University of Alabama with degrees in finance and communication studies. Currently, I am stationed at Travis AFB in California on “casual status” waiting on orders to go to pilot training sometime late next year. I will be attending Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot training with the hopes of one day becoming a fighter pilot. Given a little extra free time because of casual status, I wanted to start on my master’s degree and picked political science because of my passion regarding philosophy and desire to learn more how it combines with history. Jeffrey Tulis argues that a large part of the tension within the modern presidency is due to the conflicts between a set of formal powers given to the president and an expanded set of informal powers. While the role of the presidency was not initially designed to broach beyond the powers initially given to, informal powers have also been a way for presidents to achieve things they would not ordinarily have been able to accomplish. What was fascinating about this to me is that Tulis notes that informal power use seemingly increases drastically during times of war, but this notion could be expanded to apply to all national crises. Arguably, the need for use of informal power derives from the need for accelerated decision making where the formal process would otherwise take too much time or when the president’s means for achieving goals contradict what the courts may rule as legal. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to accomplish swift overarching reform with the “New Deal” in a time of crisis. To do this, however, he had to use informal power with support of the public through “fireside chats” to do things such as order banks closed, create the Wagner act, Social Security Act, and many other 6 reform programs. These were justified in the name of bringing the economy out of the Great Depression but were challenged by the courts, creating tension amongst the public. While many acts attempted by FDR were thwarted by the courts, several are still in place today which may not have passed in times of non-crisis. 7 READING MATERIALS THE U.S. PRESIDENCY, CONGRESS, & BUREAUCRACY Week 1: Formal presidency/ informal presidency Institutional Powers of the Presidency This week, we will focus on the institutional powers of the presidency. “The Two Constitutional Presidencies” What are the powers of a president? What powers did the framers of the Constitution intend for a president to have? Most important, how do the actual powers compare to the intended powers? Jeffrey Tulis, in “Two Constitutional Presidencies,” notes that while the formal design of the president’s powers are outlined in Article II of the Constitution (the formal presidency), modern developments have created an “informal presidency,” with much greater public expectations. He concludes: “Both constitutions were designed to encourage and support an energetic president, but they differ over the legitimate sources and alleged virtues of popular leadership. For the Founders, presidents draw their energy from their authority, which rests on their independent constitutional position. For Woodrow Wilson and for presidents ever since, power and authority are conferred directly by the people.” What is Tulis saying? There are official limits on the power of a president laid out in the Constitution, but what really determines what a president can do is popular support. Large “C” constitutional powers are generally more static than small “c” constitutional powers, because popular opinion is much more fluid and unstable than judicial interpretations of the Constitution. Large “C” Powers Constitutional powers of the president may appear at first to be the most objective and directly stated. However, even these powers can be divided into two categories. First, there’s what the 8 Constitution actually says. Article II, sections 2 and 3 are fairly specific in their expectations of a president: Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to 9 such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. But the first sentence of Section 1 has provided much more judicial wiggle room for interpretation. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” So there’s what the Constitution actually says, but there’s also what the courts have said it says. Several landmark rulings over the centuries have shaped what the above words mean in terms of what a president can and cannot do according to the large “C” Constitution. However, much of what has affected and expanded presidential powers has come from the men themselves who have been president. Small “c” Powers Court cases don’t file themselves. Whenever the Supreme Court has made a ruling that has expanded presidential powers, it was preceded by a president’s attempt to expand powers. When such attempts reached the Supreme Court, the court then allowed, limited, or disallowed the new power. Such changes in presidential power have happened with many presidents, but there is a handful of presidents known for pushing the boundaries of what a president can do. George Washington Washington’s relationship with the Supreme Court was unique because he chose all members of it. In fact, Washington appointed the entire federal judiciary after Congress created the federal court system. The ability to hand-pick the entire federal judiciary likely contributed to the fact that George Washington had little contention from the Supreme Court. However, it should be noted that the power of judicial review had yet to be established. 10 Washington did begin pushing the boundaries of what a president can do in two very important ways. First, the concept of executive privilege, or rather secrecy of presidential/executive communications, came into existence when Washington refused to turn communications about Jay’s Treaty over to the House of Representatives. Second, Washington’s response to the Whiskey Rebellion laid the groundwork for the president to be able to deploy military forces in times of emergency. Andrew Jackson Jackson was the president who really demonstrated that a president’s powers are determined by what popular opinion will allow, not what the courts or Congress say. In the article, “Studying the Presidency: Why Presidents Need Political Scientists,” Lyn Ragsdale offers interesting generalizations about the presidency, many of which could be applied to Jackson’s tenure. The presidency has two dimensions, which are comparable to the “two constitutions,” image and institution. Public opinion polls show that the public most consistently expects presidents to place the country’s interests ahead of politics, be intelligent, exercise sound judgment in a crisis, take firm stands on issues, get the job done, and be concerned about the average citizen. Early press coverage, which deals with family stories and future policy plans, is more favorable than subsequent press coverage. Short successful wars, sudden international crises, and significant diplomatic efforts temporarily improve the president’s public approval ratings. Jackson had several questionable moves as president, such as his actions over the National Bank even after the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). But Jackson is known for his lack of enforcement of the 1832 Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, where the Court ruled that removal of the Cherokee Tribe from Georgia was unlawful. 