Curbs on Presidential Powers

In this brief recital of the powers of the President, his dominant role in American government has been stressed. But one should not gain the impression that the Chief Executive is armed with such formidable authority that he completely overshadows Congress and the courts. On the contrary, the President's powers are circumscribed by constitutional intent and by long-established usage. In fact, some writers dwell at length on the undue restrictions placed on the President. Thus one of President Kennedy's closest advisers, Theodore C. Sorensen, observed that "a President's authority is not as great as his responsibility."

A constitutional protection against misused executive power is the provision that the House of Representatives may bring charges against the President in impeachment proceedings. After a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Senate determines guilt or innocence. If convicted the President is removed from-office. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the only charges on which impeachment proceedings may be based. Only one President, Andrew Johnson, has been impeached and he escaped conviction by one vote. Even at the time, his trial was regarded by neutral observers as political in inspiration. In the opinion of some historians, his acquittal made it un­likely that future Presidents would be impeached.

In opposing the President, Congress has other means than the threat of impeachment. The Senate may thwart a President by refusing to accept a treaty he has negotiated. For example, Wilson suffered a crushing defeat when the Senate refused to sanction American membership in the League of Nations. The upper house may also discipline a President by refusing to confirm his appointees. And not all persons appointed to office by the President may be removed by him. He cannot dismiss federal judges, and he may not remove for political reasons the members of a number of independent agencies that have quasi-legislative and judicial duties in addition to their executive functions. Thus the President may appoint members of the Federal Trade Commission but may remove them only under circumstances defined by Congress. He mayencourage members of such regulatory agencies to resign, but he may not dismiss them merely because they disagree with him on policy. In fact, members of regulatory agencies may act against the President's wishes.

In its power to appropriate money, Congress exercises a more important curb on the President. His projects require money, and when the legislature pares the proposed budget or rejects portions of it, the President must trim his sails accordingly. When Congress is controlled by members of the opposing party, the President is often disadvantaged, for legislative leaders may come forward with a program of their own and try to force acceptance of it.

Even when his own party has a congressional majority, the President's leadership may be challenged, as it was during the Kennedy Administration. President Kennedy enjoyed exceptional popularity with the American people; his political finesse was acknowledged in all quarters; his understanding of his office was unsurpassed. Yet the ambitious program he outlined upon his inauguration was largely unfulfilled at the time of his assassination. In commenting on the impasse, editorial writers observed that the struggle for power between the legislative and executive branches antedates the Constitution, since it began with the Continental Congress and its challenges to Washington's conduct of the Revolutionary War.

When the Constitution was adopted, executive-legislative conflict became a built-in feature of American government, since the Founding Fathers created what Alexander Hamilton described as "power to rival power." Challenges to executive leadership ordinarily have been more common in time of peace, but Congress has sought to curb presidential power even in time of war. Thus in 1861, Congress created the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War as a direct challenge to Lincoln's leadership.

The President's difficulties are aggravated by the fact that legislators represent states or districts and tend to take a provincial view of public affairs, while by the very nature of his office the President adopts a national point of view. This was evident in Presi­dent Kennedy's drive for the passage of a strong civil-rights measure. For the most part, the members of his own party viewed the legisla­tion in relation to their constituencies. Many of his fellow Demo­crats had more to gain by opposing Kennedy than by supporting him, and the lax discipline of American political parties enabled the President's opponents to obstruct his program with impunity.

Legislative curbs on executive powers characterize the American system of checks and balances, but federal courts also may checkmate the President. The President's power to remove certain of his key appointees, such as members of regulatory agencies, was limited by the Supreme Court in the Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision, handed down in the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, During the Korean War, when President Truman seized the steel mills to prevent a nationwide strike, his action was promptly challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court declared that the President had exceeded the authority granted to him as chief executive and commander-in-chief. The President yielded.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-30