Congress and the Presidency Separation

Congress and the Presidency

Separation of Powers

Separation of powers is the concept adopted by the Founding Fathers that prevents any branch of government -- executive, legislative, or judicial -- from governing the U.S. without "checks and balances" from the other two branches. It was meant, in the time of kings and emperors, to prevent a monarchy or dictatorship.

Each branch of the government is given certain limited and specific powers. An example would be that the legislative branch can introduce and pass laws, but the President, or executive branch, can veto them. Another example is that, though the U.S. Supreme Court is appointed for life, it is the executive branch which must appoint the justices, and the legislative branch must approve the selection and has the power to impeach.

It may be important to note that, in the beginnings of our country when the politicians wrote the first articles of confederation of the states in 1781, there were no checks and balances. The only power designated by the articles was Congress which consisted of one representative from each state and ran everything -- everything that the states allowed them to run. Remember too, though, that prior to these articles, states had been and were still the primary power group in the colonies. To impose a strong central federal government that held any level of power over the states was tyranny to many, at best. So, the fact that the articles did just that with a weak though centralized Congress was a major step. Separation of powers did not exist, at least not in any real sense.

In 1786 it became apparent to all that the articles of confederation were not working. In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention arrived at the "Great Compromise" and a brand new U.S. Constitution. The articles were completely rewritten in a broad and courageous step outside the individual states' powerful interests. These "founding fathers" were committed to a stronger union and to the states' demands for a separation of powers between federal and state governments. As well, they knew that no unit of the federal government could become so powerful as to produce a ruling body vis-a-vis the British crown. Thus, the bi-cameral legislature, the executive and the judicial branches were born and a system of checks and balances put in place by dividing separate powers and duties for each.

Executive Branch Success With Domestic Policy Initiatives

As there is no "power" that gives any branch of the government the right to deal with domestic or foreign policy, it has fallen within the purview of the presidency to do so as he is the one branch of the government elected by all the people and is their representative. He also maintains the Constitutional right to oversee the law of the land and to ensure legislation is implemented. Due to his "bully pulpit" it is the presidency which has the most influence over the other two branches in this domestic arena.

The executive branch, through the president's cabinet and many other internal organizations, is organized to establish and deal with domestic policies. Domestic policy is a vast mass of bureaucratic dealings in an almost unlimited number of areas to include everything from national parks to oil drilling, from AIDS research to the Patriot Act, and from healthcare to gay rights.

Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s have established cabinet posts, agencies, committees, boards, groups, and staff posts solely to deal with the president's main emphasis -- domestic policy (Rudalevige, 2009).

In a sense, the executive branch is a finely honed domestic policy machine developed over decades utilizing the savvy, intelligence, and strategies of numerous presidents and their hand-picked advisors. No other branch of our government is organized to accomplish this task.

Finally, it is crucial to note that the executive branch can effectively implement domestic policy without the approval of the legislative branch. Through rule-making, appointments, re-organizations, executive orders, proclamations, etc., the president wields a mighty sword when it comes to controlling the domestic agenda.

But it is the president that makes the machine run smoothly and effectively -- or not. He must bring certain traits, talents, and personality to the table to make certain that priorities are in order, the proper battles are fought and won, and that the country senses his urgency in effecting change in their interest.

An effective domestic policy president must be expert in two areas: working with Congress to effect real change, and using his pulpit to gain the support of the American people for his programs. If he can accomplish those two difficult tasks, he can have a successful domestic presidency. Effective presidents have a vision for the country and the ability and character to adhere to that vision and bring the country along with him. In other words, he must be a combination of John Kennedy, LBJ, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

And there is one huge factor that can stop the most effective chief executive in his tracks -- an opposition Congress. It takes a crisis for an executive branch and legislative branch of opposite parties to allow a president to effect needed change, and that change usually is limited to the ongoing crisis or war. It is evident with his own party's opposition to President Obama's healthcare proposal how difficult effective change can be.

The Presidency Ascending...

The presidency, or executive branch, is more effective in its role of domestic policy-making due to its role, granted powers, and organization, and not due to its affectivity or ascendency in accomplishing that role. In other words, the presidency, even under a weaker domestic president, could easily be more effective at domestic policy-making than another branch because the executive branch has been organized to do it and knows the processes by which it is done.

The presidency's ascendency in domestic policy-making can be steady or meteoric. It can also fail just as quickly.

However, because of the many tools a president has at his fingertips to enforce and influence, the rise in the executive branch's power on the domestic front has been rising at a steady pace in the hands of presidents who know how to use it. And, again, it is because of the tools they have at their disposal with which to influence and persuade -- his implied powers.