Powers of the president of the United States: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:43, 1 July 2024

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.^[1]

The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make treaties, which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment.

Commander-in-chief

The president is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces as well as all federalized United States Militia and may exercise supreme operational command and control over them. The president has, in this capacity, plenary power to launch, direct and supervise military operations, order or authorize the deployment of troops, unilaterally launch nuclear weapons, and form military policy with the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. However, the constitutional ability to declare war is vested only in Congress.^[2]

Article II of the U.S. Constitution expressly designates the president as:

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States^[3]

U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the president possessing ultimate authority, but no rank, maintaining a civilian status.^[4] Before 1947, the president was the only common superior of the Army (under the secretary of war) and the Navy and Marine Corps (under the secretary of the navy).^[5] The National Security Act of 1947, and the 1949 amendments to the same act, created the Department of Defense and the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the "authority, direction and control" of the secretary of defense.^[6]^[7] The present-day operational command of the Armed Forces is delegated from the president to the Department of Defense and is normally exercised through its secretary. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commands assist with operations as outlined in the presidentially-approved Unified Command Plan (UCP).^[8]^[9]^[10]

A painting depicting president George Washington and his troops before their march to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the president as commander-in-chief has been the subject of much debate throughout American history, with Congress at various times granting the president wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.^[11] There is consensus that the framers of the Constitution intended Congress to declare war and the president to direct the war; Alexander Hamilton said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized or begun", further explaining in Federalist No. 69 that "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature".^[12]

Pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual.^[13] Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. Presidents have historically initiated the process for going to war,^[14]^[15] but critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including Theodore Roosevelt's military move into Panama in 1903,^[14] the Korean War,^[14] the Vietnam War,^[14] and the invasions of Grenada in 1983^[16] and Panama in 1989.^[17]

The amount of military detail handled personally by the president in wartime has varied dramatically.^[18] George Washington, the first U.S. president, firmly established military subordination under civilian authority. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militiamen to quell the Whiskey Rebellion—a conflict in western Pennsylvania involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay excise tax on spirits. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this was the "first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field", although James Madison briefly took control of artillery units in the defense of Washington D.C. during the War of 1812.^[19]

President Abraham Lincoln advising with his Generals during the American Civil War.

President Abraham Lincoln was deeply involved in strategy development and day-to-day military operations during the American Civil War, 1861–1865; historians have given Lincoln high praise for his strategic sense and his ability to select and encourage commanders such as Ulysses S. Grant.^[20] On the other extreme, Woodrow Wilson paid very little attention to operational military details of World War I and had very little contact with the War Department or with General John J. Pershing, who had a high degree of autonomy as commander of the armies in France.^[21] As president during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt worked closely with his generals and admirals, and assigned Admiral William D. Leahy as "Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief".^[22] Harry S. Truman believed in a high amount of civilian leadership of the military, making many tactical and policy decisions based on the recommendations of his advisors—including the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan, to commit American forces in the Korean War, and to terminate Douglas MacArthur from his command.^[23] Lyndon B. Johnson kept a very tight personal control of operations during the Vietnam War, which some historians have sharply criticized.^[24]

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the ensuing Gulf War in 1991 saw George H. W. Bush assemble and lead one of the largest military coalitions of nations in modern times. Confronting a major constitutional issue of murky legislation that left the wars in Korea and Vietnam without official declarations of war, Congress quickly authorized sweeping war-making powers for Bush.^[25] The leadership of George W. Bush during the War in Afghanistan and Iraq War achieved mixed results. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by al-Qaeda, the subsequent War on Terror that followed, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq due to Iraq's alleged sponsorship of terrorism and possession of weapons of mass destruction, the speed at which the Taliban and Ba'ath Party governments in both Kabul and Baghdad were toppled by an overwhelming superiority of American and allied forces defied the predictions of many military experts. However, insufficient post-war planning and strategy by Bush and his advisors to rebuild those nations were costly.^[26]^[27]

During the 20th century, certain regional commanders came to be called "commander-in-chief".^[28] Before 2002, combatant commanders were referred to as commanders-in-chief on a daily basis (e.g. Commander in Chief of U.S. Central Command), even though the positions were in fact already statutorily designated as "combatant commander" (CCDR).^[29] On 24 October 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced his decision that the use of the commander-in-chief title would thereafter be reserved for the president only.^[30]

As the purpose of a military is to combat foreign invaders and adversaries, U.S. troops cannot be deployed on U.S. soil. The only exception to this rule, is if the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil turmoils, rebellions and insurrections.

The president can – with certain limitations – call into federal service all or individual units of the National Guards and naval militias of the states to either supplement regular forces, assist state governments in the case of rebellion or insurrection, or to enforce federal law when such enforcement is impracticable by normal means. Additionally, the president also maintains direct control over the District of Columbia National Guard. As opposed to military forces, militia units can operate on American soil.

In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these powers were not expressly granted by the Constitution.^[31]

Executive powers

Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can unilaterally issue a variety of rules, regulations, and instructions, whose impact and visibility vary widely. Memoranda and other informal orders may not be published. National security directives may be classified. Public proclamations and international agreements are more easily tracked, as are executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress.^[32]

Early examples of unilateral directives to enact politically controversial policies include George Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality (1793), Andrew Jackson's Nullification Proclamation (1832), and Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1862).^[32]

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 put additional responsibilities on the presidency for the preparation of the United States federal budget, although Congress was required to approve it.^[33] The act required the Office of Management and Budget to assist the president with the preparation of the budget. Previous presidents had the privilege of impounding funds as they saw fit, however the United States Supreme Court revoked the privilege in 1998 as a violation of the Presentment Clause. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to large-scale power exercises by President Nixon. The act also created the Congressional Budget Office as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation. Nonetheless, acting independently, a president can heavily influence and redirect the nation's political agenda and reshape its public policies.^[32] As early as 1999, Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell suggested that presidential capacity to pursue objectives unilaterally, rather than through Congress, "virtually defines what is distinctively modern about the modern American presidency."^[34]^: 133 This shift can be linked to other changes, in particular the polarization of political parties, increasing tendencies for congressional dysfunction, and the delegation of authority to the executive branch to implement legislative provisions.^[32]

Powers related to legislation

The president has several options when presented with a bill from Congress. If the president agrees with the bill, he can sign it into law within ten days of receipt. If the president opposes the bill, he can veto it and return the bill to Congress with a veto message suggesting changes (unless Congress is out of session, in which case the president may rely on a pocket veto).

Presidents are required to approve all of a bill or none of it; selective vetoes have been prohibited. In 1996, Congress gave President Bill Clinton a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. New York City, found Clinton's veto of pork-barrel appropriations for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power.^[35]

When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a signing statement with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill's provisions. The president may even declare them unenforceable but the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.^[36]

Congress may override vetoes with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The process has traditionally been difficult and relatively rare. The threat of a presidential veto has usually provided sufficient pressure for Congress to modify a bill so the president would be willing to sign it.

Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.^[37] In modern times, the "executive communication" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the president's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the president himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the Senate.^[38] The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.

Beyond these official powers, the U.S. president, as a leader of his political party and the United States government, holds great sway over public opinion whereby they may influence legislation.

To improve the working relationship with Congress, presidents in recent years have set up an Office of Legislative Affairs. Presidential aides have kept abreast of all important legislative activities.

Powers of appointment

Before taking office, the president-elect and his transition team must appoint people to more than 6,000 federal positions.^[39] The appointments range from top officials at U.S. government agencies, to the White House staff, and members of the United States diplomatic corps. Many, but not all, of these positions at the highest levels are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.^[40]

The president also nominates persons to fill federal judicial vacancies, including federal judges, such as members of the United States courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. These nominations require Senate confirmation, and this can provide a major stumbling block for presidents who wish to shape the federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance.

As head of the executive branch, the president appoints the top officials for nearly all federal agencies.^[discuss] These positions are listed in the Plum Book which outlines more than 7,000 appointive positions in the government. Many of these appointments are made by the president. The president is also free to appoint a new agency head of ten agencies. For example, it is not unusual for the CIA's director or NASA's administrator to be changed by the president. Other agencies that deal with federal regulation such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission have set terms that will often outlast presidential terms. For example, governors of the Federal Reserve serve for fourteen years to ensure agency independence. The president also appoints members to the boards of directors for government-owned corporations, such as Amtrak. The president can also make a recess appointment if a position needs to be filled while Congress is not in session.^[1]

In the past, presidents could appoint members of the United States civil service. This use of the spoils system allowed presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the assassination of President James Garfield by Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker, Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis.^[41] The Office of Personnel Management now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million federal jobs in the federal bureaucracy.

