"Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want
them to become politicians in the process."
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy
The President of the United States of America is one of the most prominent figures in the world today. He (there have only ever been male Presidents at this point so I will refer to the President in the masculine from here on in) is influential on the world as a whole due to the immense power that is held by the United States.
Due to the circumstances which led to the creation of the United States of America (namely the oppression incurred upon the British colonists by the Monarch in England, a revolution and then the creation of a confederacy) the Constitution was written in such a way as to give the new nation a strong but stringently controlled executive. Having just escaped tyranny by partaking in a revolution the people of the various colonies were desperate to avoid the same restriction of liberties again. Having said this, it was obvious that the stronger powers in Europe may not just leave them alone. It is not everyday that a brand new land is discovered, especially one which is sparsely populated (at least not with civilizations at the same level of technology) and has great wealth. The British and French were envious of the Spanish who had gone to South America and brought back much wealth and Northern America was their attempt at riches through the exploitation of the New World. This led to the position where the Confederacy, formed out of the revolution, was still on shaky ground. Rather than working as a close knit alliance of states it seemed more prudent to form a nation state (especially since they shared the same history, fought the same revolution and were currently working together in a confederacy). This nation state needed to preserve their liberties, both as individuals and as states, and be strong enough to repel invaders (not to mention the ease of trade). To create a strong nation you needed a strong executive that can make quick decisions about crises that arise, lead the nation (mainly in relation to armed forces) and represent the country in foreign affairs. To stop any branch from becoming too powerful (and especially the Presidency) each of the three branches of government (the executive, legislative and judicial) were separated and given powers to check the others. I implore you to correct my history (I would like sources if you wish to correct me) since I don't do history, this is just the info I got from teachers and various nodes.
Therefore it is a mistake to claim that the USA has a Presidential system of government. It actually just has a separated system (Charles O. Jones agrees with me on this one as well as Max Belof). In a Presidential system there is a President (who fulfils a Head of State role usually) and an Head of the Executive. This added separation is missing from the US system which makes it particularly interesting because it affords the man a position of great power. The President of the United States (from here on in I shall use the Tom Clancy/Secret Service contraction of the phrase to POTUS which saves my fingers from destruction) has a fusion of several leadership roles, namely: Head of the Executive, Head of State and Head of the Armed Forces. These can again be split into smaller roles and it is from these positions that the President receives various powers.
Head of State
The President takes on the role of Head of State where in other systems this role is usually separated from the role of Head of the Executive. This is mainly a ceremonial role in the same way that the Monarch entertains merely a ceremonial role as Head of State in Britain and the President in Israel and India. He will, for example, receive Ambassadors of other countries in his role of Head of State. However, the POTUS can garner some power from this position since it places him in the limelight, leading the country into the harshness of the real world! This can allow the President to show his leadership skills as well as his charisma since he acts as the national spokesman in a time of crisis.
Presidents can be either made or broken in this role. A President's view on foreign affairs and running of the state affect how he performs his Head of State role and if these do not fit with the views of the people he may be in trouble. It will also damage the view of America to the rest of the world. People usually judge a country by the central figure even if that person is not a fair representation of that country.
For example, take George W. Bush. In the international world of today (especially after 11th September, 2001) he managed to gain large amounts of support in the polls through his decisive leadership during the War on Terror (90% out of 1000 people thought he was doing the right thing according to a CNN poll recorded at the war against terrorism timeline under 25th October 2001). However, does he have enough charisma to retain the high polling figures? Also, it can be seen that he is viewed by other countries (especially Germany) to be arrogant and brash which makes getting their support (while performing his Chief Diplomat role, see below) difficult.
Chief of the Executive
The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. --The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, Section 1.
As seen above, the President is granted by the Constitution the position of the Chief of the Executive. This position has expanded since 1787 due to the many crises that have affected the country such as the two world wars and The Great Depression. All these have increased the power at the hands of the President as he has needed to respond to these in a way that would make the electorate (who elected him) happy. These conflicts also increased the size of the federal bureaucracy and therefore the White House. This allows the President to hold more power since he now has the administrative staff and advisors to respond to events.
In this role, the President 'carries them [laws] into effect or secures their due performance' Webster 1913, definition of executive. This means that it is his duty to make sure that laws of the land are implemented even with the use of force if necessary. A famous example of this was the case with the Brown vs. The Board Of Education when Harry S Truman had to use the National Guard to protect black students as they attended classes.
This is tied to the issue of federalism which I shall try to write about later since how the President looks at federalism affects the way that he uses the Executive office. Some Presidents believe that the federal government should be subservient to the States (such as Reagan). This tends to be a very Republican view which harkens back to the days of the civil war and the confederacy. On the other hand are the Democrats who tend to be more in favour of strong federal government to make it easier to attain social reform. Depending on what type of federalism you believe in depends on the executive axe that you wield and therefore how much you use this role.
