How Far Have The Presiden'ts Powers Come?

Since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there has been an evolution of the presidency. The president has gained many informal powers and must exercise these powers frequently and efficiently to make sure he achieves what he promised to the American people. When watching President Obama's State of the Union address it is obvious that he is and is willing to exercise these informal powers.

In Obama's speech, he tried to steer American people and Congress in the right direction. He explained to the American people, through many specific examples, why we are the best country in the world. He used examples of actual everyday citizens achieving the unimaginable to persuade the American people that we are still the smartest country out there. When he spoke to Congress, he was trying to push his own agenda. Obama wanted Congress to work together, without being bound to party standards, to make sure we can pass effective legislation. He  wants to invest in American technology, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, Obama wants to rewrite tax laws, reduce the budget deficit, end the Iraq War and reform government to make it more efficient. He sets goals for the American people domestically and the international community regarding conflicts.

When looking at his speech, he promises and wants a lot of things from the American people, the international community, and Congress. When looking at what he says, the US Constitution does give him formal powers to achieve some of the goals. For example, he is the commander in chief. So, when he spoke about ending the conflict in Iraq, he is exercising a formal power provided to him. When he talks about traveling to "...Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances across the Americas," he is exercising his power to make treaties. Finally, his last formal power he exercised was acutally addressing Congress in a State of the Union. But, when you think about it, those are the only formal powers he exercised in his speech. So where do these other powers come from? How does he plan on reducing the deficit or reinvesting in America? They come from his informal powers

In Kernell's theory of presidential powers, he concurs that the presidency has evolved and given rise to informal powers. The informal power that the theory highlights is "going public." The president needs to go public about the policies he wants to influence the American people to agree with him. Once the people agree, then Congress will be forced to continue with the legislation. Just by the simple fact that he is addressing Congress and Americans through this widely televised speech is an example of going public. He is trying to excite the American people about the new legislation that he will be proposing, so they can force their Congressmen to vote the law into effect. Furthermore, in this State of the Union, he is pressuring Congress directly by going public to the people. He is pushing legislation to restructure the federal budget, but surprisingly says "...and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible." This is way beyond any formal powers vested in the Constitution, but instead he is using his informal power of going public to ensure that the legislation he wants passed does get passed. Even further from his formal powers, he pushes to restructure government and explains " I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote- and we will push to get it passed. That is far beyond his powers, and as Kernell would explain he is threatening the Congress to pass the legislation. He is threatening them with one of his most exercised powers, going public. He plans on Congress passing the bill, but if they don't he is ready to go public with the issue again.

When looking at Neustadt's theory of presidential power, it is apparent that Obama was exercising his informal power to persuade. Throughout the speech, he is explaining what he will be proposing to the Congress. However, he doesn't just say what he is proposing. Instead he explains why he is proposing the legislation and what good will come out of it. For example, he wants to pass legislation to restructure government in a more efficient way. He starts off the topic by explaining inefficiences in contemporary government, by saying "There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy." He explains the situation we are facing right now by revealing to Congress the inefficiences that he noticed. Then he goes on to reassure the American people that we can tackle this problem, becaus we have done so already in other fields. We just need to apply it to government now. Then, finally, he explaisn that he will propose a bill to Congress to restructure government. All the talk leading up to the proposed bill is just him trying to persuade Congress that the bill will work. He explained we have done it before but just not in government. Throughout the speech, he explains the amazing things American have done. In my opinion (and Neustadt will probably agree), this is a form of persuasion directed toward Congress. He wanted to reassure Congress that the American people are still working hard and being very effective and it is just Congress that isn't performing. With the right tools from Congress, America will prosper and he is trying to persuade Congress to give him these tools (legislation).

When have thinking about it, Obama was promising to exercise a lot of formal and informal powers. His informal powers seem to overlap though. As Neustadt woudl explain, he was trying to persuade Congress into passing his proposals. However, it seems to be a combination of both Kernell's theory and Neustadt's theory. In my opinion, Obama tried to not only persuade Congress but also persuade the American people. By persuading the American people, he is in a sense going public. He combines these informal powers to make a stronger statement to Congress and the American people. He is effectively using his powers to pressure Congress to get things done, in my opinion. He has a lot of tools and powers (both formal and informal) at his fingertips and he is willing to use them to do get what he wants done.