The president must also appoint his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve "at the pleasure of the President".^[42]^[43] Since 1995, the president has been required to submit an annual report to Congress listing the name and salary of every employee of the White House Office. The 2011 report listed 454 employees.^[44]

Executive clemency

Article II of the United States Constitution gives the president the power of clemency. The two most commonly used clemency powers are those of pardon and commutation. A pardon is an official forgiveness for an acknowledged crime. Once a pardon is issued, all punishment for the crime is waived. A person seeking executive clemency by pardon, reprieve, commutation of sentence, or remission of fine shall execute a formal petition. The petition shall be addressed to the president of the United States and shall be submitted to the pardon attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, except for petitions relating to military offenses. A person accepting the pardon through execution of a formal petition must, however, acknowledge that the crime did take place.^[45] The president can only grant pardons for federal offences.^[46] The president maintains the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice to review all requests for pardons. The president can also commute a sentence which, in effect, changes the punishment to time served. While the guilty party may be released from custody or not have to serve out a prison term, all other punishments still apply.

Most pardons are issued as oversight of the judicial branch, especially in cases where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are considered too severe. This power can check the legislative and judicial branches by altering punishment for crimes. Presidents can issue blanket amnesty to forgive entire groups of people. For example, President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers who had fled to Canada. Presidents can also issue temporary suspensions of prosecution or punishment in the form of respites. This power is most commonly used to delay federal sentences of execution.

Pardons can be controversial when they appear to be politically motivated. President George W. Bush commuted the sentence of White House staffer Lewis "Scooter" Libby and President Donald Trump commuted the sentence of and later pardoned Roger Stone.^[47]

Foreign affairs

Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.^[48] With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.

On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.^[49] For example, President Wilson led the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,^[50] and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate executive agreements with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.^[51]

Emergency powers

The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. Some scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the president.^[52]

Emergency presidential power is not a new idea. However, the way in which it is used in the twenty-first century presents new challenges.^[53]

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order.^[54]

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued an order directing that all Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast be placed into internment camps during World War II. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this order in Korematsu v. United States.^[55]

Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he nationalized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952.^[56] With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped.^[57] The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither commander-in-chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the president the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation.^[58]

President Nixon claimed in 1976 that the powers of the president to decide the constitutionality of government actions concerning national security was absolute and exclusive: "if the President does it, that means it is not illegal".^[59]

Congressional legislation gives the president powers to commandeer states and governors of states, if the president deems they are engaged in insurrection. ^[60]^[61]^[62]

According to research conducted by the Brennan Center at New York University Law School, administrations since Eisenhower have drafted secret Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) that assert what one government document described as "extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations." These secret powers appear to be exempt from congressional oversight. PEADs undergo periodic revision, and although their current contents were not known as of 2020, previous PEADs included emergency powers to detain "alien enemies" and other "dangerous persons"; invoke various forms of martial law; authorize a general warrant permitting search and seizure of persons and property; suspend production of the Federal Register; and censor news reports. The Brennan Center found that 56 PEADs were in effect as of 2018.^[63]

Executive privilege

Executive privilege gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.^[64] George Washington first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see Chief Justice John Jay's notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, Washington's action created the precedent for privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed audio tapes to a special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that privilege was not absolute. The Court reasoned that the judiciary's interest in the "fair administration of criminal justice" outweighed President Nixon's interest in keeping the evidence secret.^[65] Later President Bill Clinton lost in federal court when he tried to assert privilege in the Lewinsky affair. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Clinton v. Jones, which denied the use of privilege in cases of civil suits.^[66]

Constraints on presidential power

Because of the vast array of presidential roles and responsibilities, coupled with a conspicuous presence on the national and international scene, political analysts have tended to place great emphasis on the president's powers. Some have even spoken of "the imperial presidency", referring to the expanded role of the office that Franklin D. Roosevelt maintained during his term.^[67]

President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a "bully pulpit" from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate.^[68] A president's power and influence may have limits, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.^[32]

Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the president's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and their power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of a president's military powers without Congressional authorization are open to debate).^[3]^[69]

The Separation of Powers devised by the founding fathers was primarily designed to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist.^[70] Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as "checks and balances". For example, the president appoints judges and departmental secretaries, but these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can approve bills or veto (deny) them. If he does that, the bill is sent back to Congress, which can override the veto.^[32]

An essential factor, then, to counter the abuse of unilateral executive power, is presidential accountability:^[32]^[71]

[T]he American Constitution...envisages a strong Presidency within an equally strong system of accountability. When the constitutional balance is upset in favor of Presidential power and at the expense of Presidential accountability, the office can be said to become imperial. – Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.^[71]

Political scientists have attempted to develop theoretical approaches to describe the use and control of unilateral power, but such theories have not been clearly substantiated by empirical evidence. Some theoretical perspectives emphasize the importance of institutional constraints and the separation of powers. Unilateral action can be seen as a strategic way of circumventing Congressional authority, or as a way to act complicitly with the tacit approval of the majority party. Other formal theories focus on agency and relationships between the president, other bureaucratic actors, and the public. Comparative perspectives suggest that factors such as partisan support, ideological polarization, and divided government, may be closely linked to unilateral policy making. No one theoretical approach addresses all important issues.^[32]

Empirical research on executive power and its uses is limited, and results are not always consistent. Available results may not align with predictions from separation-of-powers theories: "presidents routinely change status quo policies that theories predict they should not."^[32] Evidence suggests that presidents are more likely to exercise unilateral power with the tacit support of the majority party in Congress, rather than against a hostile Congress.^[32]^[72]

With respect to judicial review it appears that presidents may be more likely to issue executive orders when they differ ideologically from the courts. However the courts overwhelmingly tend to support such directives, upholding 83% of the executive orders that were challenged in federal court between 1942 and 1998.^[32]^[73]^[74]

Predictions about the relationship between presidential popularity and numbers of unilateral directives issued are inconclusive. It has been theorized that less popular presents will issue more presidential directives, but results on this question are mixed.^[32] In terms of how the public responds to the president's actions, there is some evidence to suggest that "individuals are less likely to approve of the president following the use of unilateral power" possibly because it is used in place of legislation.^[32]^[75]

