Presidency PDF

Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Chapter 6 The Presidency Chapter Outline I The Constitutional Basis of The Presidency II Presidential Powers and Responsibilities III The President as Chief Executive IV The President as Commander-In-Chief VI The President as Chief Legislator VII The President...

Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Chapter 6 The Presidency Chapter Outline I The Constitutional Basis of The Presidency II Presidential Powers and Responsibilities III The President as Chief Executive IV The President as Commander-In-Chief VI The President as Chief Legislator VII The President as Chief of State VII The President as Chief Diplomat VIII Electing a President IX Conclusion I The Constitutional Basis of The Presidency Learning Outcomes o Identify specific articles and sections in the Constitution that establish the American presidency. o Explain the reasons for the growth in power of the modern presidency. The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution did not wish to create a powerful president. Their experiences with the kings and prime ministers of England taught them of the danger of giving the chief executive too much power. They were afraid that a strong president would overpower Congress, which they envisioned as the best representative of the nation. With that in mind, the founding fathers made sure that every major power given the president was closely checked by Congress. The powers and responsibilities of the presidency are found in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. The framers of the Constitution made the president the head of the military (commander and chief), but they gave the power to raise and fund the armed services and the power to declare war to Congress. They made the president the head of the executive branch, which oversees executing or enforcing all the laws of the land. But they required that the president get the Senate's approval of all top executive officials and they gave Congress the final power to create executive positions and to pass the budget of the government. They made the president the chief representative of the United States in foreign affairs, but they required that he have Senate approval of all treaties and of all U.S. ambassadors. They gave the president the power to veto all laws passed by Congress, but they allowed Congress to override his veto by two-thirds of both houses. Finally, they gave Congress the power to impeach and remove the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Despite the intentions of the framers, however, the U.S. presidency has greatly increased its power over the years. Today, the presidency is usually considered to be the most powerful branch. Several factors have contributed to this. First, despite the use of an Electoral College system, the people now essentially elect the 1  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby president. This means that the president and the vice president are the only nationally elected politicians in our government. This gives the president added power since he was chosen by tens of millions of voters while representatives in the U.S. House and Senate were only chosen by voters in their districts and states. Voters do not elect federal judges. One of the reasons that the people who wrote the Constitution did not want (and therefore did not create) a popularly elected president is precisely because they thought it would make the president more powerful. Second, the president, because of reasons discussed in this chapter, now has the power to put the country into a de facto state of war any time he wishes. Since the United States currently has the most powerful military in the world this means that the president can choose to intervene in almost any country he wishes. Third, the president is in charge of foreign or international policy. When the United States was founded, it was a second- rate country internationally. Today the USA is the most powerful country in the world. Because foreign or international policy is more important than ever, the leader and chief maker of foreign policy is also more important. Institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, and the World Trade Organization have become influential in world affairs. The president controls the U.S. representatives to all of these institutions--they do his bidding. Fourth, the President has the power to get news coverage and especially television coverage any time he wishes. Every major television network has a full-time crew covering the presidency. The public knows intimate details of his life and those of his wife, children, relatives and even pets. Congress is now a very large institution with 535 members--too many for the average person to keep up with. The president has the power of the bully pulpit, that is, he is the one person who can make news any time he wishes by simply allowing a press conference. Leaders of Congress can call press conferences also, but not many people will watch them. This domination of The first President of the United States, George Washington, the media usually allows the president to bring any issue he continues to serve as a model for current occupants of the White House. wants before the public. Finally, when there is a national or international emergency of any type from a flood to a possible war the country engages in a “rally around the flag effect” and looks to the president for leadership. Congress is left to ratify or argue with what he decides. Almost never can Congress seize the initiative. This was clearly the case in 9-11 (2001). The country looked to President Bush for leadership. In the months following 9-11 President Bush's popularity soared, reaching an approval rating of 90%, the highest approval rating ever recorded by Gallup, two weeks after the bombings. His popularity with the public greatly increased the president's power since few in Congress, and even the U.S. media, were willing to challenge him. In 2020 the country found itself deep into a disease pandemic and the resultant economic dislocation caused by lockdown policies advocated by the states and national government. In 2021 Joseph R. Biden was sworn in as President 2  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby of the United States. He was elected to lead the country out of the pandemic and recent economic difficulties such as inflation and unemployment. II Presidential Powers and Responsibilities Learning Outcomes o Explain the types of presidential powers. o Identify specific formal and informal powers of the presidency. o Identify specific responsibilities of the presidency. Even though the framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted a presidency with very limited powers, we have ended up with the presidency becoming the most powerful branch of government. The powers exercised by the head of the executive branch can also be the undoing of the president. Any mistake he makes is magnified by the media. George W. Bush, for example, went from an approval rating of ninety percent just after September 11, 2001, to under thirty percent in late 2008. A president's approval rating does not affect his formal authority, but it does affect his power, that is, it affects his influence domestically with Congress and externally with the leaders of other countries. Presidential powers are typically categorized by the source of a president's claim to authority - the Constitution directly, the Congress, or the history of the presidency itself. To explore each source more fully, it's beneficial to focus on expressed, delegated, and inherent powers of the presidency. Expressed powers are those explicitly granted to the President by the U.S. Constitution. These powers are clearly defined in the wording of the document and include responsibilities related to military command, foreign policy, and the administration of the President George W. Bush experienced some of the highest and executive branch. Looking at Barack Obama’s presidency, we lowest approval ratings of any post-WWII president. can see several examples of the use of expressed powers in all three areas. