Imperial Presidency & Persuader in Chief

This is an old plan I made for whether or not the modern presidency today is imperial. Got 38/45 last time I used it.

Imperial Presidency	Imperiled	Conclusion
Executive Orders demonstrate how the Presidency has become increasingly ‘imperial’. Executive Orders enable the President to completely bypass Congress and effectively rule how he sees fit, for instance, the immigration executive order in 2014 was criticised by Rand Paul as being the actions of an ‘emperor’.	Executive Orders are limited as constitutional checks on the president by Congress remain. For instance, Congress has the power of the purse and grants the President funds to pursue his executive order, making the President heavily reliant on Congress, surely an imperial presidency would not be so reliant on Congress for assistance.	Even so, the extents of some executive orders are on such a large scale that they leave the impression that the presidency has become increasingly more imperial.
Obama’s state of the union address in 2015 clearly demonstrated a revival of the imperial presidency. Obama set the tone of foreign policy, declaring that he will do everything he can to continue fighting against ISIS. In this way, the President is effectively telling Congress how to act.	With regards to the state of the union, the President is more of a negotiator or persuader-in-chief. Congress remains a separate institution and the president’s agenda is heavily dependent on Congress’ support for the President. If the President lacks the support of Congress, it’s unlikely he will officially set the tone for foreign policy or anything for that matter as he cannot command obedience to their wishes.	In the context of Obama’s presidency, his declaration of war against ISIS was greeted with applause from both left and right and further increases in attacks against ISIS demonstrate quite clearly how the foreign policy agenda, set by the President, has been adopted
In the aftermath of 9/11 the Presidency was granted increasingly more powers to deal with global threats and since then, Bush and Obama have exercised considerable amounts of military power and taking military action in many countries deemed a threat such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.	Following the Nixon administration, Congress passed a range of laws such as the War Powers Act and the Case Act, which ultimately destroyed the imperial presidency. It’s impact is still seen today, by the fact that in 2015 Obama had to submit a report to the Senate, requesting authorisation to exercise more military action in Iraq and Syria. Clearly if the President seeks the approval of Congress beforehand, it is more of an imperiled presidency.	However, throughout Obama’s administration there have been instances whereby it appeared that even legislation passed after Nixon hasn’t be able to prevent an imperial presidency, for example, in 2011 Obama exerted unilateral power by using military intervention in Libya, without the authorisation of Congress.
The secrecy during the Nixon presidency from which the phrase ‘imperial presidency’ was coined has continued through to the present day. The recent revelations of the mass surveillance programmes by the NSA and the CIA torture report demonstrate the extent to which Bush and Obama’s powers have been expanded and become more imperial.	The fact that such things came to public light and faced scrutiny from congressional committees as well as scrutiny from the electorate in which Obama’s public approval ratings plummeted, demonstrate that the presidency is imperiled and is at the mercy of the public.	However, though after the NSA scandal Obama’s approval ratings dropped, the very fact that no serious changes have been made to end the NSA surveillance as well as the CIA torture programmes epitomises how powerful the presidency has become.
Any further existing checks on the President have been over come by signing statements. Critics have pointed out Obama’s signing statements as being extensive and modifying statutes, the abuse of signing statements undermines the role of law and constitutional system of separation of powers. An example of this was one of Obama’s signing statements in 2013 which included a loophole for Obama to disregard it under special circumstances, and so he chose to release 5 Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for a US P.O.W +BRING IN PRESIDENTIAL VETOES HERE	However, under Obama’s presidency there has been a reduction in the number of signing statements, probably because of the scrutiny his predecessor had faced as well as Congressional action to limit it. Again demonstrating how the president is imperiled as he is at the mercy of the public and Congressional committees. Talk about the limitations of the veto how its actually a bargaining tool, etc	.
Another old plan I made

Limited to Persuasion	Not limited	Conclusion
The President remains heavily dependent on Congress to push forward his political agenda since it is through Congress that it can be implemented. In recent years Congress has shown a lack of bipartisanship and has been incredibly polarised as seen from their refusal to back comprehensive immigration reform.	Executive Order: The President isn’t entirely dependent on Congress, if they are being very obstructionist the President can use Executive Orders to bypass Congress and put something into law himself, e.g. Obama’s immigration executive order sought to help 5m illegals	Even in the case of Executive Orders the President is still a persuader in chief because Congress uses their ‘power of the purse’ to grant funding for the President’s Executive Orders, Obama’s Executive Order was nearly defunded after Congress attempted to defund the DHS.
Congressmen have a separate mandate to the Presidents who has a national one. So, Congressmen are more likely to act in the interests of their constituents than what the President is telling them to do. This was demonstrated by opposition to Obamacare during it’s inception, GOP Congress(wo)men who opposed it justified their opposition by saying they had a mandate from their constituents to oppose Obamacare and bring the deficit down. This occurs as a result of the constitutional provision of a separation of powers, for which the President power is reduced to persuasion.	If Congress is being further obstructionist as a result of different mandates, the President is not weakened as he can still use his presidential vetoes. For instance, when they couldn’t agree on the Keystone Pipeline and Congress passed it anyway the President was quick to veto it, demonstrating how he has a considerable amount of power over Congress.	However, the presidential veto is subject to a considerable number of checks and they can be effectively overridden by a 2/3 majority in both houses.
The President must persuade Congress to grant him authorisation to use military action in an overseas country, this is provision under the War Powers Act. In 2015 Obama had to submit a report to the Senate requesting authorisation to use further force against ISIS.	However, even legislation attempting to limit the President to a persuader-in-chief is ineffective. As Commander-In Chief the President does not always follow guidelines set out by the War Powers Act as demonstrated by the Libya attacks in 2011 in which Congress did not authorize.	The President is unlikely to disregard Congress’s authorisation as he remains dependent on them for many things such as funding for military operations, and so is likely to request authorisation beforehand. Libya was an exception as it was a time of an international crisis.
The President relies heavily on the federal bureaucracy to implement laws passed by the legislature and/or his policy agenda. The President cannot control the federal bureaucracy and they are likely to pursue their own interests beyond the Presidents agenda as seen by the CIA’s torture programme. Same applies for State departments.	To an extent, the President is in control of the federal bureaucracy as he is in charge of appointing its directors. And so, the President will only appoint those whom he trusts and knows will work according to his agenda.	However, the President’s power is still limited to persuasion in this context, Chuck Hagel although nominated by the President (whom he believed will follow his interests), he fell out with Obama and didn’t combat ISIS accordingly.
Though he is the chief diplomat of the US, he is still subject to persuasion to the Senate. For instance, the President has to persuade the Senate of why they should ratify a treaty he had signed. The President is not always successful, the Arms Trade Treaty (2013) which aims to regulate trade in nuclear weapons was not ratified by the Senate.	However, as Chief Diplomat of the US the President is the one who negotiates everything in the world arena, and aside from treaties – the Senate has no say in anything else he does on the world stage. Also the President can resort to executive agreements to bypass the Senate which have the same effect as treaties, e.g. its been suggested that Obama will resort to an executive agreement to secure the Iran deal.	He is heavily dependent on public opinion to be on his side even in international affairs