[NEW] 4C Presidency topic notes

The Presidency

Assess the importance of the factors which influence presidents in their choice of cabinet members.

Policy specialist. One of the factors that will influence a president's choice of cabinet members is whether they are experienced in that specific field or section of government to ensure that they would have the knowledge required for them to carry out their job effectively in order to ensure that they efficiently aid the president in his duties. This is seen through how Donald Trump selected General James Mattis as his defense secretary due to his 44 years of service to the military.

Recruiting Rivals. Sometimes Presidents may select cabinet members from the opposing political party to build ties, strike some balance in the cabinet, to form a closer alliance, etc. Chuck Hagel was made Defense Secretary by Obama.

Building links with Congress. Sometimes the president may select someone who has strong ties or a large sphere of influence in Congress so that they in turn would be able to use this influence and would generally gain a greater amount of support in Congress. Evidenced in how Obama gave Hillary Clinton the job of secretary of state because of her experience in Washington politics compared to Obama’s, Clinton is considered to be part of the political elite - this is important for Trump who has absolutely no experience in politics whatsoever

EGGS.   The president may also consider selecting people to ensure that the cabinet is more representative of the public i.e selecting more women or more ethnic minorities. Obama; 12 of 24 are EGGS.

The president cannot always have the foreign policy he wants - discuss

Commander in chief traditionally Congress but today the president  has exploited his role as the commander in chief  leading to him basically controlling foreign policy, initiating the policy  while Congress  supervises from a distance and is sometimes just left in the dark. Bush in Iraq war, Libya, Afghanistan or Obama in Syria.	Although he is commander in chief, Congress still has a vital role for many reasons and continue to control foreign policy indirectly for example through the War Powers Act, the president has to file a report to Congress requesting further authorisation for military actions abroad under this act the president is also limited in the sense that he has to remove US armed forces within 60 days if congress does not pass a resolution allowing him to use such force. In 2015 Obama wrote a letter asking for greater use of force - DENIED. During War Powers Act process senate foreign relations scrutinise key members of obama administration, because of major gridlock this could be very complicated and may work against the president, even though they haven't declared war since 1942 they still play a big role.
State of union. In the 2015 state of union Obama said that both sides should unite to fight isis, greeted with a round of applause by both sides. Ordered congress to work and strengthen ties with cuba, and lift the cuba embargo which they did.	There is an argument that during his state of union address the president appears to be more of a bargainer in chief and negotiator in chief where he merely recommends legislation and foreign policy to Congress, Congress has been very obstructionist recently to obama and his state of union address demands. Strengthening ties with iran mentioned over and over in the address but in recent events congress (John Boehner) has invited Netanyahu, strengthening ties with israel instead. Shows that they pursue their own foreign policy interests counter to the wishes of the presidents.
Key departments. Many cabinet departments are in charge of foreign relations such as the Secretary of State, when John Kerry was Secretary Of State under Obama he handled many of the diplomatic relations for Obama. It was Kerry who went to Russia to discuss the ukrainian crisis, before ISIS showed up, he met with Assad and even within the EXOP there are more departments like the National Security Council that are in charge of foreign relations which are more likely to be listened to.	However Congress still controls foreign policy through the power of investigation with committees like the foreign relations committee or senate intelligence committee. Cabinet members are directly accountable to Congress, loyalties may lie with Congress instead of the President. Congress indirectly controls foreign policy from the sidelines through the scrutiny of legislation and departments through committees. The house select committee investigated the  benghazi incident which led to the deaths of 4 US citizens.
Diplomacy. Diplomat in chief ultimately the President that does the diplomacy and meetings and negotiations while Congress stays at home. Kerry for example going abroad and visiting other countries with Russia and Syria, it was the President who negotiated treaties like the START treaty which sought to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons Russia and US had, the President goes to G8 summit and also elects people like UN ambassadors and ambassadors in general who tend to be congressmen but eventually become part of the federal bureaucracy after being chosen. Executive agreements allow the president a loophole to sign treaties without the need of Congress approval.	Congress decide and ratify the treaties and confirm all appointments to the federal bureaucracy. In the end it is Congress who decide and approve any foreign treaties, or foreign policy in general including the appointment of ambassadors.
War on terror. Its is departments and agencies in the federal bureaucracy  that illustrate foreign policy as illustrated by NSA recording and spying and CIA having black sites all over the world, all of which was not known to Congress. Obama’s disposition matrix which is the name for Obama’s kill list or drone strikes is outside of Congress controls. also the fact that it was the executive who formulated the PATRIOT act which increased the power of the president on foreign policy especially when it came to the war on terror. Zivotofsky v Kerry 2015 SC ruled that the president's constitutional role is to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, not Congress.	Congress are the people who authorize the PATRIOT act and Congress indirectly has the final say as it can easily pass laws to overturn any foreign policy. There were attempts by rand paul to end the nsa spying showing that congress is able to end such foreign policy by passing a law, despite it failing it shows that they have the ability but instead they choose to agree with the president's stance.