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011. This decision was made based on his constitutionally assigned role to oversee and command the armed forces. Obama also used his expressed power to negotiate and sign treaties during the Iranian Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2015. The treaty aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. Although the deal required Senate approval, the negotiation and signing were within Obama’s expressed powers. In the execution and administration of federal laws and policies, Obama used his expressed power to veto legislation that he opposed. For example, he vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act in 2015, which aimed to approve the construction of a pipeline from Canada to the U.S., citing environmental concerns. President Trump’s use of expressed powers was as prolific as Obama’s. Trump’s prison reform measures, notably connected to the First Step Act, aimed to reduce recidivism (a trend related to those who exit prison and commit crimes that return them back to prison) and reform sentencing laws, especially for non-violent offenders, which required bipartisan support in Congress. Trump used his constitutional power to pardon (a full release of a convicted individual from a court penalty such as prison time or a fine) or commute sentences 3  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby (a reduction of the legal consequences of an individual convicted of a crime) as a demonstration of his stance on criminal justice reform, choosing some high-profile cases to reflect his commitment to the issue. He then directed the Department of Justice to prioritize criminal justice reform and establish new rules and guidelines aligned with the First Step Act's aims. This use of executive leadership highlighted his influence over the federal agencies responsible for implementing the reform. Delegated powers, as opposed to expressed powers, are those given to the president by Congressional lawmaking. These powers are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution but are granted through legislation passed by Congress that is typically meant to address a specific area of concern. We can use the Trump presidency as a source for examples of the use of delegated powers in trade and immigration policy. Under delegated authority from Congress, President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in 2018, citing national security concerns under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This move was an exercise of delegated trade powers intended to protect American industries from what the Trump administration claimed were unfair trade deals with Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. In the realm of immigration policy, Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2019, using delegated powers to redirect military funds to build barriers along the border. This action was based on the National Emergencies Act, which allows the President to act swiftly in times of perceived crisis. Inherent powers are those that the President of the United States assumes based on the role and responsibilities of the office, rather than being explicitly granted by the Constitution or delegated by Congress. These powers are often derived President Donald J. Trump meets with U.S. Border Patrol Chief El Centro from the history of the office itself, with Sector Gloria Chavez at the U.S.-Mexico Border near Calexico CA. precedents set by previous administrations and their actions as Commander-in-Chief, chief diplomat, and chief executive. Often, inherent powers are invoked during times of national emergency or crisis. President Joe Biden's presidency offers us several examples of the use of inherent powers linked to perceived emergencies and crises. Biden invoked the Defense Production Act as well as his inherent power to direct federal funds to increase the production of critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and personal protective equipment in his attempt to manage the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Likewise, Biden's administration used inherent powers to address climate change, rejoining the Paris Agreement and issuing executive orders aimed at reducing carbon emissions. These actions were based on the President’s traditional role in shaping foreign and domestic policy. III The President as Chief Executive Learning Outcomes o Explain the role of chief executive in the American system of government. o Identify specific agencies, departments, and personnel that make up the executive branch of the American government. 4  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby o Explain the composition and role of the Cabinet in a presidential administration. o Explain the composition and role of the EOP in a presidential administration. Although there are many functions that the executive branch of government performs, its chief responsibility is to execute or enforce the laws of the land. When we think of the federal government, we generally think primarily of the executive branch headed by the president. It is the executive branch that does almost all the work of government. It is the military, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, the Post Office, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury and hundreds of other departments and agencies. In short, it is the executive branch that runs the day-to-day operations of the federal government of the United States. The president will have the opportunity of appointing about 4,000 people to the top levels of the executive branch--out of a total of over two million employees. He cannot hire or fire anyone other than those 4,000 employees. The top executives in the government are in the president's cabinet. All the secretaries of the fifteen major departments of government (Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Justice, Agriculture, etc.) are included in it. It is the president, along with his cabinet, who determine the major policies of the executive branch. The heads of the major departments of government are called “Secretaries.” The only exception to this is the head of the Department of Justice who is the Attorney General. Today there are fifteen people who oversee the major departments of Group photo of most of the Trump cabinet in March 2017. government. Collectively, along with the vice president, these people form the Cabinet. Each person in the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the president. In 2024 the Cabinet includes the Vice President and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to detail the operations of each of these departments, it is possible to give a brief overview of their role in the enforcement of federal policies. Generally, when Congress passes a bill and it is signed into law by the president, the law is sent to the department that handles enforcement and policy making related to the law’s subject matter. For example, bills that deal with airline safety will be sent to the Department of Transportation upon their enactment into law. Bills that directly impact the armed forces of the United States are sent to the Department of Defense. As a result, the cabinet represents a variety of policy making and law, however, not all cabinet positions enjoy the same status with the president and Congress. The cabinet positions with the most power and prestige are the Department of State (directs the foreign or international policy of the United States), the Department of Defense (controls the U.S. military) and the Attorney General, who heads the Department of Justice. Collectively, these positions are often colloquially referred to as the president’s inner cabinet. 5  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Other Executive Agencies and Offices While most of the day-to-day operation of the federal government lies within the scope of the executive branch’s cabinet system, there are some important agencies and offices that report directly to the president that must also be considered when examining the awesome power of any presidential administration. Chief among these arms of presidential authority are a group of advisors and policy makers in The Executive Office of the President (EOP). The EOP was established in 1939 during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its creation was the result of a study done by the Brownlow Committee, a committee formed in 1937 to study and suggest ways to improve the organization of the executive branch. The committee famously concluded that "the President needs help" to manage the rapidly expanding federal government, particularly in the context of a series of proposals by Roosevelt called the New Deal, which was meant to help solve the economic problems created by the Great Depression. Initially, the EOP included a small number of key advisory bodies such as the White House Office and the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB). The primary role of the EOP, following the recommendations of the Brownlow Committee, was to provide the President with support and advice across a wide range of policy areas. Today, it assists in the formulation and implementation of presidential policies, coordinates interagency efforts, and manages the daily operations of the executive branch in such areas as scheduling, communications, correspondence, and public relations. These offices support the President’s engagements, speeches, and interactions with the public and media. There are some elements of the EOP that merit specific consideration for their importance to coordinating and implementing federal policies: The White House Office (WHO) - is the core of the EOP and includes the President’s closest advisors and staff who directly support the day-to-day functions of the presidency. Key positions within the WHO include the Chief of Staff, the National Security Advisor, the White House Press Secretary, and senior policy advisors. The Chief of Staff serves as the head of the White House staff, oversees the President's schedule, coordinates policy goals and political strategy, and often acts as a gatekeeper to the President. The Chief of Staff is typically the President's closest advisor and plays a central role in almost every important decision-making process. The WHO also oversees communications, political affairs, and public engagement for the president and plays a large role in how the public may perceive the president's effectiveness at running the executive branch. In order to deliver the most effective policy statements possible, the Press Secretary serves as the primary spokesperson for the administration and is responsible for communicating the President's message to the media and the public. