Presidency 15 markers

Only one 15 marker on the Presidency topic seems to come up each year.

Unit 4C 15 markers

Assess the significance of the Cabinet
In charge of state departments Significant	The Cabinet is significant because each member is in charge of major government departments, John Kerry is in control of the State department, Loretta Lynch in the Justice Department and Sylvia Burwell in charge of Health. These are major departments in charge of various policy areas and thus, the Cabinet is of high prestige. Each member is a policy specialist in the department, and Cabinet members have been seen to push forward their own significance through the Supreme Court such as Shelby County v. Holder and Hobby Lobby v. Burwell.
Diversity & Unity Significant	The Cabinet symbolises the unity of the executive, presenting an image of collective and open government in which meetings are open to the press so they also symbolise a transparent government. Cabinet ‘looks like America’ as Obama’s initial cabinet was the most racially diverse ever and had the most women (7) than any other Cabinet in US history.
Cabinet meetings are rare Insignificant	The U.S President rarely utilises the Cabinet, policy and Cabinet meetings rarely occur and this could be a result of the proximity from each department and the White House. U.S Senator Daniel Moynihan famously remarked ‘never underestimate the power of proximity’. Due to the lengthy distance from each state department, the President and his Cabinet members rarely see each other, and instead he relies more on the Executive Office of the President (EXOP). The President sees his EXOP every day as they are located in the White House. In total Obama has had some over 21 Cabinet meetings in total (met just 16 times in first term) while Bill Clinton only had 6. The President in this case tends to go for ‘spatial leadership’
Loyalties lie elsewhere Insignificant	Cabinet members may be more loyal to Congress and it’s congressional committees rather than the President. Cabinet members are held accountable to Congress more than they are to the President as Congress has the power of investigation through their congressional committees to investigate state departments and also have the power of the purse to give the necessary funding to state departments. This causes some Cabinet members to be more loyal to Congress and can lead to some Cabinet members falling out with the President. Example: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was responsible for investigating Hilary Clinton’s (when she was Secretary of State) poor handling of the Benghazi attacks in 2011. This contrasts with EXOP who are typically close allies to the President and this means Cabinet members can easily fall out with the President as was the case with Kathleen Sebelius over Healthcare.org

Assess the significance of the Executive Office of the President (EXOP)
Close allies Significant	Members of the EXOP tend to be close allies to the President, many of whom were in Obama’s campaign team in 2008. Denis McDonough, the White House Chief of Staff, served as Obama’s personal foreign policy advisor during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, Michael Forman who is in the Office of the US Trade Representative has known Obama since they both went to Harvard together, and Forman was also an advisor to President Obama during his 2008 presidential election. So, the fact that the President and EXOP tend to be close allies epitomises their significance as the President is more likely to trust EXOP over his Cabinet members who’s loyalties may lie elsewhere.
Key policy areas Significant	Just like the Cabinet, EXOP are also in charge of key departments in which they are specialists. However, the fact that the President sees EXOP every day suggests that EXOP may be more important in advising him on special policy areas. For instance, the head of the National Security Council is Susan Rice, Council of Economic Advisers is Jason Furman. Susan Rice, for instance, played a key role in advising Obama during the buildup to the Libyan civil war, and Susan Rice was also invited to AIPACs annual conference in 2015 in the aftermath of resumed negotiations with Iran.
Spokes of the wheel system Insignificant	The structure in the EXOP is often know as the spokes of the wheel system which was first popularized by JFK and it’s a structure whereby the President is at the centre of the White House with many different advisers having direct access to the Oval Office. However, the hazard here is that the President is too accessible to a point where some advisers make take advance and attempt to pursue their own agenda or become too powerful as was the case with John Sununu under George W.H. Bush or Don Regan under Ronald Reagan as White House Chief of Staff who both became too obtrusive and too powerful almost like a ‘deputy president’.
‘Javelin catcher’ Significant	EXOPs loyalties lie to the President and them alone and are not subject to Congressional scrutiny and since they’re close allies EXOP members often play a key role in keeping the president safe from bad publicity, Dick Cheney as President Ford’s White House Chief of Staff remarked about his relationship as “He takes the credit; I take the blame’ and Jack Watson as President Carter’s chief of staff described his job as being that of a ‘javelin catcher’. The Cabinet, however, often seek to keep up a good image in the public and the media and therefore may sometimes work against the President while the EXOP are not continuously in the media spotlight and thus, more likely to work in the interests of the President.

