Notes · PoliticsUK · A-Levels

The US Presidency

The President is the head of state and head of the executive branch, wielding formal constitutional powers and a wider array of informal ones, yet operating within a system deliberately designed to constrain the office. This topic examines the President's formal and informal powers, the constraints on the office, the relationship with Congress, and the debate over the 'imperial presidency'.

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

T·151515 / 18

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of the formal and informal powers of the President and the constraints on the officeAO2 · Analyse the sources and limits of presidential power and the President-Congress relationshipAO3 · Evaluate how powerful the President is and whether the presidency is 'imperial', reaching a substantiated judgement

Operators:explain and analyseevaluateto what extentanalyse and evaluate this statementexamine

basic level

AS-Level expects the formal and informal powers of the President and the main constraints.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of presidential power and the 'imperial presidency' debate, reaching a judgement.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

The US Presidency

The formal powers of the President#

FoundationAQA 7152/2: The US presidencyDfE GCE Politics subject content

The formal powers of the President

Fig. 1The President's formal powers are substantial but each is checked by design - real power within constitutional limits.

The President's formal powers are those granted by the Constitution, chiefly in Article II, and a strong answer names and explains them. As chief executive, the President is responsible for implementing and enforcing federal law and directing the vast federal bureaucracy - the power to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed'. As commander-in-chief, the President has supreme command of the armed forces, directing military operations (though only Congress can formally declare war). As chief diplomat, the President conducts foreign policy, negotiates treaties (subject to Senate ratification) and recognises foreign governments. These roles make the President the single most important figure in American government and the focus of national leadership.

The President's power of appointment is among the most consequential of the formal powers. The President nominates the heads of executive departments and agencies, ambassadors, and - crucially - federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, though these appointments are subject to Senate confirmation. Through appointments the President shapes the executive branch and, by nominating judges who serve for life, can influence the direction of the judiciary and constitutional interpretation long after leaving office. The power to shape the Supreme Court is one of the most enduring legacies a President can leave.

The President's principal legislative power is the veto. Although the President cannot make law, he can reject legislation passed by Congress by vetoing it, sending it back with objections; a veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which is hard to achieve, so the veto is a strong check on Congress and a significant source of legislative influence - the mere threat of a veto shapes what Congress passes. The President also delivers the State of the Union address, recommending legislation to Congress, and can, in effect, set much of the legislative agenda. The pardon power - the power to pardon federal offences - is a further formal power exercised at the President's discretion.

It is important to note both the reach and the limits of these formal powers, which frames the whole topic. The formal powers are substantial - command of the military and the executive, the conduct of foreign policy, appointments that shape the courts, and the veto - and make the presidency a genuinely powerful office. But the Constitution deliberately checks each: the President cannot declare war, treaties and appointments need the Senate, the veto can be overridden, and the President cannot make law or spend money without Congress. The formal powers are therefore real but constrained by design, and a good answer presents them alongside the informal powers (the next section) and the constraints, building towards the judgement about how powerful the President truly is.

Worked example

How the appointment power shapes the courts

Explain how the President's power of appointment can shape the judiciary for a generation.

The power
The President nominates federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, subject to Senate confirmation.
Life tenure
Federal judges serve for life, so a President's appointees can remain on the bench for decades after the President has left office.
Shaping interpretation
By appointing judges of a particular judicial philosophy, a President can influence the ideological balance of the courts and the interpretation of the Constitution.
The check
The Senate must confirm nominees, so the President cannot appoint at will - confirmation can become a major political battle.

Result: Because federal judges serve for life, the President's power to nominate them - especially to the Supreme Court - lets a President shape the ideological direction of the judiciary and constitutional interpretation for a generation, though the Senate's confirmation power checks this.

Typical mistakes

Overstating the formal powers - the President cannot declare war, make law, or appoint or make treaties without the Senate.
Confusing formal (constitutional) powers with informal (persuasion, executive orders) powers - keep them distinct.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three formal powers of the President. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The informal powers and sources of presidential power#

StandardAQA 7152/2: The US presidencyDfE GCE Politics subject content

The sources of presidential power

Fig. 2The modern presidency relies on informal power - persuasion, unilateral action, the mandate and the EOP - which is decisive but contingent.

Alongside the formal powers, the President exercises a range of informal powers and draws on informal sources of authority that have become central to the modern presidency, and a strong answer explains them. The single most important, in the classic analysis of Richard Neustadt, is 'the power to persuade': because the President cannot command Congress, the courts or even much of the executive branch to do his bidding, presidential power is in large part the ability to bargain, persuade and build support - to use the office's prestige, the President's political skill, and the incentives at his disposal to persuade others to act as he wishes. On this view the President's real power lies less in the formal authority to command than in the informal capacity to persuade.

