The Obama Presidency In The Constitutional Order

The Obama administration is shaping up to be one of the most consequential in recent American history. In this book, a diverse group of presidential scholars step back from the partisan debate to consider the first two years of the Obama presidency through the lens of the U.S. constitution's theory, structure, and powers. They ask how Barack Obama understands and exercises the President's formal constitutional and informal powers and responsibilities of the president, from foreign policy and public policyto his political leadership of the Democratic party and the nation as a whole.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama spoke often about his constitutional principles. In particular, he objected to George W. Bush's claim to certain "inherent" presidential powers that could not be checked by Congress or the judiciary. After his inauguration, how did President Obama's constitutional principles fare? That is the question Louis Fisher explores in this book, a disturbing and timely study of the tension between constitutional aspirations and executive actions in the American presidency. A constitutional scholar, Fisher views Obama's two terms within the context of other presidencies, and in light of the principles set forth by the Framers. His work reveals how the basic system of checks and balances has been substantially altered by Supreme Court decisions, military initiatives, and scholarship promoting the power of the president--and by presidents progressively more inclined to wield that power. In this analysis we see the steps by which Obama, himself an expert on the Constitution, came to press his agenda more and more aggressively through executive actions: on climate change, renewable energy, the auto industry bail-out, education initiatives, and financial reform. Rather than focus on policy, Fisher examines the politics and practical concerns that drive executive overreach, as well as the impact of such expanded powers on bipartisan support, public understanding, and finally, the functioning of government. A fair but critical assessment of Obama's executive performance and legacy, this sobering book documents the erosion of constitutional principles that prepared the way for the presidency of Donald Trump.

Shines new light on America's brilliant constitutional and presidential history, from George Washington to Barack Obama. In this sweepingly ambitious volume, the nation’s foremost experts on the American presidency and the U.S. Constitution join together to tell the intertwined stories of how each American president has confronted and shaped the Constitution. Each occupant of the office—the first president to the forty-fourth—has contributed to the story of the Constitution through the decisions he made and the actions he took as the nation’s chief executive. By examining presidential history through the lens of constitutional conflicts and challenges, The Presidents and the Constitution offers a fresh perspective on how the Constitution has evolved in the hands of individual presidents. It delves into key moments in American history, from Washington’s early battles with Congress to the advent of the national security presidency under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to reveal the dramatic historical forces that drove these presidents to action. Historians and legal experts, including Richard Ellis, Gary Hart, Stanley Kutler and Kenneth Starr, bring the Constitution to life, and show how the awesome powers of the American presidency have been shapes by the men who were granted them. The book brings to the fore the overarching constitutional themes that span this country’s history and ties together presidencies in a way never before accomplished.

By the authors of RESURGENT: HOW CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM CAN SAVE AMERICA, an urgent and unsettling book that exposes President Barack Obama's blueprint. Conservative leaders Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski identify a pattern of unconstitutional acts that form Obama's plan...

In a wide-ranging constitutional history of presidential war decisions from 1945 to the present, Stephen M. Griffin rethinks the long-running debate over the “imperial presidency” and concludes that the eighteenth-century Constitution is inadequate to the challenges of a post-9/11 world. The Constitution requires the consent of Congress before the United States can go to war. Truman’s decision to fight in Korea without gaining that consent was unconstitutional, says Griffin, but the acquiescence of Congress and the American people created a precedent for presidents to claim autonomy in this arena ever since. The unthinking extension of presidential leadership in foreign affairs to a point where presidents unilaterally decide when to go to war, Griffin argues, has destabilized our constitutional order and deranged our foreign policy. Long Wars and the Constitution demonstrates the unexpected connections between presidential war power and the constitutional crises that have plagued American politics. Contemporary presidents are caught in a dilemma. On the one hand are the responsibilities handed over to them by a dangerous world, and on the other is an incapacity for sound decisionmaking in the absence of interbranch deliberation. President Obama’s continuation of many Bush administration policies in the long war against terrorism is only the latest in a chain of difficulties resulting from the imbalances introduced by the post-1945 constitutional order. Griffin argues for beginning a cycle of accountability in which Congress would play a meaningful role in decisions for war, while recognizing the realities of twenty-first century diplomacy.

This classic collection of studies, first published in 1980, contributes to the revival of interest in the powers and duties of the American presidency. Unlike many previous books on the constitution and the president, the contributors to this volume are political scientists, not law professors. Accordingly, they display political scientists' concern with structures as well as power, with conflict between the branches of government as well as their functional separation, and with political prescription as well as legal analysis. Underlying the entire volume is a persistent attention to the nature of executive power and its particular manifestation in the American system. Part One introduces the foundations that underlie contemporary issues, including the famous James Madison-Alexander Hamilton debate over the powers of the presidency. Contemporary political and scholarly controversies, which are the subjects of Part Two, include the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the legislative veto, executive privilege and secrecy, the character of the presidency, presidential selection, and the nature of executive power. The essays in The Presidency in the Constitutional Order represent some of the most cogent thought available about the highest elected office in America, and the themes of the volume continue to be timely and provocative.