Engage: Creating an Elected King?
The framers faced a dilemma: they needed a strong executive to avoid the weakness of the Articles, but they’d just fought a war to escape executive tyranny. How do you create a position powerful enough to govern but not so powerful it becomes a monarchy?
Some delegates wanted a three-person executive council. Others wanted a king-like figure. They compromised on one person with limited powers and accountability. But Article II is remarkably vague compared to Article I—giving future presidents room to expand the office far beyond what the framers imagined.
Explore: The President’s Constitutional Powers
Article II is short, leaving much ambiguous. Here’s what it actually says:
Executive Powers:
- Execute (enforce) the laws passed by Congress
- Appoint federal officials with Senate approval
- Grant pardons and reprieves for federal crimes
- Give Congress information on the state of the union
- Recommend legislation to Congress
- Convene or adjourn Congress in special circumstances
Military Powers:
- Serve as Commander in Chief of armed forces
- (But only Congress can declare war)
Foreign Policy Powers:
- Make treaties with Senate approval (2/3 vote required)
- Receive ambassadors from foreign nations
- Appoint ambassadors with Senate approval
Qualifications:
- Natural-born citizen
- At least 35 years old
- Resident of US for at least 14 years
- Elected to four-year term via Electoral College
That’s it. Notice what’s NOT mentioned: executive orders, vetoes (mentioned separately in Article I), executive privilege, emergency powers, or most of what modern presidents do.
Explain: The Veto Power and Appointment Power
Though Article II is brief, two powers have proven crucial:
The Veto (Article I, Section 7):
The President can reject bills passed by Congress. Congress can override with 2/3 vote in both houses. This gives the President enormous legislative influence despite not being in the legislative branch.
The Constitution mentions vetoes in the legislative article because the framers saw it as part of the lawmaking process, not executive power. It’s a defensive weapon—preventing laws, not making them.
Appointments (Article II, Section 2):
The President appoints:
- Supreme Court justices (lifetime appointments)
- Federal judges (lifetime appointments)
- Cabinet members
- Agency heads
- Ambassadors
This power to shape the judiciary and bureaucracy has become one of the presidency’s most important functions. Through appointments, presidents influence policy long after leaving office.
Elaborate: Powers Not in the Constitution
Modern presidents wield powers the framers never explicitly granted:
Executive Orders:
Presidential directives with the force of law. Presidents claim these flow from the duty to “faithfully execute” laws or from their role as Commander in Chief. They’ve been used for everything from desegregating the military to creating internment camps. Not mentioned in Constitution.
Executive Agreements:
Treaties that bypass Senate approval. Presidents claim these are different from formal treaties. Used to establish trade deals, security arrangements, and international cooperation without the 2/3 Senate vote the Constitution requires for treaties.
Executive Privilege:
Right to withhold information from Congress or courts. Not in the Constitution, but recognized by courts as implied power. Where does executive authority end and obstruction begin?
National Security Powers:
Since World War II, presidents have claimed vast emergency powers based on national security. Warrantless surveillance, targeted killings, detention without trial—all justified as executive responsibilities to protect the nation.
War Powers:
Though only Congress can declare war, presidents have sent troops into combat hundreds of times. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—no formal war declarations. Presidents claim Commander in Chief powers allow this. Congress has largely acquiesced.
Evaluate: Too Powerful or Still Constrained?
The presidency has grown immensely beyond 1787:
Arguments It’s Too Powerful:
- Presidents start wars without Congress
- Executive orders bypass legislation
- Pardon power can shield allies from justice
- Imperial presidency operates in secrecy
- One person shouldn’t have such power
- When presidents of both parties expand power, it never contracts
Arguments It’s Still Constrained:
- Congress can impeach and remove
- Courts can strike down executive actions
- Congress controls the budget
- Presidents can’t pass laws
- Term limits prevent permanent rule
- Opposition party provides check
- Modern presidents face intense media scrutiny
The Reality:
Executive power expands during crises (wars, depressions, terrorism) and rarely contracts afterward. Each president, regardless of party, defends and expands executive authority. Congress has proven unwilling or unable to reclaim lost power.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 70 argued for “energy in the executive”—one person could act with decision, secrecy, and dispatch. But he assumed Congress would remain the dominant branch. Has the balance shifted too far?
The framers created a presidency strong enough to govern but weak enough to control. Whether we’ve maintained that balance is an open question.
Key Vocabulary
- Commander in Chief: President’s role as head of military forces
- Veto: Presidential power to reject legislation passed by Congress
- Executive Order: Presidential directive with force of law (not in Constitution)
- Pardon: Presidential power to forgive federal crimes
- Electoral College: System for electing President through state electors, not direct popular vote
Think About It
Should presidents be able to use military force without congressional approval? Where’s the line between necessary executive action and unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s war powers?
Additional Resources
Primary Source: Read Article II of the Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
Notice how much shorter Article II is than Article I. Then read Federalist No. 69-77 by Alexander Hamilton defending the presidency:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp
Hamilton argues the President is far weaker than the British King. Compare his description to the modern presidency. Would Hamilton recognize today’s executive power?
Tomorrow: We’ll explore Article III and the judicial branch—the court system the framers barely described but which has become hugely powerful.