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - is responsible for preparing the federal budget, overseeing the implementation of executive branch policies, and ensuring that agency programs comply with the President's policies. It plays a critical role in fiscal management and regulatory oversight. The National Security Council (NSC) - Headed by the National Security Advisor (NSA), the National Security Council advises the President on national security and foreign policy matters. It coordinates military and foreign policy initiatives, and its members include the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and other key national security and intelligence officials. The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) - provides the President with economic analysis and advice on the formulation of both domestic and international economic policy. It is composed of a 6  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby chair and members appointed by the President and supported by a team of economists and researchers. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) - advises the President on trade policy and represents the United States in trade negotiations. It plays a critical role in shaping international trade agreements and enforcing trade laws. Other important advisors to the president who don’t carry official positions in the White House (family, friends, personal attorneys, etc.) are sometimes informally referred to as the president’s kitchen cabinet. IV The President as Commander-In-Chief Learning Outcomes o Explain the role of commander-in-chief in the American system of government. o Identify specific agencies, departments, and personnel that assist the commander -in-chief of the American military. o Explain the restrictions placed on the commander -in-chief of the American military. o Explain the composition and role of the Defense Department and the JCS in a presidential administration. When the Constitution was written it was intended that if the government of the United States was going to become involved in a major military action abroad that the Congress would have the power to decide. For this reason, the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war. The framers wanted a decision of this magnitude to be in the hands of the most democratic branch, the part of the federal government that was the closest to the people--who would have to fight any war. The framers also intended that the president oversee conducting the war. For this reason, they made the president the commander-and-chief of the U.S. armed forces. They did not want committees of Congress to be debating military strategy. They thought that one person should oversee the military so that decisions could be made swiftly. Thus, as in all major powers in the U.S. Constitution, a check and balance was created. Congress would decide and the president would execute, taking advantage of the expertise of both branches while President Ronald Reagan Attending The Commencement Exercises for The separating powers. 1984 Graduating Class of The United States Air Force, 5/30/1984. At the present time, this balance has been seriously eroded. The president now has the power to order the U.S. military to attack any country he wishes without permission of Congress, indeed without even consulting it. Over the last sixty years the president has ordered the U.S. military to join a war in Vietnam, occupy the Dominican Republic, occupy and overthrow the governments in Grenada, Panama, and Haiti--not to mention the military actions in Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Libya. In none of these actions did the president ask permission of Congress--in fact, there was little consultation in most cases. In all the U.S. The President has ordered U.S. troops into other countries at least 125 times without Congressional approval. 7  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby In the military actions against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime in 2003, President George W. Bush received Congressional approval, with some reservations, to use the military. His administration stated publicly, however, that Bush was not constitutionally required to do so. Likewise, in 2011, President Obama authorized U.S. military intervention in Libya as part of an international coalition to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which aimed to protect civilians during the Libyan Civil War. Obama did not seek formal authorization from Congress for this intervention, citing his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and the need to act quickly to prevent a humanitarian disaster. President Donald Trump's time as commander-and- chief also featured instances of presidential war power that undercut congressional authority. Trump argued that the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 was necessary to prevent imminent threats posed by Soleimani, who allegedly orchestrated attacks against U.S. forces in the region. Congress was not consulted prior to the strike, and some members argued that the president should have sought congressional authorization, given the potential for escalation with Iran. The Trump Three Iranian women are taking selfie with a picture frame of Qasem administration cited the 2001 Authorization for the Use Soleimani, 2021. of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized action against terrorists responsible for 9/11, as a basis for the strike. However, critics argued this was a stretch, as Soleimani was not directly tied to al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. While the President is permitted to respond to immediate threats, there was debate over whether the strike on Soleimani qualified, as it potentially risked escalating into a broader conflict with Iran. How has this great increase in war powers come to be? The U.S. Constitution is a general guideline to government. It did not explain much of the specifics necessary to running the country. It left that up to the people who were in the government and to future generations. In particular, it did not explain the word "war," and it was silent on other military possibilities. They clearly wanted the president to be able to use the military to protect citizens in case of attack by another country. But they did not say this. Thus, they left much open to interpretation-- to be decided politically. U.S. Presidents have used the military hundreds of times without Congressional approval. They simply do not call the military action a "war." They call it a "conflict" (Vietnam) a "police action" (Korea) some kind of "operation" or some other term. George H. Bush called the military action that overthrew the Panamanian government and the arrest of Manuel Noriega "Operation Just Cause," and the action against Iraq "Operation Desert Storm." Declarations of War The Constitution of the United States specifically assigns, in Article I, Section 8, the power to declare war to Congress. Strictly speaking, Congress has declared war only five times: the war of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, World War I and World War II. There have been, of course, several instances of the United States sending troops into combat situations outside of declarations of war. 8  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Some of these events still carried approval from Congress, but from a different authorization than a declaration of war - a resolution of force (also known as authorizations of military force). Resolutions of Force/Authorizations of Military Force In one sense, a president's words play a role in shaping the public's view of a conflict. A war may be seen as a war only if the president calls it one. Of course, if he called it a war and he did not get a congressional declaration of war he would be acting unconstitutionally. And so, presidents simply do not use the word "war" and that they are acting within their powers--or so they contend. Both resolutions of force and declarations of war serve as formal authorizations for the use of military force by the United States. They provide a legal basis for the President to deploy the armed forces. In this way they are similar as they both require action by Congress, either through a formal vote (in the case of a declaration of war) or through the passage of a resolution. In important ways, however, the two authorizations are different. A declaration of war is a formal statement by Congress that recognizes a state of war between the United States and another nation and triggers a wide range of wartime powers for the President. Congress assumes, with declarations of war, that the military engagement will likely last a long time or at least with the surrender of an opponent's forces. A resolution of force, on the other hand, is less formal and more limited in scope than a declaration of war. It authorizes the President to use military force in a specific situation or against specific targets, often without a formal declaration of war. Resolutions of force can be tailored to specific circumstances and may not grant the President the full range of wartime powers. Since World War II, the United States has employed resolutions of force exclusively. Examples include the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964), which led to increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the AUMFs passed after the September 11 attacks in 2001, which authorized military action against those responsible for the attacks and against Iraq in 2002. Despite the availability of both declarations of war and resolutions of force, presidents have nonetheless deployed troops into theaters of combat without any permission from Congress. There are at least three reasons frequently cited for the shift of war powers to the president. The first reason is simply precedent. Since so many past presidents have used the military without consulting Congress it is assumed that the current president has these same inherent powers. While rightly venerated, Abraham Lincoln called out the military and started using the armed forces in the U.S. civil war without asking permission of Congress. As stated before, this has been done many times since. In a sense this power is a-constitutional, that is, it is outside the constitution. It has been established by custom. Since Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and others all had this power and used it, Joe Biden now possesses the ability to invade Haiti or bomb Iraq or Afghanistan without consulting Congress. The second and third reasons for the president having so much war-making power have to do with technology. When the Constitution was written Congress could meet, debate and vote in secret. There were eighty-five (26 Senators, 59 House members) persons in Congress. Even if there had been a spy listening to everything that Congress said, he would still have to travel great distances to inform his government and that government would take some time before it could do anything. Information in the early Seventeenth and late Eighteenth centuries traveled at the speed that a human could travel. It then made sense to give the power to Congress to decide if the United States should become involved in a military conflict. 