To what extent is the modern presidency an 'imperial presidency'?

War. The term imperial presidency was first coined by Schlesinger and has since been used a way of denouncing an overpowered president. The executive has exploited his role as the commander in chief by going to war without the approval of Congress in conflicts like the Korean War, the Vietnam war, the Iraq War and Libya. This shows the president taking away the power of Congress (to declare war) thus taking away an effective check of the president's power leading to well founded claims that the president is imperial. Further seen through how Congress do not supervise over 2400 drone strikes since 2014. Authorised 450 more drone strikes than Bush.	However, Congress still has significant power over the president in times of war as seen through the Case Act and the War Powers Act which limited the president’s military presence abroad unless with the authorization of Congress. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was approved by Congress therefore suggesting that the President still requires permission in order to actually declare war on a country. Has not entirely taken this power and therefore cannot be called imperial.
Executive orders. Due to Obama having served as president under the persistent opposition of the Republican party who had a majority in Congress, Obama was seen to use quite a lot of executive orders which increased his own powers such as how in 2009 alone he created many executive offices through executive offices which would grant greater control over policy in general with loyal workers in the EXOP. The offices created; Domestic Policy Council (amendment), White House Council on Women and Girls etc. Also used executive orders on social issues like removing barriers to stem cell research. Also created a very powerful IRS to investigate those that do not pay tax.	However, Obama has not used nearly as many executive orders as most other presidents, using less than his predecessors. The amount of executive orders issued by Obama number around 200 while FDR used around 3500 executive orders therefore suggesting that Obama was not at all an imperial president and that the modern presidency is not imperial.
Immigration. Trump has recently used an executive order to implement an immigration ban despite it being outside of his constitutional boundaries. He was twice rejected by a federal court on his immigration ban and has found a new way of getting such a ban implemented/ is currently searching for a new way of passing the immigration ban. When told that his immigration ban was blocked by the courts, he reportedly exclaimed “Why not” giving a glimpse into the future of what is to come under a Trump presidency.	However, the fact that his ban was blocked by the courts in the first place would certainly suggest that the President is not imperial as the system of checks and balances is firmly in place preventing any tyranny to manifest within the US government.
	Even with a democratic Congress, Obama faced difficulty in passing his domestic agenda suggesting that even in the case of the the same party ruling the main branches of government, there is still strict scrutiny of legislation by Congress suggesting that perhaps Trump will also face such difficulties which was already becoming evident in how the VP had to step in on the vote on Betsy DeVos being appointed due to some Republicans voting against her.
Trump is incredibly imperial already as seen through how he is demanding that states follow his orders on immigration, threatening to remove block grants from sanctuary cities who refuse to adhere to his immigration ban and in general his strict stance on immigration requiring a crackdown on illegal immigrants in such sanctuary cities. The erosion of federalism in general would suggest an imperial presidency as seen through the president's increased involvement in healthcare through Obamacare or on immigration through the ban and the constitution in general with the attempt at increasing gun control through the Manchin Toomey bill.

How do presidents veto legislation and how significant is a presidential veto

There are two ways to veto legislation, this includes the regular veto and the pocket veto. The pocket veto is an indirect veto of a legislative bill by the US president or a state governor by retaining the bill unsigned until it is too late for it to be dealt with during the legislative session. A regular veto is simply when the president returns the piece of unsigned legislation with a veto message.

A presidential veto is insignificant because the next president can simply overturn that veto as seen through President Trump who has overturned the veto on the Keystone Pipeline that was issued by Obama in 2015.

The presidential veto is significant because if Congress is being particularly obstructionist then it allows the president to pursue his own agenda therefore allowing him to evade the gridlock that is so evident in today’s Congress.

A bill can have provisions that the president loves but also provisions that he hates and it comes to a point where he has to weigh out the good and the bad and that’s where the signing statements come in. A veto can be a blunt instrument as it gets rid of all of the provisions while the president only wants to get rid of a few leading to the use of a signing statement which may not be particularly effective.

If the veto is used too frequently he can seem to be too inflexible and unable to reach compromise and could turn public opinion against him contributing to the idea of being an imperial president.

Significant because it can be used as a threat, simply a threat can force negotiations and may not require the need of a signing statement which would render a veto as a blunt instrument.