References

^ ^a ^b "Annotated Constitution Article II". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
^ "United States Constitution". United States Senate. September 17, 1787. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
^ ^a ^b Dawson, Joseph G. III, ed. (1993). Commanders in chief : presidential leadership in modern wars. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700605798.
^ Matthew Moten, Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War (2014)
^ King, Archibald (1960) [1949]. Command of the Army (PDF) (reprint). Military Affairs. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army.
^ 50 U.S.C. § 401
^ 10 U.S.C. § 113
^ "DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011". United States Department of Defense. April 8, 2011. Archived from the original on May 13, 2011. Retrieved February 25, 2013.
^ 10 U.S.C. § 164
^ Joint Chiefs of Staff. About the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retrieved February 25, 2013.
^ Ramsey, Michael; Vladeck, Stephen. "Common Interpretation: Commander in Chief Clause". National Constitution Center Educational Resources (some internal navigation required). National Constitution Center. Retrieved May 23, 2017.
^ Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist #69 (reposting). Retrieved June 15, 2007.
^ Christopher, James A.; Baker, III (July 8, 2008). "The National War Powers Commission Report". The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 26, 2010. Retrieved December 15, 2010. No clear mechanism or requirement exists today for the president and Congress to consult. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 contains only vague consultation requirements. Instead, it relies on reporting requirements that, if triggered, begin the clock running for Congress to approve the particular armed conflict. By the terms of the Resolution, however, Congress need not act to disapprove the conflict; the cessation of all hostilities is required in 60 to 90 days merely if Congress fails to act. Many have criticized this aspect of the Resolution as unwise and unconstitutional, and no president in the past 35 years has filed a report "pursuant" to these triggering provisions.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "The Law: The President's War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on January 7, 2008. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
^ Mitchell, Alison (May 2, 1999). "The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. Presidents have sent forces abroad more than 100 times; Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish–American War, World War I and World War II.
^ Mitchell, Alison (May 2, 1999). "The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. President Reagan told Congress of the invasion of Grenada two hours after he had ordered the landing. He told Congressional leaders of the bombing of Libya while the aircraft were on their way.
^ Gordon, Michael R. (December 20, 1990). "U.S. troops move in panama in effort to seize noriega; gunfire is heard in capital". The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2009. It was not clear whether the White House consulted with Congressional leaders about the military action, or notified them in advance. Thomas S. Foley, the Speaker of the House, said on Tuesday night that he had not been alerted by the Administration.
^ Andrew J. Polsky, Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War (Oxford University Press, 2012) online review
^ "George Washington and the Evolution of the American Commander in Chief". The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
^ James M. McPherson, Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln As Commander in Chief (2009)
^ John Milton Cooper, Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (2009) ch 18
^ Eric Larrabee, Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (2004)
^ The Awesome Power: Harry S. Truman as Commander in Chief. LSU Press. March 1999. pp. 265–269. ISBN 9780807125151.
^ Larry Berman, Lyndon Johnson's War: The Road to Stalemate in Vietnam (1991)
^ "The Presidency of George H.W. Bush". University of North Carolina School of Education.
^ Accessing the George W. Bush Presidency. Edinburgh University Press. 2009. p. 261. ISBN 9780748627417.
^ Presidential Decisions for War. JHU Press. October 2010. ISBN 9780801895784.
^ CINCLANTFLT navy.mil
^ 10 U.S.C. § 164
^ "CINC" Is Sunk, American Forces Press Service, 25 October 2002. Retrieved on 2016-05-04.
^ "Executive Power". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 2007-08-06. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m Lowande, Kenneth; Rogowski, Jon C. (11 May 2021). "Presidential Unilateral Power". Annual Review of Political Science. 24 (1): 21–43. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102043.
^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-06-07. Retrieved 2011-10-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^ Moe, Terry M.; Howell, William G. (1999). "Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 29 (4): 850–72. doi:10.1111/1741-5705.00070. JSTOR 27552053. Retrieved August 9, 2021.
^ Dewar, Hellen; Biskupic, Joan (1998-06-26). "Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ Abramowitz, Michael (2006-07-24). "Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "Presidential Powers". www.let.rug.nl. University of Groningen. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "How Our Laws Are Made - Congress.gov". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
^ "Presidential Powers - LawShelf Educational Media". lawshelf.com.
^ Fairlie, John (1903). "The Administrative Powers of the President". Michigan Law Review. 2 (3): 190–210. doi:10.2307/1273781. JSTOR 1273781.
^ Ornstein, Norm. "How the Assassination of James A. Garfield Haunts VA Reform". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "Serving at the Pleasure of the President". National Archives. August 15, 2016.
^ "Executive Order 11183--Establishing the President's Commission on White House Fellowships". Federal Register. 15 August 2016. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ "2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | whitehouse.gov". whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on 2017-01-20. Retrieved 2012-05-07 – via National Archives. 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff
^ "Pardon Information and Instructions". www.justice.gov. 12 January 2015.
^ "Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Executive Clemency | PARDON | Department of Justice". www.justice.gov. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency – The White House". trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov. Retrieved 2023-02-18.
^ "Executive Power". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 2007-08-06. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
^ "War and International Law America's Foreign Policy: A Brief History". Constitutional Rights Foundation. Archived from the original on 4 November 2019. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
^ Schulman, Marc. "Recognition". historycentral.com. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "Treaty vs. Executive Agreement". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ Louis, Fisher (2007). Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President. University Press of Kansas. pp. 249–272. ISBN 978-0299295301.
^ Chris, Edelson (2013). Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror. University of Wisconsin. p. 6. ISBN 978-0700615346.
^ Greenberg, David (2001-11-30). "Lincoln's Crackdown". Slate. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ Konkoly, Toni. "The Supreme Court . Law, Power & Personality . Famous Dissents . Korematsu v. United States (1944) | PBS". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ Schwarz, Jon (2017-01-26). "Executive Orders Are Normal; Trump's Are Only Appalling Because of What They Say". The Intercept. Retrieved 2017-02-04.
^ "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "C-SPAN Landmark Cases | Youngstown V Sawyer". landmarkcases.c-span.org. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ Banks, William C.; Carrió, Alejandro D. (1993). "Presidential Systems in Stress: Emergency Powers in Argentina and the United States". Michigan Journal of International Law.
^ 10 USC Sections 252, 253
^ "10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority". Cornell Law School. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ "10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law". Cornell Law School. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ "Presidential Emergency Action Documents". Brennan Center for Justice. NYU Law. May 6, 2020. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ "United States v. Nixon". Oyez. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
^ "Summary of the Decision United States v. Nixon". landmarkcases.org. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
^ "Presidential Immunity From Judicial Direction". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
^ Christenson, Dino P.; Kriner, Douglas L. (2020). The Myth of the Imperial Presidency: How Public Opinion Checks the Unilateral Executive. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226704531. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
^ Cullinane, Michael Patrick; Elliott, Clare Frances (February 18, 2014). Perspectives on Presidential Leadership: An International View of the White House. Routledge. pp. 80–. ISBN 978-1-135-07903-1.
^ "Declare War Clause". National Constitution Center. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ "Federalist Papers No. 51".
^ ^a ^b Schlesinger, A. (2004). War and the American Presidency. New York: W.W. Norton. pp. ix.
^ Chiou, FY; Rothenberg, LS (2017). The enigma of presidential power: Parties, policies and strategic uses of unilateral action. UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
^ Thrower, Sharece (March 2017). "The President, the Court, and Policy Implementation". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 47 (1): 122–145. doi:10.1111/psq.12348. Retrieved 16 August 2021.
^ Howell, William G. (2003). Power without persuasion : the politics of direct presidential action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691102702.
^ Reeves, Andrew; Rogowski, Jon C. (April 2018). "The Public Cost of Unilateral Action: THE PUBLIC COST OF UNILATERAL ACTION". American Journal of Political Science. 62 (2): 424–440. doi:10.1111/ajps.12340. Retrieved 16 August 2021.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Constitutional, legal, and soft powers}}
-{{short description|Powers explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution to the president of the United States, powers granted by Acts of Congress}}
 {{pp-protected|reason=[[WP:AE|Arbitration enforcement]]: [[WP:ARBAP2]]|small=yes}}
 {{Politics of the United States}}
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 The [[Power (social and political)|powers]] of the [[president of the United States]] include those explicitly granted by [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]] of the [[United States Constitution]] as well as those granted by [[Acts of Congress]], [[implied powers]], and also a great deal of [[soft power]] that is attached to the presidency.<ref name=":1" />
-The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or [[Veto#United States|veto legislation]], command the [[United States Armed Forces|armed forces]], ask for the written opinion of their [[Cabinet of the United States|Cabinet]], convene or adjourn [[United States Congress|Congress]], grant reprieves and [[pardon]]s, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make [[Treaty Clause|treaties]], which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the [[United States Senate|Senate]], and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint [[Federal tribunals in the United States|Article III judges]] and some officers with the [[advice and consent]] of the U.S. Senate.  In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a [[recess appointment|temporary appointment]].
+The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or [[Veto power in the United States|veto legislation]], command the [[United States Armed Forces|armed forces]], ask for the written opinion of their [[Cabinet of the United States|Cabinet]], convene or adjourn [[United States Congress|Congress]], grant reprieves and [[pardon]]s, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make [[Treaty Clause|treaties]], which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the [[United States Senate|Senate]], and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint [[Federal tribunals in the United States|Article III judges]] and some officers with the [[advice and consent]] of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a [[recess appointment|temporary appointment]].
