Richard Neustadt's Essay On Presidential Power

A dominant view among many Americans align with Richard Neustadt’s essay on presidential power, in which he defines presidency with a mere definition similar to that of clerkship. The framers of the constitution carefully divided the power, decentralized it specifically in a way that it limits each branch to act unilaterally and forces deliberation and compromising. They believe it is often the case that as a result of checks and balance system and the opposition from the public, presidents generally fail in their efforts to move the public and therefore they don’t have the kind of leverage that they want in moving the Congress.
After all, the very purpose of writing down the organizing principles of the government was to prevent slow alterations

to the way politics. And yet, that is exactly what we have seen with presidency. An interesting quirk of US constitutional system is how it can be altered without amendment. If a leader — usually the president — takes power for himself that is not strictly within the boundaries established by the Constitution, and the people do not complain loudly and long enough, then the founding document is effectively amended, as a new precedent is established. Most presidents I believe contributed to this process regardless of party or ideology affiliation. Scalia vs liberalisms
Although not precisely appear within the written text of the constitution, certain powers are implied by the wording of the constitution; while sometimes they’re considered inherent in the office of presidency, which means they flow logically from the ideas in the constitution.

For example, he’s the commander in chief of the armed forces, which at the time was probably army and navy. There’s a reason that this should be the first power. If there’s one thing that almost everyone can agree on, it’s that the first job of government is to keep the citizens safe, especially from foreign invasion. He can and perhaps will lead the armed forces when the nation is at war. It also implies that president still has the inherent power to use troops when the congress hasn’t formally declared war. Logically, if there’s an immediate threat to the US and congress doesn’t have the time or the opportunity to declare a war, the commander in chief aka the president must be able to use force. Multiple times the US presidents had sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and twice to Iraq without Congress declaring a war, and they’re just the big ones. Congress merely ratified the decision after the fact and courts usually defer to administrative actions, especially in the area of national defense. The problem is that once you grant that the president must have the power to use troops, how do you limit him? What sorts of threats are so immediate and dangerous that the president should have the

free reign to send troops?

Similar instance happened with domestic policy making.

Today Congress regularly issues directives so broad that the executive is tasked with formulating and executing policy. As a head of his representative party, the president appoints members of his own party to head agencies, in which he chooses agency heads that agree with his policies, so his appointments shape the political agenda. More importantly though, when president does this, he assumes an inherent power to direct them and their agencies on how to implement laws. So, he’s basically direct the way the government acts. Though one might argue president is not the only executive power in the government and that there are several different agencies with their own functions and ability. But these agencies are, in my opinion, just tools that the government has, to make policy and to implement

it.

Additionally, presidents often engage in administrative strategies through the use of executive order. Even though their authority doesn’t trace back to the Constitution, they’d established affirmative action in federal contracting. Moreover, these happen outside of the public eye and are much more efficient than having to wait for a majority of members of Congress to agree on something, which makes it easier for the president to act. “Executive privilege” and “signing statements”, both allow the president to expand his power and he’s done that through executing the laws and implement them in certain ways that he sees fit. He can impound the funds that congress has appropriated for certain programs or projects if he doesn’t want them implemented.
The president’s access to media is almost limitless. The use of media or the bully pulpit allows the president to mobilize public opinion. Though this strategy probably wouldn’t work if he’s not popular but still shifting public opinion can be pretty darn easy.
The concept of giving the president more power over the independent regulatory agencies of the executive branch was probably based on some language that was never meant to be interpreted as any kind of doctrine by Alexander Hamilton in one of the federalist papers, where he talks about the unitary executive. What he’s actually talking about is the fact that US didn’t have a council for the executive branch but rather one person. But into that term they have poured an enormous amount of power and stretched the whole concept.