Assess the constraints on the president's role as commander in chief

• Public opinion could orchestrate the acts of the president as if the public are generally against going to war or just moving troops in general to foreign nations then the president faces criticism and a loss of face amongst his supporters if he does it anyway.
• Constitutional and legislative - war powers act and case act limit the president's power when going abroad as it makes it so that the president is required to write a report in order to actually do so and in the case of rejection by Congress, he must move his troops out of that foreign nation within 80 days or lose funding.
• Congress has the power of the purse all budget lies with Congress meaning that Congress is able to defund the military efforts therefore forcing the CiC to move his troops out of that country as he can no longer afford it.
• Can get different information as the National Security Advisor vs Defense Secretary as the EXOP and Cabinet have been known to be in constant battle over the ear of the president.
• Pressure groups like AIPAC would be able to influence the CiCs actions by perhaps campaigning against any actions of war by the CiC, amassing a large population against the CiC.
• Congress have a separate policy agenda such as when they invited Netanyahu for a state visit, disregarding Obama’s wishes to strengthen ties with Iran instead of Israel making it seem as though policy commanded by the CiC traditionally has moved on to Congress.
  
  

To what extent is the power to persuade the president's most important power?

• Important because he is dependent on Congress as for all of his power he still doesn’t have ultimate power and autonomy from Congress. He is reliant on Congress like how Trump is reliant on the House and Senate to pass his Trumpcare, or how Trump relies on the Senate to get through federal appointment nominations, getting funding for the army and legislation and etc.
• It is the most significant power because his agenda will fail if he is not able to persuade Congress such as how the administration of Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay because Congress had a separate agenda. By having weak persuasion, the agenda fails like with Obama and DACA which failed numerous times or Obama and his attempts at gun control.
• Because of a separation of powers, both the executive and legislature are elected separately, the executive through the electoral college, congress through the states and districts. By default the three have different mandates, senators will try keep their states happy, house will work on constituents and the president will have his mandate from the entire population. This causes various clashes in political agenda, because of this the president relies on the power to persuade. If they all had the same mandate, he would have no need of the power to persuade.
• The president's power to persuade is not the most significant because he has many powers that do not need persuasion such as executive orders, vetoes, recess appointments and signing statements. All of which do not require the approval of Congress, which many would argue grant leverage over Congress and are better than persuading Congress to do it for you. All of these powers allows the president to circumvent Congress.  DOMESTIC
• There is a long history of the president as commander in chief going around Congress in FOREIGN policy going to war without the need for convincing Congress. tomahawk by Trump etc.
  
  
  Explain the ways in which Cheney and Biden can be seen as powerful vice presidents:

  
  

  • Policy formulations, becoming incredibly important in formulating presidency by the side of the president in the case of the VP being more experienced. Dick Cheney has been argued by many as the creator of the PATRIOT act or Bidens aid in foreign policy. Biden has been involved on fiscal and gun issues, his office in 2010 orchestrated the handover of iraq back to the iraqis, the 2014 Withdrawal plan was predominantly Bidens plan.
  • “a heartbeat away from the presidency.” is a general idea of the significance of the VP.
  • Power in Washington is often measured by the closeness to the president. Biden himself has always said that he is literally the last guy in the room after negotiation. Being the closest to the president makes him powerful. His 30+ years of experience + closeness would mean that Obama listens to his advice.
  • Mediator between the exec and congress. Liaison between the executive and the president.
  • With increased polarisation, it is more likely that the senate will have a 50-50 vote due to how divided they are on issues and are constantly gridlocked. Because of this the deciding vote of the VP becomes significant as was seen in the appointment of Betsy DeVos. Used it 3 times in only the first 100 days.

  
  

  
  
