To Be or Not To Be...(A Strong Unitary Executive)

http://www.funnyjunk.com/showcomment/12453214/

Teddy Roosevelt and Taft agreed on a great many things as friends, however, when it comes to the office of the presidency, more specifically the power indebted to the presidency, they stand on opposite spectrums.

Theodore Roosevelt strictly believed that in the “stewardship” theory of presidential power. In short, Teddy believed that the president could do anything that the Constitution or the laws of the United States did not forbid. According to Roosevelt, it is “not only his [the president’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws” (Nelson 128).

On the other hand, William Howard Taft stood opposing Teddy’s viewpoint. In short, Taft believed that the president could not do anything that the Constitution or law did not permit. In Taft’s theory of presidential power, he states the “President can exercise no power which cannot fairly and reasonably be traced to some specific grant of power…as proper and necessary to its exercise” (Nelson 130). He goes even further to describe the extent of the presidential jurisdiction stating that it “must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional or statutory provision, or it does not exist” (Nelson 131).

There are strengths and weaknesses to both Teddy’s and Taft’s arguments. The strengths of a strong executive would allow for a quick response in the event of a national emergency. The president would be able to take whatever precautions necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. While the weakness easily associated with a strong executive would be that Roosevelt’s view of executive power is so broad that it would be difficult for any other branch of government to limit presidential authority. As for Taft’s argument, the strength would be the inverse of Roosevelt’s; the position of the president would not step outside of his boundaries and would be easy to limit. On the other hand, the weakness would be that it would take much longer to respond to a national crisis. Summarily, a strong executive is efficient and has the ability to get things done at the sacrifice of long-term stability, the strength of a weak executive.

My personal stance is a hybrid model of both Theodore Roosevelt’s and William Taft’s theories of presidential powers. In my opinion, there are times where a president must step outside of what is outlined in the laws and the Constitution to ensure the safety and security of our country. Two historical examples of this would be the writs of habeas corpus in 1862 under President Lincoln and under President G.W. Bush in 2006. Both presidents acted outside of the extent of the stated power of the president (some would argue even against the outside the power of the Constitution) because they felt that not doing so could pose a threat to national security.¹ Another example where the president would perform well, would be after the events of September 11, 2001, or any national crisis. Conversely, as Lord Acton famously said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Taft, in his theories of presidential power, says that the “view of Garfield and Roosevelt, ascribing an undefined residuum of power to the president is an unsafe doctrine…”(Nelson 132). One of the more controversial topic covered by political scientists is the executive order and signing statement. In Bush’s signing statement for the Defense Supplemental Appropriations Act (2005) provided that Title X of the law was inconsistent with the president’s role of commander-in-chief, and essentially told the executive branch that this should not be enforced. The signing statement is an example of how presidential power (line-item veto) can be construed as an abuse of presidential power. This would be ruled unconstitutional in 2008 and be an example of how a president can abuse power and get in trouble.

I believe that the effectiveness of this theory is dependent upon the characteristics of the individual. Presidents like JFK and Obama were seen as very charismatic individuals and when their approval ratings were high, the more power they had. However when they lost favorability, their ability to use power in a broader scope became slim. Summarily, if presidents are looked upon favorably by their constituents and the public, the broader in scope they will be able to use their power. This is exemplified throughout the “honeymoon” period of their presidency. On the other hand, presidential power is scrutinized more narrowly in scope when presidents are either looked upon unfavorably or are on the way out of office.

¹http://www.hallnj.org/index.php/topics/40-the-world-beyond-new-jersey/530-new-jersey-and-the-nation-lincoln-bush-and-the-war-powers