The President also has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate if they occur during a recess. These last until the next time that those seats were up for election. In effect, they run as the ex-senator would have run and stand for election when that senator would have stood for re-election. They have to be from the same political party and meet the usual Senatorial rules laid out in the Constitution to be eligible for appointment. This would allow the President to possibly tip the House in his favour if an unfortunate end met one of the Senators. This is a possible tool for the conspiracy theorists but is only a temporary measure and the Senator would probably (if he had any sense of decency) follow what the people want of him.
If such an occurrence does not happen during a recess then the governor of the state chooses someone to be in that seat until it is next up for election. Some states do things slightly differently since the 17th amendment which sets out this procedure says that it is up to the state legislatures to decide whether the governor is allowed this power. Washington state, for example, has a committee to decide things and the governor only makes a decision if the debate is tied. This is contrary to what happens in the UK where a bi-election is held for the seat. Things are slightly different though since one seat rarely affects the running of the government.
As the executive, the President has the power to make certain appointments, notably:
All these have to be ratified by Congress and it is not unusual for them to reject candidates for the position.
Chief Legislator
This title seems to be contradictory to the Constitution. The President has few legislative positions according to the Constitution; the Congress has much more standing in this respect due to its position as the legislature in the country. The President holds only three powers in this respect:
- the power to veto bills
- he proposes legislation
- gives a State of The Union address (where the President lays out a general program of the year past and the year to come).
Congress also passed a provision in 1996 to allow the President to exercise a line-item veto. This was intended to allow the President to veto only a certain part of an appropriation bill rather than vetoing the whole thing if he disliked one clause. This was intended to increase efficiency and speed (especially since financial bills have more aggressive debate) by stopping the bill being vetoed in its entirety and sent back through the process of legislation with a letter saying what was wrong with it. It was also useful since it allowed the President to eliminate 'pork barrel' articles which are there purely to win extra support for a member. However, the US Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in June 1998 with a 6-3 majority in the Clinton v. City of New York case (the normal veto power is in the Constitution).
In the UK, the executive is almost solely in charge of introducing bills and trying to get them through the Houses of Parliament. This is not the case in the US where a bill can easily be proposed by any member of Congress whereas in the UK, Private Member's Bills are infrequent and quite often are not passed (not to mention the fact that a lot of them are concerning petty matters). Secondly, the Constitution does not mention the President's job as proposing the legislation for the country. Presidents also tend to be elected for their (apparent) leadership abilities and general idealogical swing but rarely for a program (or manifesto) of policies which is what the British political parties get elected into power for (mainly because people in the UK vote for a party with a manifesto they like the sound of and the PM just so happens to be the leader of the party).
The role as legislator has increased as the executive office has increased. It has become possible for the President to launch himself into the fray that is Congressional approval and attempt to swing the balance in his favour for bills that he has proposed. This transformation could be seen to arrive when Franklin D. Roosevelt became President since his desire for a 'New Deal' while the depression was massacaring the economy required a strong executive and many pieces of legislation to be pushed through Congress.
This 'New Deal' is what we in Britain would call a manifesto, something more or less unheard of in American politics especially at this time. This means that once the President has been voted into power he has an obligation (a mandate) to implement these policies. This requires a strong legislative function.
FDR is therefore an example of an Imperial Presidency (see below). No longer was he just guiding the ship of state but he was at the helm steering it through the seas himself (a rather Sophoclean metaphor for you, try reading Oedipus the King to understand more).
However, compared to Britain the amount of legislation that goes through and is backed by the POTUS is rather small. Only about 50% of Congressional bills are backed by the President and not all these will go through. In Britain, there are few bills that aren't backed by the executive.
It is unlikely that this figure will get any better due to the fact that since the 1970's Congress has halted its retreat after the depression (and other crises) and started to claw back power from the executive. This is especially prevalent over the budget which is an highly fought over area since it is one of the best checks that the Congress can wield on the executive.
Take for example the "Gingrich Revolution" during the 1994 mid-term elections, when the Congressmen for Georgia, Newt Gingrich, rallied a group of fellow members of Congress behind his 'Contract with America', which he hoped to implement within 100 days if he was elected. He hoped that this would help to alleviate the problems that were left after Clinton's health reforms failed in 1993. This action allowed the Republicans to wrestle back both Houses of Congress to offset the powerful Bill Clinton but they didn't manage to implement their contract in its entirety or within 100 days.
Executive Orders can also be classed as legislation but stems from legislation that Congress has already passed or from the Constitution. They can also sometimes called secondary or delegated legislation though this has a different meaning in the UK where it used to discuss Devolution. Executive Orders are basically directives issued by the President which are legally binding but are not checked by Congress. When a President wants something to happen he either does it through a statute or an executive order. Some examples of executive orders are:
Since the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act all executive orders have to be published in a register which can be found online here:- http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/disposition_tables.html
Chief Diplomat
There is an entertaining episode of Yes Prime Minister where Jim Hacker is astonished to hear that the President would not be greeting him if he did not shelve his plans for the armed forces. The embarrassment that he thought he would feel forced him to enter political manoeuvring in order to meet the President.
