Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Power of the American president
Power of the American president
Power of the American president
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When looking at the powers of different presidents, you have to look at their responsibilities and what power they actually have when it comes to decision making. Both the Iranian and American presidents have two different presidential powers, formal and informal. Formal powers are ones that are written into the constitution and have to be upheld by anyone who comes into power, for example both presidents can sign treaties with foreign countries. Informal power are not explicitly written into the constitution (1), but are done by the president, for example being persuasive, this is a power they need to use because that is how they will gain the presidential role, by persuading the public and to make international treaties they need to use the
The American president, currently Barack Obama, has Executive powers over the federal government and has powers to appoint ambassadors, the Cabinet, Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the federal courts and is in control of the armed forces. In law making the president himself is only part of the process at the end of it, when it comes to enrolling it (3), he has the power to ‘forget about it’ because he has the power to leave it on his desk for 10 days and then have it put through the process again. This shows that the American president has the power to ‘delay’ a law going through. Compared to the Iranian president, currently Hassan Rouhani, the American president has more formal powers because even though Rouhani is head of the executive branch, the Supreme Leader sets overall policies and oversees everything the president does. In contrast, the Supreme Leader of Iran appoints key figures in the political system and not the president. (2). This, however, doesn’t mean that the American president can do what he wishes; The Senate has to approve presidential appointments and approve treaties, the Senate has to also approve the appointments of all supreme
The president of the United States can make executive agreements (equal to a treaty) and meet with other world leaders without the Senate’s approval. He also has powers that allow him to obtain control in times of an emergency, without the interference of congress. Abraham Lincoln used this during the civil war because he needed to ensure he could spend all the money he needed to win the war. The Iranian president can also do this, he can declare a state of emergency which suspends all laws and can enact a state of martial law. However, no president has actually used this power as of now. However the president of Iran cannot make any decisions without gaining approval for them because he is not the highest ranked official in the Iranian political system the Supreme Leader is, and he has to approve all treaties and policies the president wishes to make. Informal and formal powers are not the only way in which the power and responsibility of the president can be hinders or
The President of the United States is instrumental in the running of the country. He serves as the chief executive, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislator, chief of state, judicial powers, and head of party. Article II of the Constitution states that the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. He also is tasked with the authority to appoint fifteen leaders of the executive departments which will be a part of the President’s cabinet. He or she is also responsible for speaking with the leaders the CIA and other agencies that are not part of his cabinet because these agencies play a key role in the protection of the US. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent
In May of 1787, 55 white wealthy males drifted into Philadelphia to work on the Constitution.
As the President of the United States, a president have powers that other members of the government do not. Presidential power can be defined in numerous ways. Political scientists Richard Neustadt and William Howell give different views on what is presidential power. These polarized views of presidential powers can be used to compare and contrast the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
Can you imagine president controlling your life? The constitution use three different forms to make a group or a person from getting too much power on his hands. The are three types of power that each contusion have in order to keep power equal. One of them is Legislative Branch Congress “Can approve Presidential nominations”(Document C). It’s a example how governments try to keep power equal.
America and Iran had tricked the Soviets which left them very angry, and this inevitably led to the Cold War. But less than a decade later, America had done something which caused Iran to change their opinion of them. In 1951, Iran had recently elected a prime minister by the name, Mohammed Mosaddeq, which he nationalized the countryś petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated AIOC. This move, however, pitted the two governments against each other in a bitter political fight. The Truman administration had tried to work between both sides, but Dwight Eisenhower had quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather than the solution to the crisis. They decided that they wanted him out and later he was kicked out and Mohammad Reza Shah took his place for the next twenty-five years. Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry, but also obtained tacit White House permission to forgo any serious effort at reform. Over the years, the internal resentment against the Shahś political and economic policies was building to a peak, but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of American
The Carter Administration’s misguided relations and interactions with the Iranian government, especially the Shah, prior to the Iranian Hostage Crisis made evident the impending nature of the hostage crisis. During the period of time during which the Shah was in power in Iran, the United States maintained strong relations with the Iranian government and the Shah, however by supporting the Shah, they supported the crimes he committed against the Iranian people. The United States’ support of the Shah is evident by the photograph in Figure 1 in which President Jimmy Carter and the Shah are shaking hands to display the strong relations between the United States and Iran. At this state dinner, Carter, in his speech, praised Iran by stating that the country was an “island of stability” that was
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system.
Several aspects of the executive branch give the presidency political power. The president’s biggest constitutional power is the power of the veto (Romance, July 27). This is a power over Congress, allowing the president to stop an act of Congress in its tracks. Two things limit the impact of this power, however. First, the veto is simply a big “NO” aimed at Congress, making it largely a negative power as opposed to a constructive power (July 27). This means that the presidential veto, while still quite potent even by its mere threat, is fundamentally a reactive force rather than an active force. Second, the presidential veto can be overturned by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289). This means that the veto doesn’t even necessarily hav...
One of the first differences of a prime minister compared to a president, are the powers that are given to each one that gives them the authority to lead. Different areas of the law and branches of government are ruled with different powers of authority for the government and state. Commonly, another way the president differs from a prime minister,
When the constitution of the United States was formed, the framers specifically designed the American Government structure to have checks and balances and democracy. To avoid autocracy the President was give power to preside over the executive branch of the government and as commander –in –chief, in which a clause was put into place to give the president the power to appeal any sudden attacks against America, without waiting for a vote from congress. While the president presides over the executive branch there has been ongoing debate over the role of the president in regards to foreign policy. Should foreign policy issues be an executive function by the president or should congress play a much greater role? With the sluggishness of our democracy, foreign policy issues most times need quicker response compared to how domestic policy is decided in the United States. Many believe to maintain openness and democracy both the president and congress need to agree on how the United States handles issue abroad. Although the president has been given much power, his or her power and decisions are sometimes limited based on decisions by congress and challenged and shaped by various bureaucracies throughout the government system. I shall discuss the Presidents role and the role of governmental bureaucracies (Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council) that work together and sometimes not together to shape and implement American foreign Policy.
Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, is a popular leader and a skilled negotiator in a hated country.
Regarding executive powers, and more specifically, war powers, the US Constitution states, “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”. Furthermore, it states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…. And appoint Ambassadors”. The President’s war powers are rather vague and open-ended as the question states, but some may argue that now, because of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, this