 == Commander-in-chief ==
-[[File:Barack Obama and generals saluting U.S. personnel who died in Afghanistan.jpg|thumb|President [[Barack Obama]], in his capacity as commander-in-chief, salutes the caskets of 18 individual soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2009.]]
+[[File: Barack Obama and generals saluting U.S. personnel who died in Afghanistan (cropped).jpg |thumb|President [[Barack Obama]], in his capacity as commander-in-chief, salutes the caskets of 18 individual soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2009.]]
-The president of the United States is the [[commander-in-chief]] of the [[United States Armed Forces]] as well as all federalized [[United States Militia]]. In this capacity, the president exercises supreme operational command and control over all [[military personnel]] and militia members, and has [[plenary power]] to launch, direct and supervise [[military operation]]s, order or authorize the [[Military deployment|deployment of troops]], unilaterally launch [[Nuclear weapons of the United States|nuclear weapon]]s, and form military policy with the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Homeland Security]]. However, the constitutional ability to [[Declaration of war by the United States|declare war]] is vested only in Congress.<ref name="USConstArt1Sec8WarPowers">{{cite web|title=United States Constitution|url=https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec8|date=September 17, 1787|publisher=[[United States Senate]]|quote=To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water}}</ref>
+The president is the [[commander-in-chief]] of the [[United States Armed Forces]] as well as all federalized [[United States Militia]] and may exercise supreme operational command and control over them. The president has, in this capacity, [[plenary power]] to launch, direct and supervise [[military operation]]s, order or authorize the [[Military deployment|deployment of troops]], unilaterally launch [[Nuclear weapons of the United States|nuclear weapon]]s, and form military policy with the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Homeland Security]]. However, the constitutional ability to [[Declaration of war by the United States|declare war]] is vested only in Congress.<ref name="USConstArt1Sec8WarPowers">{{cite web|title=United States Constitution|url=https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec8|date=September 17, 1787|publisher=[[United States Senate]]|quote=To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water}}</ref>
-[[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II of the U.S. Constitution]] expressly designates the president as:<ref>Joseph G. Dawson, ed. ''Commanders in Chief: Presidential Leadership in Modern Wars'' (1993)</ref> {{quote|Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States}}
+[[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II of the U.S. Constitution]] expressly designates the president as: {{quote|Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States<ref name="Dawson">{{cite book |editor-last1=Dawson |editor-first1=Joseph G. III |title=Commanders in chief : presidential leadership in modern wars |date=1993 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |location=Lawrence, KS |isbn=9780700605798 }}</ref>}}
-U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the president possessing ultimate authority, but no rank, maintaining a civilian status.<ref>Matthew Moten, ''Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War'' (2014)</ref> Before 1947, the president was the only common superior of the Army (under the [[United States Secretary of War|secretary of war]]) and the [[United States Department of the Navy|Navy and Marine Corps]] (under the [[United States Secretary of the Navy|secretary of the navy]]).<ref name="King">{{Cite book| last1 = King | first1 = Archibald| title = Command of the Army| series = Military Affairs| location = Charlottesville, Virginia| publisher = [[The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School|The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army]]| orig-year = 1949 |year = 1960 |type = reprint| url = https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Command-Army_King.pdf| ref = King }}</ref> The [[National Security Act of 1947]], and the 1949 amendments to the same act, created the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the "authority, direction and control" of the [[United States Secretary of Defense|secretary of defense]].<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|50|401}}</ref><ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|10|113}}</ref> The president and the secretary of defense collectively, form the [[National Command Authority (United States)|National Command Authority]]. The present-day operational command of the Armed Forces is delegated from the president to the Department of Defense and is normally exercised through its secretary. The [[chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]] and the [[Combatant Command|combatant command]]s assist with operations as outlined in the presidentially-approved Unified Command Plan (UCP).<ref name=ucp>{{cite news|title=DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011|work=[[United States Department of Defense]]|date=April 8, 2011|url=http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513070316/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 13, 2011|access-date=February 25, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{USC|10|164}}</ref><ref>[[Joint Chiefs of Staff]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090416022040/http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=2 About the Joint Chiefs of Staff]. Retrieved February 25, 2013.</ref>
+U.S. ranks have their roots in British military traditions, with the president possessing ultimate authority, but no rank, maintaining a civilian status.<ref>Matthew Moten, ''Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War'' (2014)</ref> Before 1947, the president was the only common superior of the Army (under the [[United States Secretary of War|secretary of war]]) and the [[United States Department of the Navy|Navy and Marine Corps]] (under the [[United States Secretary of the Navy|secretary of the navy]]).<ref name="King">{{Cite book| last1 = King | first1 = Archibald| title = Command of the Army| series = Military Affairs| location = Charlottesville, Virginia| publisher = [[The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School|The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army]]| orig-year = 1949 |year = 1960 |type = reprint| url = https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Command-Army_King.pdf| ref = King }}</ref> The [[National Security Act of 1947]], and the 1949 amendments to the same act, created the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] and the services (Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) became subject to the "authority, direction and control" of the [[United States Secretary of Defense|secretary of defense]].<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|50|401}}</ref><ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|10|113}}</ref> The present-day operational command of the Armed Forces is delegated from the president to the Department of Defense and is normally exercised through its secretary. The [[chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]] and the [[Combatant Command|combatant command]]s assist with operations as outlined in the presidentially-approved Unified Command Plan (UCP).<ref name=ucp>{{cite news|title=DOD Releases Unified Command Plan 2011|work=[[United States Department of Defense]]|date=April 8, 2011|url=http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513070316/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14398|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 13, 2011|access-date=February 25, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{USC|10|164}}</ref><ref>[[Joint Chiefs of Staff]]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090416022040/http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?id=2 About the Joint Chiefs of Staff]. Retrieved February 25, 2013.</ref>
 [[File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg|thumb|upright=.90|A painting depicting president [[George Washington]] and his troops before their march to suppress the [[Whiskey Rebellion]] in 1794.]]
-The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the president as commander-in-chief has been the subject of much debate throughout American history, with Congress at various times granting the president wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/commander-in-chief-clause-ramsey-and-vladeck/clause/25|title=Common Interpretation: Commander in Chief Clause |last1=Ramsey|first1=Michael|last2=Vladeck|first2=Stephen |website=National Constitution Center Educational Resources (some internal navigation required) |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=May 23, 2017}}</ref> There is broad consensus that the [[framers of the Constitution]] intended Congress to declare war and the president to direct the war; [[Alexander Hamilton]] said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized or begun", further explaining in [[Federalist No. 69]] that "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that of the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|British king]] extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature".<ref>[[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton, Alexander]]. [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm ''The Federalist'' #69] (reposting). Retrieved June 15, 2007.</ref>
+The exact degree of authority that the Constitution grants to the president as commander-in-chief has been the subject of much debate throughout American history, with Congress at various times granting the president wide authority and at others attempting to restrict that authority.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/commander-in-chief-clause-ramsey-and-vladeck/clause/25|title=Common Interpretation: Commander in Chief Clause |last1=Ramsey|first1=Michael|last2=Vladeck|first2=Stephen |website=National Constitution Center Educational Resources (some internal navigation required) |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=May 23, 2017}}</ref> There is consensus that the [[framers of the Constitution]] intended Congress to declare war and the president to direct the war; [[Alexander Hamilton]] said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have "the direction of war when authorized or begun", further explaining in [[Federalist No. 69]] that "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that of the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|British king]] extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature".<ref>[[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton, Alexander]]. [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa69.htm ''The Federalist'' #69] (reposting). Retrieved June 15, 2007.</ref>