Assess the significance of the Vice President
Balancing the ticket Significant	The Vice President plays a key role in winning elections by ‘balancing the ticket’ and thus, compensating for perceived weaknesses in the presidential election. A balanced ticket is a tactic employed by the President when selecting a VP in an attempt to increase voter appeal for their ticket. Joe Biden balanced Obama’s ticket in a number ways, for instance: Biden’s age of 65 was a balance of Obama’s 47, Biden served in the Senate for almost 36 years compared to Obama’s less than 4 years, Biden also brought significant foreign policy expertise to the table (used to be Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman) and race was also a balance,
Policy czar Significant	If Obama wants something done and needs the Senate’s support he will often go to Biden. Biden’s role was critical on issues like drawing up proposals for gun control measures following the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, the economic stimulus package, tax relief and Unemployment Reauthorization Act and negotiations to end the debt ceiling crisis in 2011, as well as advise on foreign policy matters given his experience on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Dick Cheney, as George W. Bush’s Vice President has been described as being one of the most powerful VPs as he played a key role in planning the war on terror following 9/11.
Washington Insider Significant	Given Joe Biden’s 36 years of experience in the Senate he brings a lot of experience and contacts to the table for President Obama. In an interview in 2009 with the New York Times he said “I’m a Senate guy’ and one journalist said Biden acts as an ‘unofficial ambassador to the Senate, carrying information back and forth between his old colleagues and his new boss’. As a result of his experience in the Senate, Biden’s a Washington insider while Obama is an outsider with less than 4 years experience in the Senate and so, Biden plays a key role in guiding Obama around Washington and avoiding the potential pitfalls of Washington politics.
Strained relationship Insignificant	Relationship between President and Vice President can sometimes be strained and this arguably reduces the significance of the Vice President. For instance, in 2012 Joe Biden during an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press Joe Biden openly endorsed gay marriage, thus pushing gay marriage to the forefront of the presidential race and made Obama speed up his pronouncement to the public that he too is supporting gay marriage.

What are the most significant factors that influence a President when choosing a Cabinet?
EGG formula	EGG (Ethnicity, Gender, Geography) formula plays a key role in helping the President decide when choosing a Cabinet. The EGG formula helps the President create a Cabinet which truly ‘looks like America’, this is done to ensure that the Cabinet represents all sections of American society across the states, gender and ethnicity wise. Obama’s initial Cabinet was the most diverse ethnically and gender-wise, with Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Eric Holder as Attorney General, Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy and others – the Cabinet truly was very diverse.
Reuniting the party	Sometimes Cabinet members may be selected on the basis of ‘healing’ previous party divisions. For instance, during the 2008 primary battles between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama it appeared that the Democrats may be a divided party, but upon coming to office Obama appointed Clinton as his Secretary of State. By appointing her he ensured that old rivalries are set aside and that the party is united again and can move on.
Bipartisanship	The President may want to send a message of bipartisanship to the other party by appointing people to his Cabinet who come from the opposite party, such as Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense in 2009 and Chuck Hagel in the same position in 2013, both of whom were from the Republican party. This is arguably important today in a time when Congress is more polarised than ever and bipartisanship is virtually non-existent, so by appointing Republicans to his Cabinet Obama arguably demonstrated that he is willing to work with the GOP.
Policy specialists	Perhaps the most obvious, the President appoints Cabinet members on the basis of how experienced individuals are in a key policy area. The President needs a fully qualified, experienced and competent Cabinet to work each department. For instance, Eric Holder was the deputy Attorney-General under Bill Clinton between 1997 and 2001 and thus, was experienced enough to become Attorney General under Obama in 2009,  Eric Shinseki serving in the US Armed Forces since 1965 made him suitable for the role of Secretary of Veteran Affairs and John Kerry’s experience as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made him an ideal candidate for the office of Secretary of State in 2013.