9  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Today information travels at the speed of light. A possible adversary of the United States could tune into CNN to see what Congress was deciding. The thought of 535 Congresspersons attempting to keep a possible military action secret is ludicrous. This has given the president a decided advantage. He can make decisions quickly and secretly. If the United States wishes to have the element of surprise the decision to act almost has to be made by the president. In the summer of 2011, President Barack Obama decided to order a raid on the Al Qaeda terror network’s leader Osama bin Laden at his secret compound based in Pakistan. It seems obvious that this operation would have been compromised if word had gotten out that the United States was considering a raid on a target deep inside another country. Clearly, Congress could have been consulted, but leaving the decision up to Congress might have produced delay and the timing of the raid could have resulted in the terror leader’s escape. Most of the military conflicts that the United States has been involved in did not require split-second decisions. Congress could have been, and probably should have been, consulted. However, one does not have to be very imaginative to understand that there might well be a time when the United States needs to launch a sudden attack in order to defend itself. It would be very difficult for Congress to make such a decision. Military technology has also favored moving more power to the president. The speed, accuracy, and distance that modern weapons can travel, coupled with their enormous explosive power require the ability to make decisions quickly. The United States, for example, could not afford to wait if it received information that North Korea was getting ready to use a nuclear weapon against a South Korean city. Similarly, if U.S. intelligence found out that Iran had a nuclear weapon and planned to give it to terrorists, quick action would be necessary. President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Midnight Address" on 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam in the Fish Room of the White It is because of the above considerations that Congress has not been able to House, 1964. reign in the war-making powers of presidents. A declaration of war in Vietnam, (or the "conflict" as Johnson and Nixon were forced to call it), was never declared by Congress. While it is true that Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, there is serious doubt about Congress’ intention to involve the United States in a multi-year war that rapidly escalated into a situation that was difficult for the country to detach itself from. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon used their authority to involve the U.S. military. The United States killed perhaps a half million people in Vietnam and suffered over 55,000 fatalities and more than twice that number of soldiers seriously wounded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 As a result of that war Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over the veto of Richard Nixon. It attempted to spell out the conditions under which the president could use the military. It said that the president could use the military in foreign countries only in three circumstances. First, if Congress declared war. Second, if Congress expressly gave the President permission, and third in a military emergency where U.S. lives and property were threatened. When the military is deployed, the president is required to notify Congress within 48 hours of the reason for the action and then the president has only sixty days (with an additional thirty days to withdraw troops) to conduct the operation if he does not have congressional permission. 10  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Every president since Nixon has claimed the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional. But they have not challenged it in the courts. If they had, the Supreme Court might have sided with Congress or spelled out more clearly what powers the two branches really have. Neither of these two alternatives is in the interest of a president. So, presidents at times carry out the requirements of the law and at other times have been able to ignore it completely. President George H. W. Bush., for example, neither sought nor received permission to use the U.S. military in the Somali famine of 1992. Bush claimed that they were not really involved in a military action but rather a food assistance humanitarian operation, so there was no need to observe the War Powers Resolution. Of course, he claimed that the act was unconstitutional in the first place. Despite his claims, American troops did see combat in Somalia and several soldiers were killed in action. As one can see, the president has enormous powers in the area of military affairs. It is also true that not every person who ends up taking the oath of office for the presidency will come from a military background. In fact, over the past few decades most of the men who have become president have little to no military preparation at all. Thankfully, for presidents such as Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden, they were all surrounded by a group of military thinkers and officers who advised them on all aspects of military culture, capabilities, and strategies necessary for any commander-in-chief. While there are many who serve this function, it is important to highlight at least the following for their vital input to policy: The Secretary of Defense - oversees the Department of Defense and coordinates closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop and implement military strategy. Any person appointed to this position must be a civilian although many Secretaries of Defense have military experience. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) - is the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. Armed Forces and the principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC). The Chairman heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which includes the Vice Chairman and the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The CJCS does not command troops directly; instead, the role is advisory, providing professional military advice to the president and his civilian advisors. The National Security Advisor - is the President's chief advisor on national security and foreign policy matters. The NSA coordinates intelligence across multiple government agencies, including the Department of Defense, Department of State, and the various institutions in the intelligence community - the Central Intelligence Agency, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, and Signals Intelligence, among others. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) - oversees the entire intelligence community and coordinates intelligence efforts across 17 agencies. The DNI will often draw intelligence from the same agencies as the NSA. Eleven Combat Commanders (CCDRs) - are eleven senior military officers who lead the Unified Combatant Commands (UCCs). They are responsible for specific geographic areas across the world (such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command) and are in charge of planning and conducting military operations within their commands. While they are not direct advisors to the President, their advice is given to the President by senior defense officials. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - the CIA Director oversees the Central Intelligence Agency and focuses on foreign intelligence and covert operations around the globe. 