-Pursuant to the [[War Powers Resolution]] of 1973, Congress must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual.<ref name="miller-center">{{cite web|title=The National War Powers Commission Report|url=http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report|publisher=The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia|last1=Christopher|first1=James A.|last2=Baker, III|format=PDF|date=July 8, 2008|access-date=December 15, 2010|quote=No clear mechanism or requirement exists today for the president and Congress to consult. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 contains only vague consultation requirements. Instead, it relies on reporting requirements that, if triggered, begin the clock running for Congress to approve the particular armed conflict. By the terms of the Resolution, however, Congress need not act to disapprove the conflict; the cessation of all hostilities is required in 60 to 90 days merely if Congress fails to act. Many have criticized this aspect of the Resolution as unwise and unconstitutional, and no president in the past 35 years has filed a report "pursuant" to these triggering provisions. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126165009/http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report|archive-date=November 26, 2010|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. Presidents have historically initiated the process for going to war,<ref name=tws12novef>{{cite news |title=The Law: The President's War Powers|work=Time|date=June 1, 1970 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080107101712/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 7, 2008|access-date=September 28, 2009}}</ref><ref name=tws8nov102>{{cite news|first=Alison|last=Mitchell|title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True|quote=Presidents have sent forces abroad more than 100 times; Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish–American War, World War I and World War II.|work=The New York Times|date=May 2, 1999|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html|access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref> but critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including [[Theodore Roosevelt]]'s military move into [[Panama]] in 1903,<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Korean War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Vietnam War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> and the invasions of [[Grenada]] in 1983<ref name=tws8nov101>{{cite news|first=Alison|last=Mitchell|title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True|quote=President Reagan told Congress of the invasion of Grenada two hours after he had ordered the landing. He told Congressional leaders of the bombing of Libya while the aircraft were on their way.|work=The New York Times|date=May 2, 1999|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html |access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref> and [[Panama]] in 1989.<ref name=tws8nov100>{{cite news|first=Michael R. |last=Gordon|title=U.S. troops move in panama in effort to seize noriega; gunfire is heard in capital|quote=It was not clear whether the White House consulted with Congressional leaders about the military action, or notified them in advance. Thomas S. Foley, the Speaker of the House, said on Tuesday night that he had not been alerted by the Administration.|work=The New York Times|date=December 20, 1990 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1220.html#article|access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref>
+Pursuant to the [[War Powers Resolution]] of 1973, Congress must authorize any troop deployments longer than 60 days, although that process relies on triggering mechanisms that have never been employed, rendering it ineffectual.<ref name="miller-center">{{cite web|title=The National War Powers Commission Report|url=http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report|publisher=The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia|last1=Christopher|first1=James A.|last2=Baker, III|format=PDF|date=July 8, 2008|access-date=December 15, 2010|quote=No clear mechanism or requirement exists today for the president and Congress to consult. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 contains only vague consultation requirements. Instead, it relies on reporting requirements that, if triggered, begin the clock running for Congress to approve the particular armed conflict. By the terms of the Resolution, however, Congress need not act to disapprove the conflict; the cessation of all hostilities is required in 60 to 90 days merely if Congress fails to act. Many have criticized this aspect of the Resolution as unwise and unconstitutional, and no president in the past 35 years has filed a report "pursuant" to these triggering provisions. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101126165009/http://millercenter.org/policy/commissions/warpowers/report|archive-date=November 26, 2010|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Additionally, Congress provides a check to presidential military power through its control over military spending and regulation. Presidents have historically initiated the process for going to war,<ref name=tws12novef>{{cite magazine |title=The Law: The President's War Powers|magazine=Time|date=June 1, 1970 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080107101712/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878290,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 7, 2008|access-date=September 28, 2009}}</ref><ref name=tws8nov102>{{cite news|first=Alison|last=Mitchell|title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True|quote=Presidents have sent forces abroad more than 100 times; Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish–American War, World War I and World War II.|work=The New York Times|date=May 2, 1999|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html|access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref> but critics have charged that there have been several conflicts in which presidents did not get official declarations, including [[Theodore Roosevelt]]'s military move into [[Panama]] in 1903,<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Korean War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> the [[Vietnam War]],<ref name="tws12novef" /> and the invasions of [[Grenada]] in 1983<ref name=tws8nov101>{{cite news|first=Alison|last=Mitchell|title=The World; Only Congress Can Declare War. Really. It's True|quote=President Reagan told Congress of the invasion of Grenada two hours after he had ordered the landing. He told Congressional leaders of the bombing of Libya while the aircraft were on their way.|work=The New York Times|date=May 2, 1999|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/weekinreview/the-world-only-congress-can-declare-war-really-it-s-true.html |access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref> and [[Panama]] in 1989.<ref name=tws8nov100>{{cite news|first=Michael R. |last=Gordon|title=U.S. troops move in panama in effort to seize noriega; gunfire is heard in capital|quote=It was not clear whether the White House consulted with Congressional leaders about the military action, or notified them in advance. Thomas S. Foley, the Speaker of the House, said on Tuesday night that he had not been alerted by the Administration.|work=The New York Times|date=December 20, 1990 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1220.html#article|access-date=November 8, 2009}}</ref>
-The amount of military detail handled personally by the president in wartime has varied dramatically.<ref>Andrew J. Polsky, ''Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War'' (Oxford University Press, 2012) [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37003 online review]</ref>  [[George Washington]], the first U.S. president, firmly established [[civilian control of the military|military subordination under civilian authority]]. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militia to quell the [[Whiskey Rebellion]]—a conflict in western Pennsylvania involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay excise tax on spirits. According to historian [[Joseph Ellis]], this was the "first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field", although [[James Madison]] briefly took control of artillery units in the [[Burning of Washington|defense of Washington D.C.]] during the [[War of 1812]].<ref>{{cite web|title=George Washington and the Evolution of the American Commander in Chief|publisher=The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation|url=http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/summer12/george.cfm}}</ref>
+The amount of military detail handled personally by the president in wartime has varied dramatically.<ref>Andrew J. Polsky, ''Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War'' (Oxford University Press, 2012) [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37003 online review]</ref> [[George Washington]], the first U.S. president, firmly established [[civilian control of the military|military subordination under civilian authority]]. In 1794, Washington used his constitutional powers to assemble 12,000 militiamen to quell the [[Whiskey Rebellion]]—a conflict in western Pennsylvania involving armed farmers and distillers who refused to pay excise tax on spirits. According to historian [[Joseph Ellis]], this was the "first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field", although [[James Madison]] briefly took control of artillery units in the [[Burning of Washington|defense of Washington D.C.]] during the [[War of 1812]].<ref>{{cite web|title=George Washington and the Evolution of the American Commander in Chief|publisher=The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation|url=http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/summer12/george.cfm}}</ref>
 [[File:The Peacemakers 1868.jpg|thumb|upright=.90|left|President [[Abraham Lincoln]] advising with his Generals during the [[American Civil War]].]]
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 The Iraqi [[invasion of Kuwait]] in 1990 and the ensuing [[Gulf War]] in 1991 saw [[George H. W. Bush]] assemble and lead one of the largest [[Coalition of the Gulf War|military coalitions of nations]] in modern times. Confronting a major constitutional issue of murky legislation that left the wars in Korea and Vietnam without official declarations of war, Congress quickly authorized sweeping war-making powers for Bush.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Presidency of George H.W. Bush|publisher=University of North Carolina School of Education|url=http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6188}}</ref> The leadership of [[George W. Bush]] during the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|War in Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq War]] achieved mixed results. In the aftermath of the [[September 11 attacks]] by [[al-Qaeda]], the subsequent [[War on Terror]] that followed, and the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] due to Iraq's alleged sponsorship of terrorism and possession of weapons of mass destruction, the speed at which the [[Taliban]] and [[Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region|Ba'ath Party]] governments in both Kabul and Baghdad were toppled by an overwhelming superiority of American and allied forces defied the predictions of many military experts. However, insufficient post-war planning and strategy by Bush and his advisors to rebuild those nations were costly.<ref>{{cite book|title=Accessing the George W. Bush Presidency|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fFMNO0G-FQ8C&q=Bush+legacy&pg=PA259|pages =261|isbn=9780748627417|year=2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Presidential Decisions for War|publisher=JHU Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HesonEGPW3YC&q=Bush+war+record&pg=PT236|isbn=9780801895784|date=October 2010}}</ref>
-During the 20th century, certain regional commanders came to be called commander-in-chief.<ref>[http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/Pages/history.aspx CINCLANTFLT] navy.mil</ref> As of 2011, there are nine combatant commanders; six have regional responsibilities, and three have functional responsibilities. Before 2002, the combatant commanders were referred to in daily use as commanders-in-chief (for instance "Commander in Chief, [[U.S. Central Command]]"), even though the positions were in fact already statutorily designated as "combatant commander" (CCDR).<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|10|164}}</ref> On 24 October 2002, Defense Secretary [[Donald H. Rumsfeld]] announced his decision that the use of commander-in-chief would thereafter be reserved for the president only.<ref>[http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42568  "CINC" Is Sunk], [[American Forces Press Service]], 25 October 2002. Retrieved on 2016-05-04.</ref>
+During the 20th century, certain regional commanders came to be called "commander-in-chief".<ref>[http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/Pages/history.aspx CINCLANTFLT] navy.mil</ref> Before 2002, [[Unified combatant command|combatant commanders]] were referred to as commanders-in-chief on a daily basis (e.g. Commander in Chief of [[U.S. Central Command]]), even though the positions were in fact already statutorily designated as "combatant commander" (CCDR).<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|10|164}}</ref> On 24 October 2002, Defense Secretary [[Donald H. Rumsfeld]] announced his decision that the use of the commander-in-chief title would thereafter be reserved for the president only.<ref>[http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42568  "CINC" Is Sunk], [[American Forces Press Service]], 25 October 2002. Retrieved on 2016-05-04.</ref>
-As the purpose of a military is to ward off and combat foreign adversaries, U.S. troops cannot be deployed within the United States. The only exception to this principle, is if the president invokes the [[Insurrection Act of 1807]] to quell civil turmoils, rebellions and insurrections.
+As the purpose of a military is to combat foreign invaders and adversaries, U.S. troops cannot be deployed on U.S. soil. The only exception to this rule, is if the president invokes the [[Insurrection Act of 1807]] to quell civil turmoils, rebellions and insurrections.