  WILL BE UPDATED

[NEW] 4C Congress Essay Plans

To what extent is Congress the broken branch of government

Legislating policy - Congress is the legislature and is in charge of making laws and passing laws, it has not been particularly successful at this job as seen through the constant gridlock in Congress. This is clearly seen through how 2013 is the least productive legislative year ever and the government shutdown of 2013. The political parties have also become incredibly polarised and there is no bipartisanship, it is entirely partisanship and general gridlock over all the parts of government.	Although polarisation is on the rise, it is not as bad as everyone says it is, many people argue that Obama could have compromised more and waited longer to find out opinions about Obamacare and perhaps there would not have been a government shutdown. The founding fathers wanted there to be disappointment between the parties to prevent one of the branches from becoming too powerful, therefore the lack of bipartisanship is a good thing and shows that Congress is not broken.
Career politicians - Congress +is broken due to the number of career politicians in Washington who focus on their own interests rather than representing the interests of their own constituents. They may also only be concerned by the issues of their own smaller district and therefore neglect the wider national picture. Has led to neglect over the most important national issues like national debt. Also use earmarks, Jim Warren has used an excessive amount which has totaled to 36.5 million which leads to funding prospects in his own constituency. Adds to the burden of reducing the government debt, some earmarks are used on unnecessary projects like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.	Congress is not broke as though you have career politicians, they have been shown to get together for a national interest such as the through the increased use of nationalised elections like the 6 for 06 campaigns. When Obama was president him and John Boehner worked together and actually banned the use of earmarks.
Loss of constitutional powers as seen through its general loss of the power to declare war. This is seen through how the last time that Congress declared war was in 1942 despite multiple wars happening since then solely under the command of the executive who has adopted this role from the president. The president as the commander in chief has the power to move troops and this has generally been used to get past the requirement of a declaration of war by Congress. Today Congress arguably played a supervisory role rather than actually conduct the foreign policy while the president actually initiates and sets the foreign policy agenda.	Case Act and War Powers Act are laws which state that the president must always ask for authorization from congress before they can conduct any military action abroad. This is seen in 2015 when Obama had to ask for permission to take foreign military action in the middle east. So technically congress still retains power over foreign policy and war policy, they even invited the Israeli president over ongoing talks over the nuclear facility, this was something that angered the executive who did not consent.
Congressional oversight; Congress has the power of investigation but this power means they provide congressional oversight over the bureaucracy. THe fact that the nsa leaks came from the whistle blower edward snowden shows how terrible the committee's investigations are. National Journal even said that Congress is the lapdog of the executive. The growing partisanship and polarisation means the committees are more divided than ever meaning that little is actually achieved.	However they are not ineffective as Congressional oversight has quite a mixed record as the senate intelligence committee was the committee that exposed the CIA torture report in 2014 exposing that the CIA were using sadistic torture techniques to interrogate suspects. It was the senate foreign relations that investigated the Benghazi incident with effectiveness. The IRS scandal investigated by Congress and done so effectively and efficiently.
Tea Party Revolution. The Tea Party appeared around 2009 and were a faction in the republican party who are generally seen as hardline conservatives who refuse any compromise on economic issues or also on healthcare issues as seen through the way that they were filibustering it in 2013 (Ted Cruz filibuster for 23 hours to prevent a vote on the funding of Obamacare.

To what extent are the Senate and the House of Representatives equal in power?

• Both chambers have equal power in the passage of legislation, constitutional amendments, overrides of presidential vetoes and declarations of war. In the case of a vote on legislation, overturning a veto or a constitutional amendment, both houses must vote in favour of it. If one house votes against - the bill is derailed. - Obama for instance turned in a report to the Senate requesting further authorisation to use military force in Iraq and Syria against ISIS
• The Senate’s exclusive powers of appointment confirmation and treaty ratification are often of considerable consequence for the political system. No elected president has ever served on the house of representatives before while running for office, all were senators or governors meaning that they have general greater influence, the executive may even favour his own branch of government.
• the increased use of the filibuster, and the consequent need for a ‘supermajority’ to pass almost any legislation, means the president’s legislative strategy is usually focused on the Senate
• The House initiates impeachment proceedings suggesting that the House of Representatives is more powerful than the Senate. However the Senate delivers the final verdict in impeachment proceedings

‘Congress is significantly less effective when different parties control its two chambers.’ Discuss.

Less effective;

• As seen through how the 112th Congress was the least productive congress in terms of passing legislation and 2013 was the least legislative year in the history of Congress, this occurred under a democratic senate majority and a republican house majority. Also led to a government shutdown in 2013 as a result of the two sides being unable to agree with a budget.
• When the same party controls both chambers then they are significantly more effective as seen through history as how the the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act was passed under Republicans being in both chambers. Or how the 111th Congress was fairly successful in passing Obamacare and comprehensive healthcare reform with an all Democrat Congress.

More effective;

• Increased factionalism has led to divisions within parties as well as between them meaning that gridlock will be present regardless of whether the same party controls both chambers of Congress. This is clear enough in the way that the House Freedom Caucus - a new generation of Republicans is rising with them being branded as insurgents by The Conversation. They are clearly ineffective as seen through how they were not able to agree on a health care reform in 2017. 25 of 36 freedom caucus members planned on voting against the American Healthcare Act.
• Even if the parties are in control of both the chambers, there is still going to be divison as the problem may lie with the president as many have argued that the government shutdown and the least legislative year could have been avoided had Obama been more compromising on Obamacare, many also argue that if Trump is more compromising on his American Healthcare Act then it would most likely be passed and Congress would therefore be argued as effective. Therefore meaning that the party composition in the two chambers is not necessarily that relevant in regard to the effectiveness of the branch.

How much power do the party leaders exert in Congress?

• Still do have power as party leaders are usually more senior and would therefore be the leaders of committees meaning they have a lot of influence over what bills go to the floor and which don’t as well as how they are amended.
• Less control in the Senate due to how long their term is meaning they do not constantly need ‘favours’ of sort from the party leaders for pork barrelling.
• The house speaker is generally considered a party leader and they have a lot of influence because by being on the house rules committee they are able to set the agenda for congressional debate on that day.
• The house term is short so promises of being put in specific committees would perhaps give them influence of policy that would help with their election.