11  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby VI The President as Chief Legislator Learning Outcomes o Explain the role of chief legislator in the American system of government. o Identify specific agencies, departments, and personnel that assist the president as chief legislator in the American government. o Explain the presidential role in how a bill becomes a law. o Explain strategies used by the chief legislator in the promotion of policy. As Chief Legislator, the President of the United States plays a key role in shaping the legislative agenda and influencing the passage of laws. Although the President does not directly make or vote on laws, they can propose legislation, advocate for specific policies, and use their influence to sway Congress. Almost all modern presidents, upon their election, will claim to have a mandate for an agenda. Normally this includes one or two major policy proposals that they campaigned on and are expected to deliver to their supporters and, more generally, to the American people. Presidents work closely with their own political party in Congress to secure legislative goals and, if Congress blocks their efforts, presidents will engage in a “going public” strategy appealing directly to the American people to pressure the Congress into supporting their legislative agenda. During Barack Obama’s presidency, his major legislative achievement was the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010. In his opening campaign for the presidency, Obama strongly advocated for health care reform and, upon being elected, proposed the legislative framework that Congress used to pass the bill. In this case, Obama showed his considerable ability to perform his role of chief legislator. It is a role that can often serve to differentiate successful presidencies from those seen as failures. Executive Overreach It is not surprising, especially in an environment of party polarization, that some people will not be supportive of a president’s policy agenda. In many cases, presidents will face a divided government, where one or both houses of Congress are filled with a majority party that is different from the president’s political party. In those cases, presidents will often try to get their agenda accomplished by other means than congressional support. In many cases where the president relies on executive orders for President Joe Biden, joined by Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, delivers remarks about student loan forgiveness, accomplishing policy goals, the opposition party will claim that Wednesday, August 24, 2022. the president is engaging in executive overreach. At the heart of the claim is the concern that the overuse of executive authority constitutes a danger to the foundations of the American system of checks and balances. In 2014, President Obama stated that "I've got a pen and I've got a phone," reflecting his willingness to use executive orders and other executive actions to address issues when Congress was not acting on his legislative priorities. While supporters claimed that approach was a means of executive efficiency, others viewed it as potentially dangerous within the American constitutional framework. During Donald Trump's presidency, several instances were criticized as examples of executive overreach as well. One notable example was his use of emergency powers to redirect funds to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. After Congress denied the level of funding he sought for the border wall, Trump declared a national emergency. This declaration 12  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby allowed him to reallocate funds from the Department of Defense and other federal budgets toward wall construction, bypassing Congress's power of the purse. Critics immediately accused Trump of trying to bypass Congress’ power over appropriation of funds according to Article I Section 8's expressed powers. President Biden's policies proved to be as likely to be subject to allegations of overreach as Obama and Trump's decisions. Biden’s attempts to cancel a significant portion of federal student loan debt through use of the HEROES Act of 2003, which grants the executive branch the power to modify student loan programs during national emergencies, stirred immediate cries of foul by his opponents in Congress. Biden's claim that he could use the 2003 law to justify broad debt cancellation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, once again led some in the Beltway (a common nickname given to Washington D.C.) to wonder how far presidents will go to circumvent congressional lawmaking. A possible clue to the limits on executive power occurred in June 2023, when the US Supreme Court struck down Biden's initial plan, ruling that it exceeded executive authority under the HEROES Act. There can be little doubt that the tug of war between Congress and the executive branch will continue well after Biden's term ends in January 2025. Whether the criticism of overreach has been directed at Democratic or Republican presidents, the reasons have often been the same - by relying heavily on executive orders and actions, there is a risk of a president's encroaching on Congress’s legislative role and undermining the balance of power. Legislation passed by Congress involves debate, compromise, and broader representation of the electorate, whereas executive orders bypass these mechanisms. VII The President as Chief of State Learning Outcomes o Explain how presidents perform the role of chief of state. As chief of state, the President of the United States serves as a symbolic leader representing the nation and its values, embodying the unity and continuity of the country. This role involves ceremonial duties, diplomatic functions, and acts of national significance that go beyond daily political or administrative responsibilities. A cursory review of Donald Trump's first four years in the White House gives us several examples of how a typical presidency reflects the chief of state function. Trump participated in national ceremonies like the annual State of the Union address, where he addressed Congress and the nation on the state of the country. This role emphasized his position as a symbol of the nation and its leadership. He also attended major national events such as military memorials and patriotic celebrations, including the Fourth of July festivities. Appearances such as these reinforced his role in celebrating and honoring national values and President Donald J. Trump, joined by First Lady Melania Trump, Medal of traditions. Honor recipient United States Army Sgt. Maj. Thomas Patrick Payne, his wife Alison, and his son Aaron, Sept. 11, 2020. While it may seem to some that ceremonial and symbolic representation of the nation is a less important role of the presidency than other chief legislator or commander-in-chief, many presidents have found the role one of the more fulfilling aspects of the job. 13  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Donald Trump's first stint in the Oval Office may also help to illustrate some of the possible pitfalls related to performing the role of chief of state. Trump's personal style and use of social media led to criticism, even from members of his own political party, that he often undercut his attempts to perform the role in the best possible light. Trump's confrontational and unfiltered style on social media, where he frequently criticized political opponents, journalists, and even international leaders, sometimes shifted the focus away from his policy goals and created controversies that overshadowed his many accomplishments. VII The President as Chief Diplomat Learning Outcomes o Explain how presidents perform the role of chief diplomat. In the Twenty-First Century the U.S. presidency is by far the most powerful of the three branches of government. There is, however, a marked difference in the powers that the presidency wields in domestic affairs and those he holds in international (sometimes called foreign) affairs. Congress is still close to the President's equal in domestic affairs. The president cannot get any bill passed without the permission of Congress. Congress must pass the president's entire budget. The president cannot reorganize any part of the executive branch without the permission of Congress. The Senate must approve most of the top executives that the president nominates to run the executive branch. In short, Congress and the president can do little without each other's permission in domestic matters. The situation is quite different in international affairs. The president has always directed the foreign policy of this county. Congress is usually placed in the position of having to approve of something that the president has already done. Great powers are given to the president in conducting international or foreign policy. The president is the commander and chief of the armed forces of the United States. At this point in history, the United States has become by far the most powerful country in the world militarily. The president can send troops or order bombs to be sent virtually anywhere on earth. Countries as far apart as Libya, China, and Venezuela need to be concerned with what the president could do militarily. They do not concern themselves much with Congress. Economically the USA is now by far the most influential single country in the world. It is the president who represents this country in economic affairs. Only he can negotiate treaties or agreements with other countries such as USMCA (a free trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico), although usually Congress must ratify the agreement. The president appoints U.S. representatives to the three most powerful economic institutions in the world--the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. The U.S. Federal Reserve is possibly more powerful than all three of these however--and it is the president who nominates the chairperson of the Fed. It is the president who must determine if other countries are living up to the terms of the agreements that we have signed with them. If he determines that another country is violating