-The president can – with certain limitations – call into federal service all or individual units of the [[United States National Guard|National Guards]] and [[Naval militia|naval militias]] of [[U.S. state|the states]] to either supplement regular forces, assist state governments in the case of rebellion or insurrection, or to enforce federal law when such enforcement is impracticable by normal means. Additionally, the president also maintains direct authority over the [[District of Columbia National Guard]]. As opposed to military forces, militia units can operate on U.S. soil.
+The president can – with certain limitations – call into federal service all or individual units of the [[United States National Guard|National Guards]] and [[Naval militia|naval militias]] of [[U.S. state|the states]] to either supplement regular forces, assist state governments in the case of rebellion or insurrection, or to enforce federal law when such enforcement is impracticable by normal means. Additionally, the president also maintains direct control over the [[District of Columbia National Guard]]. As opposed to military forces, militia units can operate on American soil.
 In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these powers were not expressly granted by the Constitution.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web|date=2007-08-06|title=Executive Power|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power|access-date=2017-01-27|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell University Law School|language=en}}</ref>
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Within the [[executive (government)|executive branch]] itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can unilaterally issue a variety of rules, regulations, and instructions, whose impact and visibility vary widely. Memoranda and other informal orders may not be published. National security directives may be classified. Public proclamations and international agreements are more easily tracked, as are [[executive order (United States)|executive orders]], which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress.<ref name="Lowande"/>
-Early  examples of unilateral directives to enact politically controversial policies include [[George Washington]]'s [[Proclamation of Neutrality]], [[Andrew Jackson]]'s [[Proclamation to the People of South Carolina|Nullification Proclamation]], and [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[Emancipation Proclamation]].<ref name="Lowande"/>
+Early examples of unilateral directives to enact politically controversial policies include [[George Washington]]'s [[Proclamation of Neutrality]] (1793), [[Andrew Jackson]]'s [[Proclamation to the People of South Carolina|Nullification Proclamation]] (1832), and [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[Emancipation Proclamation]] (1862).<ref name="Lowande"/>
 The [[Budget and Accounting Act of 1921]] put additional responsibilities on the presidency for the preparation of the [[United States federal budget]], although Congress was required to approve it.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/s10.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2011-10-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607225002/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/circulars/a11/current_year/s10.pdf |archive-date=2011-06-07 }}</ref> The act required the [[Office of Management and Budget]] to assist the president with the preparation of the budget. Previous presidents had the privilege of [[Impoundment of appropriated funds|impounding]] funds as they saw fit, however the [[United States Supreme Court]] revoked the privilege [[Clinton v. City of New York|in 1998]] as a violation of the [[Presentment Clause]]. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The [[Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974]] was passed in response to large-scale power exercises by President Nixon. The act also created the [[Congressional Budget Office]] as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.
-Executive orders are subject to [[judicial review]] and [[Judicial interpretation|interpretation]].  Nonetheless, acting independently, a president can heavily influence and redirect the nation's political agenda and reshape its public policies.<ref name="Lowande"/> As early as 1999, [[Terry M. Moe]] and [[William G. Howell]] suggested that presidential capacity to pursue objectives unilaterally, rather than through Congress, “virtually defines what is distinctively modern about the modern American presidency.”<ref name="Moe">{{cite journal |last1=Moe |first1=Terry M. |last2=Howell |first2=William G. |title=Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |date=1999 |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=850-72 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552053 |access-date=August 9, 2021}}</ref>{{rp|133}} This shift can be linked to other changes, in particular the polarization of political parties, increasing tendencies for congressional dysfunction, and the delegation of authority to the executive branch to implement legislative provisions.<ref name="Lowande"/>
+Executive orders are subject to [[judicial review]] and [[Judicial interpretation|interpretation]]. Nonetheless, acting independently, a president can heavily influence and redirect the nation's political agenda and reshape its public policies.<ref name="Lowande"/> As early as 1999, [[Terry M. Moe]] and [[William G. Howell]] suggested that presidential capacity to pursue objectives unilaterally, rather than through Congress, "virtually defines what is distinctively modern about the modern American presidency."<ref name="Moe">{{cite journal |last1=Moe |first1=Terry M. |last2=Howell |first2=William G. |title=Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |date=1999 |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=850–72 |doi=10.1111/1741-5705.00070 |jstor=27552053 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552053 |access-date=August 9, 2021}}</ref>{{rp|133}} This shift can be linked to other changes, in particular the polarization of political parties, increasing tendencies for congressional dysfunction, and the delegation of authority to the executive branch to implement legislative provisions.<ref name="Lowande"/>
 == Powers related to legislation ==
-The president has several options when presented with a [[Legislation|bill]] from Congress.  If the president agrees with the bill, he can sign it into law within ten days of receipt. If the president opposes the bill, he can [[veto]] it and return the bill to Congress with a veto message suggesting changes (unless Congress is out of session, in which case the president may rely on a [[pocket veto]]).
+The president has several options when presented with a [[Legislation|bill]] from Congress. If the president agrees with the bill, he can sign it into law within ten days of receipt. If the president opposes the bill, he can [[veto]] it and return the bill to Congress with a veto message suggesting changes (unless Congress is out of session, in which case the president may rely on a [[pocket veto]]).
-Presidents are required to approve all of a bill or none of it; [[Line-item veto in the United States|selective vetoes]] have been prohibited. In 1996, Congress gave President [[Bill Clinton]] a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]], in ''[[Clinton v. New York City]]'', found Clinton's veto of [[pork barrel legislation|pork-barrel]] [[Appropriation (law)|appropriations]] for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm|title=Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto|last1=Dewar|first1=Hellen|date=1998-06-26|work=The Washington Post|last2=Biskupic|first2=Joan|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
+Presidents are required to approve all of a bill or none of it; [[Line-item veto in the United States|selective vetoes]] have been prohibited. In 1996, Congress gave President [[Bill Clinton]] a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]], in ''[[Clinton v. New York City]]'', found Clinton's veto of [[pork barrel legislation|pork-barrel]] [[Appropriation (law)|appropriations]] for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm|title=Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto|last1=Dewar|first1=Hellen|date=1998-06-26|newspaper=The Washington Post|author-link2=Joan Biskupic|last2=Biskupic|first2=Joan|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
-When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a [[Signing statement (United States)|signing statement]] with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill's provisions. The president may even declare them unenforceable but the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html|title=Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed|last=Abramowitz|first=Michael|date=2006-07-24|newspaper=The Washington Post|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
+When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a [[signing statement]] with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill's provisions. The president may even declare them unenforceable but the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html|title=Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed|last=Abramowitz|first=Michael|date=2006-07-24|newspaper=The Washington Post|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
-Congress may [[List of United States presidential vetoes|override vetoes]] with a two-thirds vote in both the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]].  The process has traditionally been difficult and relatively rare. The threat of a presidential veto has usually provided sufficient pressure for Congress to modify a bill so the president would be willing to sign it.
+Congress may [[List of United States presidential vetoes|override vetoes]] with a two-thirds vote in both the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and the [[United States Senate|Senate]]. The process has traditionally been difficult and relatively rare. The threat of a presidential veto has usually provided sufficient pressure for Congress to modify a bill so the president would be willing to sign it.
 Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/government-1991/the-executive-branch-powers-of-the-presidency/presidential-powers.php|title=Presidential Powers|website=www.let.rug.nl|publisher=University of Groningen|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> In modern times, the "[[executive communication]]" has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the president's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the president himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president of the Senate.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Our Laws Are Made - Congress.gov|url=https://www.congress.gov/help/learn-about-the-legislative-process/how-our-laws-are-made|access-date=2020-10-28|website=www.congress.gov}}</ref> The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual [[State of the Union address]] and [[Joint session of the United States Congress|joint sessions]] of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.
@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 In the past, presidents could appoint members of the [[United States civil service]]. This use of the [[spoils system]] allowed presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the [[assassination of President James Garfield]] by [[Charles J. Guiteau]], a disgruntled office seeker, Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/how-the-assassination-of-james-a-garfield-haunts-va-reform/374202/|title=How the Assassination of James A. Garfield Haunts VA Reform|last=Ornstein|first=Norm|newspaper=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> The [[Office of Personnel Management]] now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million federal jobs in the federal [[bureaucracy]].
-The president must also appoint his [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|staff]] of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve "at the pleasure of the President".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/senate-nominations.html|title=Serving at the Pleasure of the President|date=August 15, 2016|website=National Archives}}</ref><ref>https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11183.html Executive Order 11183--Establishing the President's Commission on White House Fellowships</ref> Since 1995, the president has been required to submit an annual report to Congress listing the name and salary of every employee of the [[White House Office]]. The 2011 report listed 454 employees.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2012-05-07 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120215623/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011 |via=[[NARA|National Archives]] |work=[[whitehouse.gov]] |archive-date=2017-01-20 }} 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff</ref>