Assess the constraints on the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief
Congress declares war (Article 1, Section 8)	Also known as the War Powers Clause. The Constitution clearly outlines that the power to declare war is vested in the legislature. However, Congress has not officially declared war since 1941 against Japan despite since then several other wars breaking out with US involvement such as Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, etc. This check is arguably ineffective, as the President has effectively exploited his role as Commander-in-Chief to take the US to war as illustrated by Iraq and Afghanistan, so arguably this check is ineffective.
War Powers Act & Case Act	Passed in the 1970s, these require the President to seek the approval of Congress before going to war or taking any military action abroad and are arguably effective. Earlier this year the Obama administration submitted a report to the Senate requesting further authorisation for the President to use more excessive force against the Islamic State in the Middle East – key members from the Obama administration like Ashton Carter (Defence Secretary) and John Kerry (Secretary of State) faced scrutiny from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the issue. So, this is arguably an effective constraint on the Presidents role as Commander-in-Chief as he is reliant on the vote of the Senate before taking any action and over this issue in particular, the Senate was split with some thinking it went too far and others saying it didn’t go far enough.
Public Opinion	The President is at the mercy of public opinion, he needs to win over public support and the media before actually taking any action. George W. Bush had a lot of public support in starting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2003 and 2001 respectively due to the sense of national unity and outrage at the 9/11 attacks. Following the video taped executions of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff by ‘Jihadi John’ from ISIS Obama arguably gained the public support to take further military action against ISIS. Public opinion can sometimes turn against the Commander-in-Chief as was the case with President Bush with the Iraq and Afghanistan war after it dragged on for too long and nothing seemed to have been achieved.
Key Cabinet members	Within the Cabinet are key members in charge of departments which play an important role in the area of foreign policy and it’s important for the President to have all these people on his side. This can involve the Secretary of State, who’s currently John Kerry and has been doing good job over the past few years with regards to diplomatic efforts with Bashar al-Assad in Syria before ISIS showed up and more recently with Iran and Russia. The Defence Secretary plays a major role also but sometimes this position can limit the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief, as was the case with Chuck Hagel who fell out with President Obama over how to respond to ISIS and Assad also. So, if key cabinet members involved in foreign affairs don’t cooperate with the President, he can be severely limited with what he can do in foreign affairs.

What are ‘executive orders’, and how significant are they for presidential power?
Executive Orders refer to a rule, regulation or order issued by the President to those working for the federal government, which effectively has the same effect as a law.
Push forward his agenda Significant	Executive orders are significant because they allow the President to push forward his agenda and circumvent Congress if they’re being obstructionist. In recent years Congress has become gridlocked and obstructionist, as a result Obama’s agenda on implementing comprehensive immigration reform has had very little success – so using executive orders Obama was able to circumvent his agenda on immigration reform in November 2014 which has sought to help 5 million illegal immigrants and Rand Paul referred to it as the actions of a ‘king’ or ‘emperor’.
They’re not permanent Insignificant	Executive orders don’t necessarily have long-term effects as the next President can easily over turn them with an executive order of their own. For instance, President Bush in 2001 passed an executive order limiting embryonic stem cell research, upon coming to office Obama signed an executive order repealing Bush’s executive order. So, the president cannot guarantee that his executive order will continue on through to the next presidency and thus, executive orders are limited.
May not be enacted Insignificant	Executive Orders sometimes require the agreement of Congress and this can therefore limit the significance of executive orders. For instance, Obama’s 2014 executive order on immigration was heavily reliant on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, as funding at the beginning of the year for the DHS was coming to an end Congress was gridlocked and nearly refused to pass a bill funding the DHS – had Congress not passed a bill to fund the DHS Obama’s executive order would have been either scrapped or seriously put on hold. Similarly, recently a federal judge in Texas put Obama’s executive order on hold, refusing Obama’s executive actions to proceed.
Not in the Constitution Insignificant	Executive orders are arguably not significant because there is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders and therefore, the president is arguably less likely to flaunt about this power as it can come under restraint from other branches of the government such as the Supreme Court who can strike it down if it’s seen as going too far, or it can happen at a local level as war the case with the Texas federal judge refusing to allow Obama’s executive order to go through.