This is true in reality as well as this fictional world. The President is the one that foreign ambassadors and Heads of State meet when having talks or ceremonial occasions. However, rather than just being a figurehead, occupying a purely ceremonial role, he also has the power to make decisions based on the talks and create treaties. This is a powerful role in the modern world due to the internationalisation of politics today. President Clinton exercised this role often notably for the Kyoto agreement discussions and the help in brokering peace between Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Not only is this seen as doing what is necessary but it also boosts the Presidents image. By carrying out popular foreign policy the President gains the trust of the people and the other branches of government.
The main power that the President exercises using this role is that of signing treaties on behalf of the United States of America. However, he cannot sign anything he wants. He must get the approval of two thirds of the Senate in order to be allowed to sign any treaty and they can even go behind his back and sign/refuse to sign any treaty. This is the trouble that Woodrow Wilson had after World War I.
Take, for example, the recent efforts of President Bush. When he announced the War on Terror the people and the Congress backed him wholeheartedly to the point where he was able to quickly, and effectively, pass the USA Patriot Act on 25th October 2001. This was to allow the NSA and FBI to gain warrants for tapping, bugging etc. (see PGP for more on this as well).
This rise in the foreign policy role can partly be attributed to the change away from the US's previous isolationalist stance. World War I is often attributed to the increase of America's role in the affairs of other nations when Woodrow Wilson finally persuaded the public (and more importantly the Senate) to aid in the war against Germany. Though the country soon returned back to the isolationalist stance after the war (even though Wilson had been paramount in the creation of the League of Nations and the 14 point plan for Germany) it left its mark on America. World War II brought America back onto the international stage and this time they kept a large standing army. From here, America grew in economic, military and political strength making it almost impossible to exclude America from international treaties if they were to work correctly (this was one of the reasons that is used for the downfall of the League of Nations, America was absent from it).
Head of Party
This is a less important role in America due to the relative weakness of the political parties in comparison to the UK. It is perfectly normal for the President not to have the support of the party when trying to pass bills through Congress and there are no form of party whips, comparable to the whips present in British political parties, to keep the party in line. Also since the party is not as strong candidates need to do a lot of fundraising for themselves instead of relying on the party machine to do it for them.
There is also no formal opposition which can bully and check the executive. Though it can be seen that the Majority and Minority leaders and the Speakers of the Houses in the Congress act as a semi-opposition it is not institutionalised in the same way as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
This position puts extra time constraints on an already busy man. It requires large amounts of time to fundraise and campaign without a party machine to take care of everything for you. This is compounded by the fact that the country is very large and it takes time to tour the country.
There is also an issue over a conflict of interests. As the President he is supposed to look after the interests of the country not of the party however he may find it difficult to 'bite the hand that feeds him' to coin a phrase.
On the positive side, the position does lend itself to a lot of time travelling and therefore a lot of prominence in the public eye. This helps to keep the main attention on his good points (party tours would hardly deliberately demonise their candidate) and away from any problems that may be arising elsewhere.
There is also the ability to bestow patronage on other officials (such as a candidate for a Senatorial position) which may allow him to be reciprocated if his support allows the candidate to win. This is tied into the fact that being head of the party allows him some access to Congress since close to half the members will be in his party and informal meetings would be easy to arrange and probably very productive. It would be possible for him to use his position partially as leverage when negotiating with Congress.
Manager of Prosperity
It does sound like a fairly pretentious title to give to the President but it merely means that he is responsible of keeping the economy and general standard of living at an acceptable (and hopefully better) level according to my notes, this phrase was actually coined by Clinton Rossiter. It is important to note that the management of the economy was deliberately focused in Congress by the Constitution. The only way that the President has gained power in this area is through the need for faster, unified responses to economic problems. There are also strong checks on the economic powers of the President.
This power started to really come into sight with the Great Depression where FDR had to restore the national economy. The New Deal was instrumental in this and started an era of interference in affairs by the government. This power was finally institutionalised in 1946 with the passing of the Employment Act which set out in the statute books the need for the President to aim for full employment. He was
"to avoid economic fluctuations [and]...maintain employment, production and purchasing power".
It also set up a council of economic advisors to aid the President in creating economic policies (joined to the White House).
Obviously the main way that the President exercises this role is through the creation of the budget. Basically the system has reached the point where the executive branch draws up a possible budget which it then presents to Congress (well, to the plethora of committees) which goes over it with a fine toothed comb. This is the point where, like most legislation, there is much debate between the executive and the various parts of the legislature as to which provisions to keep, which to amend and which to | 