+The president must also appoint his [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|staff]] of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve "at the pleasure of the President".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/senate-nominations.html|title=Serving at the Pleasure of the President|date=August 15, 2016|website=National Archives}}</ref><ref name="EX11183">{{cite web |title=Executive Order 11183--Establishing the President's Commission on White House Fellowships |url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11183.html |website=Federal Register |date=15 August 2016 |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref> Since 1995, the president has been required to submit an annual report to Congress listing the name and salary of every employee of the [[White House Office]]. The 2011 report listed 454 employees.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011 |title=2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff &#124; whitehouse.gov |access-date=2012-05-07 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120215623/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011 |via=[[NARA|National Archives]] |work=[[whitehouse.gov]] |archive-date=2017-01-20 }} 2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff</ref>
 == Executive clemency ==
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 Most pardons are issued as oversight of the judicial branch, especially in cases where the [[United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines|Federal Sentencing Guidelines]] are considered too severe. This power can check the legislative and judicial branches by altering punishment for crimes. Presidents can issue blanket [[amnesty]] to forgive entire groups of people. For example, President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to [[Vietnam War|Vietnam]] [[draft dodgers]] who had [[Canada and the Vietnam War|fled to Canada]]. Presidents can also issue temporary suspensions of prosecution or punishment in the form of [[respite (law)|respites]]. This power is most commonly used to delay federal sentences of execution.
-Pardons can be controversial when they appear to be politically motivated. President [[George W. Bush]] commuted the sentence of White House staffer [[Lewis Libby|Lewis "Scooter" Libby]] and President [[Donald Trump]] commuted the sentence of [[Roger Stone]].
+Pardons can be controversial when they appear to be politically motivated. President [[George W. Bush]] commuted the sentence of White House staffer [[Lewis Libby|Lewis "Scooter" Libby]] and President [[Donald Trump]] commuted the sentence of and later pardoned [[Roger Stone]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency – The White House |url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grants-clemency-122320/ |access-date=2023-02-18 |website=trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov}}</ref>
 == Foreign affairs ==
 Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|date=2007-08-06|title=Executive Power|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power|access-date=2017-01-27|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell University Law School|language=en}}</ref> With the [[United States Secretary of State|secretary of state]], the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.
-On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html|title=Foreign Policy - Constitutional Rights Foundation|last=Costly|first=Andrew|website=www.crf-usa.org|language=en-us|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> For example, President [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson]] led the American delegation to the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris Peace Conference]] in 1919 after [[World War I]]; President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] met with [[Allies of World War II|Allied]] leaders during [[World War II]]; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.
+On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.<ref>{{cite web |title=War and International Law America's Foreign Policy: A Brief History |url=https://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html |publisher=Constitutional Rights Foundation |access-date=12 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191104033557/https://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/foreign-policy.html |archive-date=4 November 2019}}</ref> For example, President [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson]] led the American delegation to the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris Peace Conference]] in 1919 after [[World War I]]; President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] met with [[Allies of World War II|Allied]] leaders during [[World War II]]; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.
 Through the [[United States Department of State|Department of State]] and the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]], the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://historycentral.com/Civics/Pres/recognition.html|title=Recognition|last=Schulman|first=Marc|website=historycentral.com|language=en|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate [[executive agreement]]s with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm|title=Treaty vs. Executive Agreement|newspaper=U.S. Department of State|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 == Emergency powers ==
 {{see also|National Emergencies Act|International Emergency Economic Powers Act}}
-The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the president.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President|last=Louis|first=Fisher|publisher=University Press of Kansas|year=2007|isbn=978-0299295301|pages=249–272}}</ref>
+The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. Some scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the president.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President|last=Louis|first=Fisher|publisher=University Press of Kansas|year=2007|isbn=978-0299295301|pages=249–272}}</ref>
-Emergency presidential power is not a new idea. However, the way in which it is used in the twenty-first century, presents new challenges.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror|last=Chris|first=Edelson|publisher=University of Wisconsin|year=2013|isbn=978-0700615346|pages=6}}</ref>
+Emergency presidential power is not a new idea. However, the way in which it is used in the twenty-first century presents new challenges.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror|last=Chris|first=Edelson|publisher=University of Wisconsin|year=2013|isbn=978-0700615346|pages=6}}</ref>
 A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of [[habeas corpus]] without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in ''[[Ex parte Merryman]]'', although Lincoln ignored the order.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2001/11/lincolns_crackdown.html|title=Lincoln's Crackdown|last=Greenberg|first=David|date=2001-11-30|newspaper=Slate|language=en-US|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he nationalized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2017/01/26/executive-orders-are-normal-trumps-are-only-appalling-because-of-what-they-say/|title=Executive Orders Are Normal; Trump's Are Only Appalling Because of What They Say|last=Schwarz|first=Jon|date=2017-01-26|website=The Intercept|access-date=2017-02-04}}</ref> With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/#annotation|title=Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952)|newspaper=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer]]'', voting 6-3 that neither commander-in-chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the president the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/7/Youngstown-V-Sawyer|title=C-SPAN Landmark Cases {{!}} Youngstown V Sawyer|website=landmarkcases.c-span.org|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref>
+[[President Nixon]] claimed in 1976 that the powers of the president to decide the constitutionality of government actions concerning national security was absolute and exclusive: "if the President does it, that means it is not illegal".<ref name=banks>{{cite journal |last1=Banks |first1=William C. |last2=Carrió |first2=Alejandro D. |title=Presidential Systems in Stress: Emergency Powers in Argentina and the United States |journal=Michigan Journal of International Law |date=1993}}</ref>
-Congressional legislation gives the president powers to commandeer states and governors of states, if the president deems they are engaged in insurrection. <ref>10 USC Sections 252, 253</ref><ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252</ref><ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253</ref>
+Congressional legislation gives the president powers to commandeer states and governors of states, if the president deems they are engaged in insurrection. <ref>10 USC Sections 252, 253</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252 |website=Cornell Law School |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law  |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253 |website=Cornell Law School |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref>
-According to research conducted by the [[Brennan Center for Justice|Brennan Center]] at [[New York University Law School]], administrations since Eisenhower have drafted secret [[Presidential Emergency Action Documents]] (PEADs) that assert what one government document described as "extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations." These secret powers appear to be exempt from congressional oversight. PEADs undergo periodic revision, and although their current contents were not known as of 2020, previous PEADs included emergency powers to detain "alien enemies" and other "dangerous persons"; invoke various forms of martial law; authorize a general warrant permitting search and seizure of persons and property; suspend production of the [[Federal Register]]; and censor news reports. The Brennan Center found that 56 PEADs were in effect as of 2018.<ref>https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/presidential-emergency-action-documents</ref>
+According to research conducted by the [[Brennan Center for Justice|Brennan Center]] at [[New York University Law School]], administrations since Eisenhower have drafted secret [[Presidential Emergency Action Documents]] (PEADs) that assert what one government document described as "extraordinary presidential authority in response to extraordinary situations." These secret powers appear to be exempt from congressional oversight. PEADs undergo periodic revision, and although their current contents were not known as of 2020, previous PEADs included emergency powers to detain "alien enemies" and other "dangerous persons"; invoke various forms of martial law; authorize a general warrant permitting search and seizure of persons and property; suspend production of the [[Federal Register]]; and censor news reports. The Brennan Center found that 56 PEADs were in effect as of 2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=Presidential Emergency Action Documents |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/presidential-emergency-action-documents |website=Brennan Center for Justice |publisher=NYU Law |access-date=16 August 2021|date=May 6, 2020}}</ref>
 == Executive privilege ==
-[[Executive privilege]] gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766|title=United States v. Nixon|website=Oyez|access-date=2017-01-27}}</ref> [[George Washington]] first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see [[Chief Justice]] [[John Jay]]'s notes from an unpopular [[Jay Treaty|treaty]] negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, Washington's action created the precedent for privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed audio tapes to a special prosecutor in the [[Watergate]] scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' that privilege was not absolute. The Court reasoned that the judiciary's interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed President Nixon's interest in keeping the evidence secret.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/719/Summary_of_the_Decision|title=Summary of the Decision United States v. Nixon|website=landmarkcases.org|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> Later President Bill Clinton lost in federal court when he tried to assert privilege in the [[Lewinsky affair]]. The Supreme Court affirmed this in ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'', which denied the use of privilege in cases of civil suits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag41_user.html#art2_hd165|title=Presidential Immunity From Judicial Direction|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=2017-01-27}}</ref>