How do President’s veto legislation, and how significant is the presidential veto?
President’s can veto legislation by using a regular veto whereby he must send the bill back to its house of origin within 10 congressional  working days and must veto the whole bill not just certain parts. Congress can override this by a two-third majority vote in both houses. Or the President can go for a ‘pocket veto’, which occurs if a bill is awaiting the president’s actions when the legislative session ends, and so the bill dies (occurs when Congress are out of session). The pocket veto cannot be overridden. Neustadt argues the power of the president is the power to say no. Veto is Latin for I forbid.
Bargaining tool Significant	The president may often use the threat of a veto as a bargaining tool with Congress, hoping that the threat will cause Congress to make changes to its legislative plans and prevent them from attacking the President’s legislative plans. This was most recently seen in Obama’s 2015 state of the union address whereby he made clear that any Congressional attempts to repeal Obamacare or attack Democrat attempts at passing bills reforming the immigration system will earn his veto.
Push forward his agenda Significant	The Presidential veto is significant because it allows the President to ensure that his legislative agenda remains intact, this was most evident recently through President Obama’s veto of the Keystone Pipeline which conflicted with Obama’s stance on the issue of climate change and environmental protection. Obama declaring that “climate change is real” made clear that he will not allow the Keystone Pipeline extension to go through as it is damaging to the environment and not efficient. So, by vetoing the Keystone Pipeline Obama was able to entrench his stance on the environmental issues. This has contributed to the President looking imperial.
Can be overridden (In)significant	Arguably the significance of presidential vetoes can be limited given the fact that a two-third majority in both houses can override presidential vetoes if they have enough support in Congress. Four of President Bush’s vetoes were overridden by Congress. However, none of Obama’s presidential vetoes have thus far been overridden and in a time when polarisation is at its peak and Congress is continuously gridlocked, it’s unlikely Obama’s vetoes will be overridden as seen by the failed attempt by Congress to overridden the Keystone Pipeline veto, so right now it may be significant. It will be ultimately humiliating if a president’s veto is overridden.
Too often Insignificant	If the presidential veto is used excessively then it can lead to the president looking weak and as though he inflexible and unable to reach any compromises. For a President to appear like a strong leader he must seek compromise with Congress. Bill Clinton appeared like a weak and President after he used the line item veto 11 times to strike down 82 items from different legislation and proved humiliating after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional as he was effectively legislating from the Oval Office and as a result, the line item veto was scrapped.

How much influence does the President have over the legislative process?
State of the Union	The President effectively sets the legislative agenda through his State of the Union address at the beginning of each year and much of Congress’ work is done each year working towards the agenda laid out by the President. This year Obama in his state of the union address told Congress to work towards passing legislation on cyber security and eliminate loopholes in campaign finance. However, this doesn’t guarantee that Congress will do it as Congress hasn’t taken much steps towards passing such legislation and as a result, Obama had to issue an executive order in April to allow the government to impose penalties on foreign individuals engaged in cyberattacks that threaten the US.
Control of Congress	If the opposition party is in control of Congress then perhaps the President has very little influence, particularly today in a time when Congress is more polarised and gridlocked than ever and so he must seek bipartisanship but even this is difficult. Gridlock was seen when it came to granting President Obama this year more authorisation to use force against ISIS. The party leadership in Congress (if in opposition to the President) may even taken the legislative initiative themselves as was the case with House Speaker John Boehner when he refused to bring up the Gang of 8 Bill for debate and it was killed off.
Presidential vetoes	The Presidential veto is arguably a bargaining tool and allows the President to have his way on legislation, by threatening a presidential veto he can make Congress modify and make changes to a piece of legislation he disagrees with. Or, the President can go straight to a veto as he did with the Keystone Pipeline and push forward his legislative agenda. The use of presidential vetoes epitomises the President’s influence in the legislative process. Bill Clinton through his line item veto was accused of effectively legislating from the Oval Office. However, vetoes can be overridden (regular ones)
‘Power to persuade’	The president’s influence in the legislative process depends heavily on his ability to persuade lawmakers and his various colleagues such as the Vice President. Given Vice President Joe Biden’s 36 years of experience in the Senate, Biden has a lot of contacts and experience in Washington and thus has the necessary skills required for Obama to actually have some influence in the legislative process. For instance, Obama usually gets Biden to liaison with Congress as was the case with Biden drafting gun control proposals and getting Senators to support the economic stimulus package.