The Imperial Presidency

Publisher Description

Throughout American history, presidents have shown a startling power to act independently of Congress and the courts. On their own initiative, presidents have taken the country to war, abolished slavery, shielded undocumented immigrants from deportation, declared a national emergency at the border, and more, leading many to decry the rise of an imperial presidency. But given the steep barriers that usually prevent Congress and the courts from formally checking unilateral power, what stops presidents from going it alone even more aggressively? The answer, Dino P. Christenson and Doulas L. Kriner argue, lies in the power of public opinion. With robust empirical data and compelling case studies, the authors reveal the extent to which domestic public opinion limits executive might. Presidents are emboldened to pursue their own agendas when they enjoy strong public support, and constrained when they don’t, since unilateral action risks inciting political pushback, jeopardizing future initiatives, and further eroding their political capital. Although few Americans instinctively recoil against unilateralism, Congress and the courts can sway the public’s view via their criticism of unilateral policies. Thus, other branches can still check the executive branch through political means. As long as presidents are concerned with public opinion, Christenson and Kriner contend that fears of an imperial presidency are overblown.

Has the imperial presidency returned? The New Imperial Presidency suggests that the Congressional framework meant to guide and constrain presidential behavior has slowly eroded over the decades since Watergate. Author Andrew Rudalevige describes the evolution of executive power in our separated system of governance. Rudalevige discusses the abuse of power that prompted what he calls the resurgence regime against the imperial presidency, and inquires as to how and why, over the three decades that followed Watergate, presidents regained their standing. The New Imperial Presidency shows that presidents have always tried to interpret Constitutional powers broadly. Ambitious executives can choose from an array of actions that push against congressional power and, finding insufficient resistance, expand the scope of presidential power.

The Imperial Presidency and the Constitution examines presidential power from a variety of perspectives: analyzing the president’s role in the administrative state, as commander-in-chief, as occupant of the modern “Bully Pulpit,” and, in separate essays, addressing recent presidents’ relationship with Congress and the Supreme Court.

Those who saw Donald Trump as a novel threat looming over American democracy and now think the danger has passed may not have been paying much attention to the political developments of the past several decades. Trump was merely the most recent—and will surely not be the last—in a long line of presidents who expanded the powers of the office and did not hesitate to act unilaterally when so doing served their purposes. Unfortunately, Trump is also unlikely to be the last president prepared to do away with his enemies in the Congress and transform the imperial presidency from a theory to a reality. Though presidents are elected more or less democratically, the presidency is not and was never intended to be a democratic institution. The framers thought that America would be governed by its representative assembly, the Congress of the United States. Presidential power, like a dangerous pharmaceutical, might have been labelled, "to be used only when needed." Today, Congress sporadically engages in law making but the president actually governs. Congress has become more an inquisitorial than a legislative body. Presidents rule through edicts while their opponents in the Congress counter with the threat of impeachment—an action that amounts to a political, albeit nonviolent coup. The courts sputter and fume but generally back the president. This is the new separation of powers—the president exercises power and the other branches are separated from it. Where will this end? Regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, the imperial presidency is inexorably bringing down the curtain on American representative democracy.

A powerful dissection of one of the fundamental problems in American governance today: the clash between presidents determined to redirect the nation through ever-tighter control of administration and an executive branch still organized to promote shared interests in steady hands, due deliberation, and expertise. President Trump pitted himself repeatedly against the institutions and personnel of the executive branch. In the process, two once-obscure concepts came center stage in an eerie faceoff. On one side was the specter of a "Deep State" conspiracyadministrators threatening to thwart the will of the people and undercut the constitutional authority of the president they elected to lead them. On the other side was a raw personalization of presidential power, one that a theory of "the unitary executive" gussied up and allowed to run roughshod over reason and the rule of law. The Deep State and the unitary executive framed every major contest of the Trump presidency. Like phantom twins, they drew each other out. These conflicts are not new. Stephen Skowronek, John A. Dearborn, and Desmond King trace the tensions between presidential power and the depth of the American state back through the decades and forward through the various settlements arrived at in previous eras. Phantoms of a Beleaguered Republic is about the breakdown of settlements and the abiding vulnerabilities of a Constitution that gave scant attention to administrative power. Rather than simply dump on Trump, the authors provide a richly historical perspective on the conflicts that rocked his presidency, and they explain why, if left untamed, the phantom twins will continue to pull the American government apart.

This collaboration of distinguished presidential scholars offers one of the first book-length post-presidency analyses of President George W. Bush and his policies. Mark J. Rozell and Gleaves Whitney have assembled a varied list of contributors from both ends of the political spectrum, bringing together academics and professionals to provide a glimpse into the politics and policies that defined President George W. Bush's presidency. Testing the Limits discusses all aspects of the Bush policy and administration, from staff appointments to foreign and domestic policy to budgetary politics. Several contributors focus their energy on the expansion of presidential powers during Bush presidency, assessing the increased influence of the Vice-President, the politicization of federal court appointments, and the development of executive privilege and presidential secrecy.

Donald J. Trump's Imperial Presidency EXPOSED through Rhyme was written to give readers a hysterical and historical account of Trump's time in office. After recovering from her initial shock over Trump's election in 2016, author Valerie Anderson began setting her opinions to verse as she read and watched news report after news report on Trump's unorthodox style of leadership. Beginning with his first year as president, she recorded his narcissism, callousness, pathological lying, and insatiable drive to become an autocrat at each stage. Many of her poems were published in the online newspapers of the New York Times and Washington Post, and the positive feedback she received from fellow readers encouraged her to publish them all in one complete volume. Donald J. Trump's Imperial Presidency EXPOSED through Rhyme is the result of her efforts. With topics ranging from the Mueller report, the House impeachment inquiry, the immigration mess, and the building of the wall, Anderson's poetic commentary encompasses every failure Americans have read about over the past three-and-a-half years. Anderson organized her chapters around key topics, including All the President's Lies, the Cult of Trumpty, Attack-Dog Trump, and Virus Crisis. Illustrations by political cartoonist Arnie Bermudez, a Tucson talent, are placed throughout the book, bringing the topics and rhymes home in hysterical fashion. By reflecting on and replaying news events through rhyme and illustrations, Anderson offers her readers a satirical, yet profound, reflection on a presidency gone amuck.