the agreement it is he who will determine the U.S. response. Finally, the United States has become the most powerful country on earth politically or diplomatically and it is the president who represents or chooses who represents the United States in these areas. The president represents the viewpoints of this country in all negotiations in international organizations such as the United Nations or NATO and in bilateral negotiations with other countries. It is the president who is the person who is expected to help create peace in the Middle East or prevent India from producing more nuclear weapons. It is the president who is asked to negotiate with China concerning Taiwan or the status of our 14  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby political and military commitment to South Korea or Japan. Congress can only play the role of a spoiler or supporter in these areas. It cannot lead; only the president can. VIII Electing a President Learning Outcomes o Explain the presidential primary process. o Explain the difference between primaries and caucuses. o Explain advantages and disadvantages to using primaries and caucuses to nominate candidates for President of the United States. o Explain the reasons for an Electoral College system in the United States. o Explain the Electoral College process of electing a president. o Explain advantages and disadvantages to using an Electoral College system in the United States. The goal for any aspirant to the White House is to get to the November general election with their name on the ballots given out to voters so that they may be the people’s choice for highest office in the United States. For those individuals who are members of the two major parties, however, the road to November must start with the presidential primary system that begins much earlier in the presidential election cycle. The Primary Process In general, a primary is a political party-based election that allows the voters to select nominees to the general election from each of the two major political parties. Primaries are commonly held for offices of most any kind, from local positions such as a local mayor to federal offices such as House or Senate seats. Presidential primaries, however, are different from other primaries because presidential candidates must endure individual contests held in each of the fifty states. Every state primary must play a role in the nomination process (some states use the caucus method of nominating a candidate) and the goal of the party candidates is to win as many individual state primaries as possible. This process is critical because delegates ultimately decide the party’s nominee at the party’s national convention that is held at the end of the primary process. New Hampshire New Hampshire traditionally holds the first primary in the nation, often right after the Iowa caucuses, which kickstarts the nomination process. The New Hampshire primary is a fairly typical example of how a variety of states set up their primary election. Voters cast ballots for their preferred presidential candidate within each party’s primary. It is common for the two political parties to hold their primary on separate dates, although some states will feature both primaries on the same day. In New Hampshire, each primary election is open to registered party members, and in some cases, independents can also participate. Each state that holds a primary will offer a number of delegates to the winning party nominee. New Hampshire operates under a "proportional" system to allocate delegates for each candidate. Candidates receive delegates based on the percentage of the vote they receive in the primary, provided they meet a Then Senator Kamala Harris campaigns in New Hampshire, 2019. minimum threshold (often around 15% of the vote). For example, if a candidate wins 25% of the vote in New Hampshire, they will receive about 25% of the state’s pledged delegates for their party. This system can vary by state; some states use a “winner-takes-all” or other hybrid methods. New Hampshire delegates, along with delegates from other states, will attend the 15  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby party’s national convention and vote to officially nominate the candidate. The number of delegates needed to secure the nomination will differ between the two major parties. In order to win, however, the rule remains the same - a candidate must win enough delegates from each state to command a majority at their party’s convention. New Hampshire – The Voter’s Experience Voting in a primary is a straightforward process as individual voters report to a polling station near their residential address. Each voter is handed a ballot that is prepared by the state and local government (usually a county) and is instructed to mark each preferred candidate with a pen or other device (some locations use computerized ballots). The ballots are secret, nothing on the ballot indicates the identity of the voter, and once completed is placed into a collection of ballots that are tabulated by the state and local government. Overall, the voter’s experience is only tied to reporting to a polling location and lasts only as long as it takes to complete their own individual ballot. The Presidential Caucus – An Alternative to the Primary Election While the two dominant political parties (Democratic and Republican) in most states use the primary election system to send delegates to the national party conventions, there are a few states who use a different selection method called the caucus system. The most famous caucus held every four years is held in Iowa, but a few other states hold caucuses that operate in much the same way as Iowa’s system. Like the presidential primaries, the date a presidential caucus is held is determined by the state legislature in coordination with the state political parties. This means that some states will hold their caucuses in the winter before the general election in November while others may hold their caucuses in the spring. Like the primaries, states that hold caucuses must complete their caucuses before the national party conventions so that they can send their appropriate delegations to the conventions. First in the Nation - Iowa To illustrate how a caucus system works we should look at Iowa's caucuses. Iowa's caucuses are especially important because Iowa holds their caucuses before all other states have held their primaries or caucuses. This means that most party candidates look at Iowa as (along with the New Hampshire primary) the first major test of the effectiveness of their campaign. Many candidates who fare poorly in Iowa decide to pull out of their run for the presidency. For the purposes of this example, we shall focus on the Republican Party caucus. The Democratic Party process is much the same. Iowa's caucuses are usually held in late January to early February. The schedule can change depending on how other states schedule elections, however, as Iowa will make sure they go before any other state. The state is divided into nearly 1,700 precincts. A precinct is normally about the size of a neighborhood or two. Party members meet on election day at designated caucus sites, which are normally schools or other public places found in a precinct. The goal of each caucus meeting is to elect precinct delegates to county conventions held later in the spring. At the county conventions delegates will be chosen to go to the national party convention later that summer. It is at the national Senator Rick Santorum campaigning for Iowa Caucus, convention that a nominee will be selected to run for the January 2012. presidency in the November general election. 16  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Iowa – The Voter’s Experience When voters arrive at the precinct caucus site, they are told to organize into groups by candidate support. For example, if a voter shows up as a supporter of candidate Smith, they are told to meet with other Smith supporters. Any voter who is undecided is told to meet with other undecided voters. Each group then explains to the precinct why their candidate is the best choice for being the party's nominee for president. Voters are free to realign themselves during this part of the meeting and undecided are especially courted by each group. After each group is done speaking a head count is taken. Normally a standard is determined before the count for how many supporters must be in each group in order to take a candidate seriously. If a candidate's group is not "viable" or large enough, they will no longer be considered for the nomination and their supporters are free to either join another candidate's group or go home. After a first head count is taken and non-viable candidates are eliminated another head count is taken. Whatever candidates are left from this final head count are listed from first place to second, then third, and so on. First place is assigned a percentage of the delegates to the county convention that will be larger than the second-place candidate, second place a larger percentage than third, etc. This is important because the candidate who wins the majority of precincts will then have the majority of delegates to the county conventions. If that happens, the candidate will almost certainly win the state's delegation to the national party convention. Note that all of this adds up to the caucuses being far more involved than primaries, which basically require a voter to simply show up to a polling station where they fill out a ballot indicating their favorite candidates. After submitting their ballot, a primary voter’s task is accomplished, and their votes are tabulated electronically. Because the caucus system is so different from the primary system used in other states, it is argued this leads to various advantages and disadvantages in relation to primaries. Advantages: 1. Political efficacy - Caucus sites allow voters to see how their participation impacts the success of their candidates, and if their candidate is unsuccessful a caucus voter can join another candidate's group. This is unlike the primary voter who simply casts a vote and hopes that their vote will have an impact on a singular candidate's success. 