I think it is important that before talking about whether or not Congress is now a co-equal to the President – or has even surpassed the Presidential powers – that we discuss the growth of presidential power throughout the past century. And it is my opinion that Congress has attempted to grow to meet the challenge of balancing out the expansive powers of the Presidency, a reactionary move necessary to maintain some semblance of equilibrium in our federal government.
Prior to World War II, the U.S. was a world power but Great Britain was definitely the top dog. With limited damage incurred during the war paired with a thriving economy, the United States catapulted to a position of world predominance. This transformation changed the power of the President of the United States in ways unimagined by the founders of our Constitution as evidenced by the ambiguity of language prescribing the role of the Presidency. Accordingly, “the question whether a President has exceeded her authority is seldom immediately obvious because the powers of the office are so open-ended” [1]. And with each continued assertion of Presidential authority, there is little to be done constitutionally/legally/legislatively that could reverse the effects – the precedent is set.
Additionally, the incredible amount of international conflict that has occurred in the past century and continues to occur today has lent itself to the phenomenon of sensitive information privy only to the President and not to Congress – especially prior to the Freedom of Information Act (1966). The nature of these conflicts requires increasingly quick action by the government, as do situations like the latest economic recession when major corporations, essentially fundamental to continued stability in the United States and our relations abroad, needed to be propped up by the federal government or face serious and likely total collapse (which we may need, truthfully). We also saw the growth of and reliance on, by Congress, the presidency in other national crises such as the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Hurricane Katrina.
Aside from the reasons given above and the others discussed in this forum (i.e. population growth), another focal impetus is the role of media and popular culture. Obviously the media has great influence on how the president is received by the public but it also places the President as the center of national power and the image of the President as the image of the nation. The President is seen as speaking on behalf of the nation and is our representative to the world, a reality more and more lucid as globalization of media coverage makes the world smaller every day. Prior to the W. Bush reign, I would argue that this gave the President some automatic credibility whenever speaking to the public. Even with the increased criticism, the fact that the President unfailingly commands the attention of the media is a unique power that he/she holds over Congress, the Judiciary and other government actors. In this, a President has the opportunity to be supported or reelected simply based on face power and the “I just like him” factor often seen in popular culture.
I would like to close by saying that Congress is not doing itself any favors in its quest to become (or at least be seen) as a co-equal to the president by cultivating an increasingly polarized two-party system. With Congress at odds, it is a simple matter of divide-and-conquer, making moves as the two sides are squabbling, that has also led to the growth of presidential power. “In the highly polarized two-party system currently dominating national politics, a member’s political success depends more on the fortunes of her particular party than on the stature of Congress. This means members of Congress have a greater personal interest in the President’s success as a leader of their party than they have in Congress as an institution” [ibid]. We saw the fruits of this in the recent highly partisan debates surrounding what to do in the wake of the economic recession and healthcare in which the Democrats almost unanimously supported Obama’s packages. When Obama was seen as unsuccessful in these measures by the public (as perpetuated by the Republicans), we saw the affects in the 2010 elections, where Democratic Congressional seats across the country were lost at an alarming rate.
[1] "Eleven Reasons Why Presidential Power Inevitably Expands and Why it Matters." William P. Marshall. Boston University Law Review. http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MARSHALL.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment