Who Polices The President?

The President of the United States has a wide range of powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the US Constitution, Acts of Congress, implied powers, and soft power. One of the most important responsibilities of the president is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. While this may make the president seem like a top-level law enforcer, they are not personally responsible for executing the laws. Instead, they must ensure that their subordinates carry out the laws faithfully. The president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers, and this power to supervise is how they ensure the faithful execution of the laws.

The president's duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed

The President of the United States has a duty to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. This responsibility, also known as the Take Care Clause, is outlined in Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution. While the clause appears straightforward, its interpretation and the limits of presidential power have been extensively debated and litigated.

The Take Care Clause states that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This means that the President must ensure that the laws and the Constitution are upheld. However, it is important to note that the President does not personally execute the laws. Instead, they are responsible for ensuring that their subordinates, such as heads of executive departments, execute the laws faithfully. The President has the power to remove and supervise their subordinates, holding them accountable for the faithful execution of the laws.

The modern interpretation of the Take Care Clause recognises that the President is not solely responsible for ensuring the faithful execution of the laws. While the President has a general duty to supervise executive departments, they cannot be expected to personally manage the day-to-day activities of each department. As the Supreme Court noted in 1843, such an expectation would be impractical and unrealistic. Therefore, the President typically delegates responsibility to the heads of the various executive departments, who have the authority to implement orders and instructions as they deem fit, as long as they act within the boundaries of the law.

The President's power to appoint and remove executive officers is a crucial aspect of their duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws. If the department heads fail to execute the laws faithfully, the President has the authority to remove them from office. This power dynamic allows the President to maintain control over the officers and ensure the laws are carried out as intended.

In conclusion, the President's duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws is a critical component of the US government's system of checks and balances. While the President is not directly involved in law enforcement, they play a pivotal role in overseeing and guiding the execution of the laws through their power to appoint and remove executive officers. This dynamic ensures accountability and helps maintain the integrity of the law enforcement process.

The president's power to veto legislation

The president of the United States has the power to veto legislation, which is explicitly granted by the Constitution and serves as a check against the legislative branch. This power allows the president to refuse to sign a bill into law and return it to Congress with objections, requiring a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override. The veto power is intended to prevent the legislative branch from becoming too powerful and ensures the president can block measures deemed unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise.

The process of vetoing a bill involves the president returning the bill to the House in which it originated, along with their objections. The House will then reconsider the bill, and if it passes with a two-thirds majority, it is sent to the other House for a similar reconsideration. If both Houses approve the bill with a two-thirds majority, it becomes a law despite the president's veto.

The president's veto power is not without limitations. They are required to approve or veto a bill in its entirety, without selectively choosing parts to veto. Additionally, if the president does not sign a bill and Congress is no longer in session, the bill is vetoed by default, known as a "pocket veto," which cannot be overridden by Congress.

The veto power is an essential tool for the president to influence legislation and ensure it aligns with their agenda and the best interests of the nation. It serves as a check against the power of Congress and is a key aspect of the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

The president's power to command the armed forces

The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, a role that comes with vast powers and responsibilities. This position grants the president the authority to command the Army, Navy, and Militia of the United States, as outlined in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

As Commander-in-Chief, the president has plenary power to launch, direct, and supervise military operations, as well as order or authorise the deployment of troops. This power extends to the ability to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons and form military policy with the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. The president's power as Commander-in-Chief also includes the ability to:

• Invade hostile countries and subject them to US sovereignty and authority.
• Employ secret agents to gather intelligence on enemies.
• Authorise commercial intercourse with the enemy, with congressional assent.
• Requisition property and compel services from American citizens and friendly aliens within the theatre of military operations.
• Bring hostilities to a conclusion by arranging an armistice and stipulating conditions for peace.
• Govern recently acquired territory until Congress establishes a more permanent regime.

While the president typically delegates the supreme command of the forces in active service, there is no constitutional requirement to do so. Notable examples of presidents personally resolving important questions of military policy include Abraham Lincoln's 1862 orders for a general advance, Woodrow Wilson's 1918 decision on an independent American command on the Western Front, and Harry Truman's 1945 order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The degree of authority granted to the president as Commander-in-Chief has been a subject of debate throughout American history. While Congress holds the power to declare war, the president, as Commander-in-Chief, directs the war effort. This dynamic has resulted in several conflicts throughout history where presidents initiated military action without official declarations of war, such as Theodore Roosevelt's move into Panama in 1903, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989.

The president's power to appoint and remove executive officers

The US Constitution gives the president the power to appoint and remove executive officers. This power is granted by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, also known as the Appointments Clause.

The Appointments Clause states that the president "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". This means that the president has the power to nominate and appoint individuals to these positions, but must seek the approval of the Senate before making official appointments.

The power to appoint also extends to the president's ability to fill federal positions, such as top officials at US government agencies, members of the White House staff, and members of the US diplomatic corps. The president also nominates persons to fill federal judicial vacancies, including federal judges and Supreme Court justices, which require Senate confirmation.

The president has the authority to remove their appointees from office, but it is important to note that the removal of certain executive officers, such as the heads of independent federal agencies, is typically restricted to removal for cause. This means that the president cannot remove these officers from their positions without just cause or reason.

The power to appoint and remove executive officers is an important aspect of the president's role in executing the laws and shaping the federal government. It allows the president to surround themselves with individuals who share their political ideology and can help them implement their agenda. However, the requirement to seek Senate approval for appointments also serves as a check on the president's power.

The president's power to pardon people

The President of the United States has the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power is granted by Article II of the United States Constitution.

The pardon power is a near-blank check among the Constitution's checks and balances. While scholars have expressed concern about possible abuses of this power, the most significant risk is the ability to attach conditions to clemency grants, known as the "conditional pardon power." This power allows the president to pardon an individual on the condition that they perform a certain action or meet specific criteria. For example, a president could pardon a convicted felon on the condition that they vote for their party in an upcoming election.

The pardon power is not without limits, however. Firstly, it only applies to federal offences and does not extend to violations of state laws. Secondly, the pardon cannot infringe upon individual rights that are not already deprived by the individual's conviction. For example, a pardon cannot impose additional punishments or restrictions beyond those already imposed by the original sentence.

The use of the pardon power has been a controversial issue, particularly during the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump has granted pardons to people convicted of crimes related to his presidential campaign, and there has been speculation about whether he could pardon himself for various crimes, which would be unprecedented. While the constitutionality of a self-pardon is unclear, it would likely violate the principle that no one should be a judge in their own case.

In conclusion, the president's power to pardon individuals is a significant aspect of their authority, but it is not without limits and is subject to scrutiny and debate.

Frequently asked questions