Why should we repeal the 22nd Amendment?

When the Founding Fathers of America were framing the Constitution, they decided that each president will serve four years in office with the opportunity to be reelected without limitation. However, in 1951 the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution effectively limited presidential terms to two four year terms. When looking back at this new Amendment, in my opinion, it should be repealed.

When looking  at the Federalist Papers, specifically Alexander Hamilton's No. 72, the Founding Fathers already debated presidential term limits in detail. They came up with some good reasoning for allowing the president to serve as many terms as they are elected for. First off, a president who serves in office gains experience. Just like other jobs, the president will gain experience in many different situations unique to his job and duties that will hopefully let him make more educated and well thought out decisions. On top of that, think about the inexperience a new president will have. President of the US is far from an ubiquitous job and the only way to learn the job effectively is to actually be in office. So, when you have a president that was popular enough to be elected to two terms, making him ineligible for a third term, electing a new candidate poses new problems. The new candidate will have to adjust and learn quickly to continue the success of his predecessor.

Furthermore, what if there must be a new president elected right in the middle of a war? First off, you run the risk of electing presidents with opposing views of the war. The successor may start to pull out of the war, if they are opposed, therefore ruining the reputation and stability of the US and our troops in an international viewpoint. On top of that, the successor would be entering a brand new job in the middle of a very critical time for the entire country. The country is running too big of a risk if they are going to force the American people to change presidents during a critical war because of term limitations. So, one might be wondering what are the consequences of letting a president serve more than two terms. Will the president become too powerful? Will he continue to serve beyond a reasonable age? The answer is no. In my opinion after the initial shock of repealing the Amendment, there wont be further repercussions . Prior to 1951, the country didn't have a limit on the amount of terms a president can serve but yet only one president (FDR) served more than 2 terms. The American people will elect the best president for the job, so why limit them to who they can vote. If a president is up for a third term, then it should be up to the American people (and they will make the right decision) to pick the best candidate.

If your looking for an example of term limits look at the mayoral position of NYC. The mayor of NYC used to be limited to serving only two terms ( just like the president now) but in 2008 Mayor Mike Bloomberg wanted to change this. It was his second and according to the law last term in office. However, in 2008 a financial crisis unexpectedly hit not only NYC but also the rest of the US suddenly and quickly. Mayor Mike had experience not only in the mayors office but with the but also with business and finance. So, the people of NY knew that whoever would succeed him wouldn't be as qualified as a Mayor and in the field of business. So, Mayor Mike and the rest of NYC worked to promote an extension of the term limits, to allow Mayor Mike to serve his third term. He did indeed win the election and went on to serve his third term. So what does this have to do with presidential term limits? The same principle is going to be true. Nobody forced New Yorkers to vote for Mayor Mike when he ran for his third term. Nobody forced them. It just gave them the opportunity to choose who they really wanted to serve as their Mayor. The New Yorkers' voices were heard, because if they didn't think Mayor Mike was the best candidate or they didn't agree with the extension of mayoral terms they still had the freedom to vote for who they thought was the best candidate. And when they voted, they showed that the best candidate was Mayor Mike.  He was the most qualified in that situation and if NYers weren't even allowed to vote for him there would have been a completely different outcome. Somebody less experienced and qualified would have been elected to office, and who knows what would have happened and how severe the recession in NYC would have ended up being.

So, repealing the 22nd Amendment will give the American people the opportunity and freedom to vote for the most qualified candidate.  The 22nd Amendment is ultimately limiting the American people more than it is limiting the president. It prevents the public from putting the best candidate in office and, at times, makes us settle for the second best. Leave it up to the American people whether they want a president to serve for a 3rd, 4th or 5th term because we should have enough confidence within each other that we will choose the right candidate for the job.