2. Deliberation - Caucus sites are places where voters meet with one another and, due to the peculiar nature of the caucus method, must speak to other supporters in an effort to find the best candidates for the presidency. 3. Fun - Many caucus voters report that caucus meetings are fun, and outside of instances of political infighting, most caucus meetings often resemble celebratory atmospheres. This is completely different from primary polling stations, where lines of voters simply cast votes and depart with little to no interaction with one another. Disadvantages: 1. Time - Most voters report that they simply do not have the kind of time required to participate in caucusing. Caucus meetings often take several hours to complete while primary voters often need only stand in line for a short time to cast their votes at their local polling station. 2. Infighting - Critics of the caucus system allege that during the caucus meetings supporters of the various candidates often make outrageous claims against one another's candidates in an effort to sway undecided voters. Such infighting is unhealthy for the good of the party as the party will need to stay united and strong if it is to nominate a winning presidential candidate in the November general election. The Road to the National Convention A political party candidate's ultimate goal of winning the state primaries and caucuses is to reach the national convention where the party officially nominates its candidate for president. Delegates from various states and 17  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby territories (protectorates such as Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico can participate) vote to select the nominee, usually based on primary and caucus results leading up to the convention. In addition to the vote to officially nominate the party's presidential candidate, other important activities take place at the week-long convention. The party discusses and adopts its platform, which outlines its policies, priorities, and stance on key issues for the upcoming election. The platform is published by the party to the public so that voters can evaluate the party’s positions. Typically, a few weeks before the convention begins, the presidential candidate announces their running mate, the vice-presidential nominee, who is later formally introduced and nominated by the delegates at the convention. In a sense, the convention acts as a coming out party for the vice-presidential nominee. The Electoral College The writers of the Constitution wanted the president to be elected separately from the other two branches to preserve his independence. For most of the time at the Constitutional Convention the framers had the president selected by Congress. In the end they decided to create a special electoral system to choose the president to preserve the system of checks and balances that they so greatly admired. They did not want the president to be popularly elected because they thought that would give him too much power with the public, but there were other considerations as well. When the constitution was written there were no radios, or televisions and no national newspapers. The informed person would read a newspaper printed in his or her city that had limited national coverage. Most people lived in rural areas and didn't read any newspaper and thus were almost totally uninformed about national events. Trusting such a populace to elect a president seemed foolhardy to the framers. In reality, they did not have much trust in the average person in general. The writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the majority to be able to control the government directly. They thought that the majority of people could be easily led by emotional arguments. The structure of the original Electoral College fit in nicely with their idea of a republic or a representative democracy. The people would elect representatives to the state governments and then the state governments would choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. This feature was abandoned by all states over time. Now the popular vote of a state will determine how the electoral votes are cast. A backdrop to the formation of the Electoral College was the struggle between the small and large states at the Constitutional Convention. The smaller states had equal powers to the large states under the Articles of Confederation, the form of government the United States had after the Revolutionary War and prior to the Constitutional Convention. The smaller states wanted more say in selecting the president. The Electoral College has two key provisions that favor small states. First, if no person gets a The final Electoral College map from the 2020 presidential election. majority of the electoral vote, then the election of the President is to be determined by the House of Representatives where each state has one vote. The writers thought that often no candidate would receive a majority of the popular vote and thus the small states would have the same power as large states in selecting the president. Second, the number of U.S. Senators and U.S. House members representing that state determines each state's electoral vote. (The total today is 538 electoral votes--100 Senators, 435 House members and 3 votes accorded to the District of Columbia.) Since all states, small and large, have two 18  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby senators this gives the small states a somewhat larger say in electing the president than their population merits. A direct election of the president by the popular vote would mean that the small states would lose power. To understand the voting process in the Electoral College system, you must start with remembering that individual states hold elections in the United States, not the federal government. While each state holds elections to elect their own senators or representatives to the Congress, there are two offices that states must elect that represent all the people of the United States - the presidency and vice presidency. In order to do this task, each state will hold their own individual election for the presidency. Presidential elections are held every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Determining the People's Will Each state holds its own popular election for president. After the citizens in each state go out to vote the states will count the vote in each state and announce the winner of that state’s presidential election. As a result, each state will possibly have a different winner. States do not combine their vote totals. For example, in the 2024 presidential election, each state held a vote for the presidency. After Florida counted its votes, it declared President Donald Trump the winner of the Florida election. Illinois counted its votes and declared Vice President Kamala Harris the winner of the Illinois election. This process was repeated for each state in the union as well the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.). Announcing the Presumptive Winner According to the Constitution of the United States, each state is given several electoral votes that will be used to formally elect the president and vice president. This is true for the District of Columbia as well. The number of electors provided to each state is based on the following formula: # of seats in the US House Representatives + # of seats in the US Senate = # of State Electoral Votes Even though the District of Columbia is not a state, the US Constitution's Twenty-third Amendment gives the district three electoral votes. Added together the total number of electoral votes is set at 538. Note that many students see the above formula and assume that it means that the Congress serves as the Electoral College, but that would not be the case. It is just a formula used to determine the number of votes each state is given. In fact, by constitutional restriction, sitting members of Congress cannot be electors in the Electoral College. A key feature in the manner that states select their electors is the winner-take-all “unit rule” that all but two states (Nebraska and Maine) follow. The candidate who receives the plurality (the most) of the popular vote in a particular state will receive all of that state's electoral votes. It is precisely this feature that makes a candidate seek a high electoral vote total in states like Florida. Instead of allocating the twenty-nine electoral votes that Florida possesses by giving each candidate a proportional number of votes, the state gives all twenty-nine to the candidate who receives the most votes in the presidential election. This can make a huge difference in a candidate's race to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Each time a state declares a winner a candidate may lay claim to the electoral votes available from that state. Using the 2024 presidential election as an example again, when Florida announced Donald Trump as its winner, he laid claim to Florida's 