Question

Why has the American presidency grown in power and size? Give specific reasons. Are there any powers you think should be taken away from the president? If so, explain why.

Answer 1

The first and perhaps overarching explanation underlying the growth of the presidential power is that the constitutional text on the subject is famously unspecific, enabling the office to "adapt with the developing country" as one writer maintains. Unlike Article I, which sets out the specific powers bestowed on Congress, the key provisions of Article II which confer authority on the President arre written in indeterminate terms such as “executive power,” or the duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”Moreover, unlike the other branches, the Presidency has consistently been deemed to possess significant inherent powers.

Additionally, there is underdeveloped case law on presidential strength. Unlike the numerous precedents that question Legislative or federal courts, there are relatively few cases that examine presidential authority at the Supreme Court.

Presidential power almost eventually extends due to the way the history of the executive branch is used to justify later exercises of power supporters of expansive presidential power citing historical examples, such as the suspension of habeas corpus by President Lincoln, as justification for the claim that presidents have significant powers in times of war and national emergency. Previous presidents use these powers as authority to participate in specific acts with a present or potential president. Such claims have considerable strength but they also establish a one-way ratchet for increasing the presidency's influence.

The extension of presidential authority is also a result of lawyering in the executive branch. Because of justiciability restrictions, many of the issues concerning the extent of presidential authority, such as war powers,38 never enter the courts. In such cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the division that is tasked with informing the President as to the limits of his or her control, are the final legal authorities opining on such problem

Mr. Trump's tariff war on steel imports is being waged under the authority of a trade law known as Section 232 that allows levies to be levied when the executive branch determines that it is needed by "national security."
In the mid-1970s, Congress last scrubbed its emergency authority delegations, conducting a series of post-Vietnam War hearings in the Senate that led to the National Emergency Act of 1976. This law allowed the president to designate the legislation whereby he declared an emergency before actually doing so. It also provided that the president must periodically re-establish a state of emergency and that Congress may lift any state of emergency, albeit by passing a law

The new Democratic majority in the House will hold hearings with a view to cleaning up this area of law. The Republican-majority Senate has every reason to participate, insofar as it cares more about institutional order than party interests. Mr. Trump's rise has alerted everyone in the executive of the possible danger from uncontrolled influence. The control may be doubly dangerous because Congress in the past actually turned the unchecked power over to the president.