+[[Executive privilege]] gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766|title=United States v. Nixon|website=Oyez|access-date=2017-01-27}}</ref> [[George Washington]] first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see [[Chief Justice]] [[John Jay]]'s notes from an unpopular [[Jay Treaty|treaty]] negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, Washington's action created the precedent for privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed audio tapes to a special prosecutor in the [[Watergate]] scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' that privilege was not absolute. The Court reasoned that the judiciary's interest in the "fair administration of criminal justice" outweighed President Nixon's interest in keeping the evidence secret.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/719/Summary_of_the_Decision|title=Summary of the Decision United States v. Nixon|website=landmarkcases.org|access-date=2017-01-28}}</ref> Later President Bill Clinton lost in federal court when he tried to assert privilege in the [[Lewinsky affair]]. The Supreme Court affirmed this in ''[[Clinton v. Jones]]'', which denied the use of privilege in cases of civil suits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag41_user.html#art2_hd165|title=Presidential Immunity From Judicial Direction|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=2017-01-27}}</ref>
 == Constraints on presidential power ==
-Because of the vast array of presidential roles and responsibilities, coupled with a conspicuous presence on the national and international scene, political analysts have tended to place great emphasis on the president's powers. Some have even spoken of "the imperial presidency", referring to the expanded role of the office that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] maintained during his term.<ref name="Christenson">{{cite book |last1=Christenson |first1=Dino P. |last2=Kriner |first2=Douglas L. |title=The Myth of the Imperial Presidency: How Public Opinion Checks the Unilateral Executive |date=2020 |isbn=9780226704531 |url=https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.landing.epl?ISBN=9780226704531 |access-date=9 August 2021}}</ref>
+Because of the vast array of presidential roles and responsibilities, coupled with a conspicuous presence on the national and international scene, political analysts have tended to place great emphasis on the president's powers. Some have even spoken of "the imperial presidency", referring to the expanded role of the office that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] maintained during his term.<ref name="Christenson">{{cite book |last1=Christenson |first1=Dino P. |last2=Kriner |first2=Douglas L. |title=The Myth of the Imperial Presidency: How Public Opinion Checks the Unilateral Executive |date=2020 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=9780226704531 |url=https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.landing.epl?ISBN=9780226704531 |access-date=9 August 2021}}</ref>
+President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] famously called the presidency a "[[bully pulpit]]" from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate.<ref name="Cullinane">{{cite book|first1=Michael Patrick | last1=Cullinane| first2=Clare Frances | last2=Elliott|title=Perspectives on Presidential Leadership: An International View of the White House|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xarmAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80|date=February 18, 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-07903-1|pages=80–}}</ref> A president's power and influence may have limits, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.<ref name="Lowande">{{cite journal |last1=Lowande |first1=Kenneth |last2=Rogowski |first2=Jon C. |title=Presidential Unilateral Power |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=11 May 2021 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=21–43 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102043 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
+Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the president's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and their power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of a president's military powers without Congressional authorization are open to debate).<ref name="Dawson"/><ref name="NCC">{{cite web |title=Declare War Clause |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/753 |website=National Constitution Center |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref>
+The Separation of Powers devised by the founding fathers was primarily designed to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/|title=Federalist Papers No. 51}}</ref> Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The [[separation of powers]] provides a system of shared power known as "checks and balances". For example, the president appoints judges and departmental secretaries, but these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can approve bills or veto (deny) them. If he does that, the bill is sent back to Congress, which can override the veto.<ref name="Lowande"/>
+An essential factor, then, to counter the abuse of unilateral executive power, is presidential accountability:<ref name="Lowande"/><ref name="Schlesinger"/>
-President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] famously called the presidency a "[[bully pulpit]]" from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate.<ref name="Cullinane">{{cite book|first1=Michael Patrick | last1=Cullinane| first2=Clare Frances | last2=Elliott|title=Perspectives on Presidential Leadership: An International View of the White House|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xarmAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80|date=February 18, 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-07903-1|pages=80–}}</ref> A president's power and influence may have limits, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.<ref name="Lowande">{{cite journal |last1=Lowande |first1=Kenneth |last2=Rogowski |first2=Jon C. |title=Presidential Unilateral Power |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |date=11 May 2021 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=21–43 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102043 |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102043 |access-date=9 August 2021}}</ref>
+{{quote| [T]he American Constitution...envisages a strong Presidency within an equally strong system of accountability. When the constitutional balance is upset in favor of Presidential power and at the expense of Presidential accountability, the office can be said to become imperial. – [[Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.]]<ref name="Schlesinger">{{cite book |last1=Schlesinger |first1=A. |title=War and the American Presidency |date=2004 |publisher=W.W. Norton |location=New York |pages=ix}}</ref>}}
-Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the president's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and their power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of a president's military powers without Congressional authorization are open to debate).
+Political scientists have attempted to develop theoretical approaches to describe the use and control of unilateral power, but such theories have not been clearly substantiated by empirical evidence. Some theoretical perspectives emphasize the importance of institutional constraints and the separation of powers. Unilateral action can be seen as a strategic way of circumventing Congressional authority, or as a way to act complicitly with the tacit approval of the majority party. Other formal theories focus on agency and relationships between the president, other bureaucratic actors, and the public. Comparative perspectives suggest that factors such as partisan support, ideological polarization, and divided government, may be closely linked to unilateral policy making. No one theoretical approach addresses all important issues.<ref name="Lowande"/>
-The Separation of Powers devised by the founding fathers was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/|title=Federalist Papers No. 51}}</ref> Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The [[separation of powers]] provides a system of shared power known as "checks and balances". For example, the president appoints judges and departmental secretaries, but these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can veto bills, or deny them. If he does that, the bill is sent back to Congress.
+Empirical research on executive power and its uses is limited, and results are not always consistent. Available results may not align with predictions from separation-of-powers theories: "presidents routinely change status quo policies that theories predict they should not."<ref name="Lowande"/> Evidence suggests that presidents are more likely to exercise unilateral power with the tacit support of the majority party in Congress, rather than against a hostile Congress.<ref name="Lowande"/><ref name="Chiou">{{cite book |last1=Chiou |first1=FY |last2=Rothenberg |first2=LS |title=The enigma of presidential power: Parties, policies and strategic uses of unilateral action |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press |location=UK}}</ref>
-An essential factor, then, to counter the abuse of unilateral executive power, is presidential accountability:
+With respect to judicial review it appears that presidents may be more likely to issue executive orders when they differ ideologically from the courts. However the courts overwhelmingly tend to support such directives, upholding 83% of the executive orders that were challenged in federal court between 1942 and 1998.<ref name="Lowande"/><ref name="Thrower">{{cite journal |last1=Thrower |first1=Sharece |title=The President, the Court, and Policy Implementation |journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly |date=March 2017 |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=122–145 |doi=10.1111/psq.12348 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psq.12348 |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref><ref name="Howell">{{cite book |last1=Howell |first1=William G. |title=Power without persuasion : the politics of direct presidential action |date=2003 |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, N.J. |isbn=9780691102702}}</ref>
-{{quote| [T]he American Constitution…envisages a strong Presidency within an equally strong system of accountability. When the constitutional balance is upset in favor of Presidential power and at the expense of Presidential accountability, the office can be said to become imperial. &#8211; [[Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.]]<ref name="Schlesinger">{{cite book |last1=Schlesinger |first1=A. |title=War and the American Presidency |date=2004 |publisher=W.W. Norton |location=New York |pages=ix}}</ref>}}
+Predictions about the relationship between presidential popularity and numbers of unilateral directives issued are inconclusive. It has been theorized that less popular presents will issue more presidential directives, but results on this question are mixed.<ref name="Lowande"/>
-Political scientists have attempted to develop theoretical approaches to describe the use and control of unilateral power, but such theories have not been clearly substantiated by empirical evidence. Some theoretical perspectives emphasize the importance of institutional constraints and the separation of powers.  Unilateral action can be seen as a strategic way of circumventing Congressional authority, or as a way to act complicitly with the tacit approval of the majority party. Other formal theories focus on agency and relationships between the president, other bureaucratic actors, and the public.  Comparative perspectives suggest that factors such as partisan support, ideological polarization, and divided government, may be closely linked to unilateral policy making. No one theoretical approach addresses all important issues.<ref name="Lowande"/>
+In terms of how the public responds to the president's actions, there is some evidence to suggest that "individuals are less likely to approve of the president following the use of unilateral power" possibly because it is used in place of legislation.<ref name="Lowande"/><ref name="Reeves">{{cite journal |last1=Reeves |first1=Andrew |last2=Rogowski |first2=Jon C. |title=The Public Cost of Unilateral Action: THE PUBLIC COST OF UNILATERAL ACTION |journal=American Journal of Political Science |date=April 2018 |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=424–440 |doi=10.1111/ajps.12340 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12340 |access-date=16 August 2021}}</ref>
 == See also ==