11 Popular opinion nationally and in Georgia was that the Court was wrong. Neither the state of Georgia nor Andrew Jackson enforced the decision, as if it never happened. Jackson was alleged to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” There’s no strong evidence Jackson actually said this, but his action, or rather inaction, did reflect such a sentiment. Read more about it in this link. Abraham Lincoln Lincoln took extraordinary actions during extraordinary times. What expanded greatly in his administration was the range of emergency powers a president could use. Among these were jailing political opponents, suspending constitutional rights of habeas corpus, and declarations of martial laws in parts of the U.S. Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. Lincoln, with popular support mostly behind him, ignored the ruling and even threatened to put Taney in jail. Most extraordinary was the use of force to coerce states to remain part of the Union. Secession had been considered, until that time, a legitimate action taken by states who no longer wanted to remain in the Union. Ironically, the first states threatening secession were in the north over the War of 1812. None of these actions would have withstood a majority of public opinion siding against Lincoln, and neither would have his 1864 reelection campaign. But Lincoln shaped the government to his ends essentially making good on a statement he made to Stephen Douglas in 1858, “”Whoever can change public opinion can change the government.” Woodrow Wilson Following Teddy Roosevelt’s lead, Wilson appealed directly to American voters to build support for his policies. These included creation of the Federal Reserve and new regulations on businesses. Lasting over a century after his presidency, he made the U.S. a leader on the world 12 stage and openly supported intervention into the affairs of other countries. Enjoying large majorities in both chambers of Congress, Wilson worked on breaking down the legal wall between the presidency and the legislative tasks of Congress. This was a case of small “c” constitutional powers encroaching on large “C” constitutional powers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt By speaking directly to the American people through his “fireside chats” on the radio, Roosevelt strongly established the link between popular support and small “c” constitutional powers. He continued in Wilson’s vein of legislative leadership, pushing bold new federal initiatives. Like Wilson, he enjoyed large Democratic majorities in Congress, yet popular support helped drive his policies and was reflected in unprecedented string of three reelections. A recurring theme that should be noticed is under which conditions a president will most likely have popular support to expand small “c” constitutional powers. That’s when the U.S. was in a state of war, whether it was Jackson and the Indian wars, Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and WWI, Roosevelt and WWII, or even George Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 13 MY Post Becoming independent from a monarchy colonial power, the United States opted for a democracy, however, not directly governed by the people. The Founding Fathers established a republic with checks and balances safeguarded by the Constitution instead. Generally, the large “C” Constitution says what a president can and cannot do, but several landmark court rulings have shaped what the above words mean in terms of what a president can and cannot do. Still, much of what has affected and expanded presidential powers has come from the men in power themselves (APUS, 2023). In his thesis, Jeffrey Tulis says the Constitution defines the official presidency and spells out the president’s powers and duties. But he does admit that modern changes and higher public standards of presidential leadership have led to an “informal 14 presidency.” This point of view gives us helpful information about current leaders’ difficulties and complicated issues in both areas. Abraham Lincoln clearly shows this duality of the president. During Lincoln’s time in office, he dealt with a crisis that had never been seen before the Civil War. Taking extraordinary steps in this dangerous situation was necessary, so Lincoln gave the president more emergency powers. It included putting political opponents in jail, suspending the constitutional right to habeas corpus, and putting martial rule in some parts of the country. Chief Justice Taney said that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. However, Lincoln ignored this ruling—which was what most people thought—and threatened to jail Taney (APUS, 2023). In times of extreme crisis and with solid support from the people, a president may have to use powers not written in the Constitution. Lincoln was an excellent example of this. That shows how official and informal presidencies worked together. Lincoln was a master at navigating this complicated constitutional landscape, all for the sake of keeping the Union together. Furthermore, Lincoln’s drive to force states to stay in the Union showed how strong he could be and how crucial public opinion was in shaping presidential power. That makes the discussion on power dynamics even more apparent. Up until that point, states thought that secession was a legal move. But Lincoln’s firm stance changed the limits of the president’s power. He told Stephen Douglas in 1858, “Whoever can change public opinion can change the government” (APUS, 2023). This statement sums up his power to change public opinion and, by extension, government acts. Through Lincoln’s presidency, Tulis’s theory powerfully shows in this situation: Even though the Constitution set out the formal requirements for the president’s job, it was the needs 15 of the Civil War and the vast backing that came with it that gave him more power. Tulis makes a good point that this dynamic interaction between formal and informal forces is an excellent example of both the difficulties and complexities that modern presidents face. Jeffrey Tulis’s thesis on formal and informal presidencies is a great way to learn about the complexities of presidential power. Abraham Lincoln’s presidency is an excellent example of how presidents’ actions in times of trouble can be affected by how their constitutional powers and public backing work together. People are still talking about the president’s power and how decisions are made, and this dynamic connection is still relevant. Reference APUS (2023). The U.S. Presidency, Congress, & Bureaucracy (POLS510). Lecture Notes. American Public University. 

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.