31 electoral votes (due to Florida having 29 US House seats and 2 US Senate seats). Vice President Kamala Harris laid claim to the 54 electoral votes offered by California along the same principle. The winning candidate must win the right amount of state elections for president in order to 19  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby obtain at least a majority of the 538 electoral votes, which would be at least 270 electoral votes. In the 2024 presidential election Donald Trump and J.D. Vance won because the final vote total ended up as follows: Electoral Vote National States Won (Including DC) Total Vote Total Donald Trump / 73, 527, 400* AK, AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, TX, LA, MI, MO, MS, MI, IA, J.D. Vance - 312 KS, KY, MI, MT, NB, NC, ND, NV, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WI, WV, WY Kamala Harris / 69, 199, 884* CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NM, OR, Tim Walz – 226 VA, VT, WA *Total as of 11/12/24 The College Takes Over Even though each state has held an election and announced a winner, no one has officially been elected yet. In each state there are the formal Electoral College ballots waiting at the state capital. The ballots are the ones that formally elect the presidency and vice presidency. The ballots must be filled out by people called electors from each state. The Constitution does not mention how each state chooses their electors, so it differs by state. In some states the voters choose who their electors will be, while in others electors are chosen by the state government. Collectively, the 538 electors from the various states and the District of Columbia are members of the Electoral College. Each elector is required to come to their appropriate state capital and fill out an electoral ballot indicating the winner of their state's popular election for president. The Constitution of the United States does not require electors to indicate their state's winner. If an elector does not indicate their state's winner, they are referred to as a "faithless elector,” but this would be rare as states are careful to pick only those who they are certain will cast their ballot based on the will of the people. Three times in the Nineteenth Century the Electoral College vote produced a winner who had less of the popular vote than his opponent--John Quincy Adams in 1824; Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876; and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. In the Twentieth and Twenty First Century, the Electoral College twice produced winners who failed to gain the popular vote. In the election of 2000 Al Gore received more of the popular vote nationally but lost in the Electoral College vote to George W. Bush. In 2016, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote despite losing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Certifying the Election Once the electors from each state gather in their respective state capitals to take the formal Electoral College vote, the votes are sent to the national capital in Washington D.C. The two houses of Congress convene in a special session to tally up the votes and declare a winner. The special session is presided over by the President of the Senate, who is also the currently serving vice president of the United States. If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote to pick a winner for the presidency and the U.S. Senate will vote to pick a winner for the vice presidency. The two houses must limit their selections to the party candidates who were running for election. 20  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Taking the Oath After a winner is declared, all that is left for the winning candidates is to take the oath of office on January 20th, declaring that, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President (and Vice President) of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” President Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Jan. 21, 2013. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Electoral College It is argued that there are several advantages to using the Electoral College system. Two will be considered here. 1. Small states have a voice - In the Electoral College system every state theoretically can help produce a victory, even small states such as Wyoming (3 votes) or Alaska (3 votes). In a tight election no major party candidate can dismiss the potential significance of a state’s voters as their state’s Electoral votes may tip the balance of the election. 2. Protection of our federal system - Some supporters of the College value its role in a federal system of government giving states the flexibility to design how they want to grant Electoral votes to candidates by popular vote, legislative vote, or some other method. To change the system state’s rights would be infringed and federalism compromised in this view. There are several criticisms of the Electoral College system. Two will be considered here. 1. Popular disillusionment - Many voters in the United States who aren’t familiar with the Electoral College system believe that their actual participation in the election of the president and vice president is meaningless. Convinced that the presidency is selected by an insular group of electors with no connection to public opinion many voters simply skip voting in presidential elections. Confusion about the system then leads to disillusionment on behalf of the voters in this view. 2. Popular vote winners can become losers - There have been some cases - 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016 - where the national popular vote winner lost to the opposing candidate because they did not win the correct states to reach an Electoral College majority. Critics charge that such elections produce weak presidencies based on their inherent lack of popular support and engender a distrust of the elections system among voters. Alternatives to the Electoral College If, as some critics suggest, we should move away from the Electoral College system, what could take its place? How would a change occur? Two alternatives are immediately mentioned whenever a discussion of changing the system takes place. 1. Nation-wide popular vote system - The most popularly advanced alternative would move the presidential election system away from a state-to-state electoral college winner to a national popular vote winner. In such a system, votes would be cast in each state but tallied nationally. The winner of the national popular result would be declared the winner. Such a system has several obstacles to implementation. The first is that the Electoral College system is constitutionally based so amendments to the constitution would have to not only describe the new system but revoke the College. The second is that small states would still need to be convinced that their voices would be heard when the majority of the American population centers upon 21  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby highly populated states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida (example - there are more voters in Miami-Dade County, Florida, than in the entire state of Wyoming). 2. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - A newer alternative to the traditional Electoral College system is to allow states to agree with one another to support the use of Electoral College while pledging to grant electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. In this model, states promise to support whichever candidate wins the national popular vote regardless of how their own state popular vote turns out. They will only adhere to this compact if a majority of the states follow suit with their own Electoral vote totals. Theoretically, if enough states signed on to the agreement, then the Electoral College system would be a de facto national popular vote system because states would be granting all of their Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the greatest share of the popular votes cast nationally. Critics of such a system point out that in some cases states would be turning their back on their own populations if their in state popular vote winner does not match the national popular vote winner. For example, in the 2024 election Vice President Kamala Harris won the popular vote of California but if California was part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact then California would have instructed its electors to vote for Donald Trump due to his winning more popular votes nationally. IX Conclusion The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of a powerful president. They thought they had created enough checks to control his power. By the end of the Twentieth Century the U.S. Presidency had shorn itself of many of the constitutional checks on its powers. Perhaps this was necessary; perhaps this is what the country needs. Perhaps the public’s perception of presidential power and prestige may change. It is very common for a president to open their first four years with a brief “honeymoon” period where they enjoy their highest public approval ratings. For almost every president, at least since the advent of modern polling techniques, the honeymoon period is followed by a steady decline in popularity (only Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton saw increasing job approval ratings) and a restless voting public. Very possibly, however, the presidency has taken too much power and the Constitution may well have been correct not to place so much power in the hands of one person. Much history remains to be written. 22