The President has developed instruments of unilateral action that extend his reach beyond the formal powers. Executive orders are directives to the executive branch that have the force of law without needing congressional approval, allowing the President to set policy in areas within executive authority. Executive agreements with foreign governments allow the President to make international arrangements without the Senate ratification required for treaties. Signing statements allow the President to record his interpretation of a law as he signs it. These tools let a President act unilaterally, especially when Congress is unwilling to legislate, and their growth is a major source of the modern presidency's power - though they can be reversed by later Presidents or challenged in the courts.

The President's informal power also flows from his unique political position. As the only official (with the Vice-President) elected by the whole nation, the President can claim a national mandate and speak for the country in a way no other figure can, using the office as a 'bully pulpit' to shape public opinion and pressure Congress. The President leads his party and can use that leadership to rally support. He commands the machinery of the Executive Office of the President - a large staff of advisers and agencies (including the White House Office, the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget) - which gives him the capacity to develop and drive policy across the whole of government.

The balance between formal and informal power, and its variability, is the analytical key. The modern presidency relies heavily on informal power - persuasion, unilateral action, the mandate, the bully pulpit, the EOP - to overcome the limits the Constitution places on the office and the difficulty of moving a fragmented, often hostile Congress. But informal power is contingent: persuasion depends on the President's skill, standing and circumstances; executive orders can be undone; the mandate fades; and public support rises and falls. A President who is skilful, popular and facing a cooperative Congress can wield great informal power; one who is unskilful, unpopular or facing a hostile Congress finds his informal power drains away. Understanding that presidential power is a blend of formal authority and contingent informal power - and that the informal element is decisive and variable - is essential for evaluating how powerful any President really is.

Worked example

Why persuasion is central to presidential power

Explain Neustadt's argument that presidential power is 'the power to persuade'.

The limits of command
The President cannot command Congress, the courts or much of the executive - the separation of powers denies him the authority simply to order others to act.
The need to bargain
To achieve his goals the President must bargain, persuade and build support, using the office's prestige, incentives and his political skill.
The implication
Presidential power lies less in formal authority than in the ability to persuade others that acting as he wishes is in their interest.
The contingency
This makes power dependent on the President's skill, standing and circumstances - a skilful, popular President persuades more than a weak, unpopular one.

Result: Neustadt argued that, because the President cannot command the other branches, his real power is the ability to persuade and bargain - so presidential power depends on skill, prestige and standing rather than formal authority, and varies greatly between Presidents and circumstances.

Typical mistakes

Treating executive orders as unlimited law-making - they operate within executive authority and can be reversed or challenged.
Ignoring Neustadt's insight that presidential power is largely the 'power to persuade', not to command.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three informal sources of presidential power. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The constraints on the President#

StandardAQA 7152/2: The US presidencyDfE GCE Politics subject content

The constraints on the President

Fig. 3Congress, the courts, public opinion, the bureaucracy and the electoral cycle all constrain the President - though the strength of the constraints varies.

For all its power, the presidency operates within a system deliberately designed to constrain it, and a strong answer sets out the constraints systematically. The most important come from Congress, exercising the checks and balances. Congress controls the purse, so it can fund or refuse to fund the President's programme; it must pass the legislation the President wants, and can refuse; the Senate must confirm his appointments and ratify his treaties, and can reject them; Congress oversees the executive through investigations; it can override his veto by a two-thirds majority; and, in the last resort, it can impeach and remove him. A President facing a hostile Congress - especially under divided government - finds much of his programme blocked and his conduct scrutinised.

The Supreme Court is a second major constraint. Through judicial review, the Court can declare the President's actions - including executive orders and other exercises of power - unconstitutional, striking them down and setting limits on executive authority. The Court has at key moments ruled against Presidents, checking claims of executive power. Although the President appoints justices, once on the bench they are independent and secure for life, and have repeatedly constrained the executive, so the judiciary is a genuine check even on a President who has shaped the Court.

Beyond the other branches, the President is constrained by a range of political and practical factors. Public opinion matters greatly: a popular President can pressure Congress and claim a mandate, but an unpopular one loses leverage, and approval ratings fluctuate with events and the economy. The media scrutinise and can damage the President. The federal bureaucracy, though nominally under presidential control, is vast, entrenched and not easily directed, so the President cannot simply command the executive branch to do his will. The federal structure limits the President's reach into the states. And the electoral cycle constrains him - midterm elections can strip him of a congressional majority, and lame-duck status weakens a President in his final period.

The overall picture is of a powerful office hemmed in by numerous constraints, and recognising the strength and variability of these constraints is essential for the evaluation. The constraints are real and, taken together, formidable: a President cannot legislate, spend, appoint, make treaties or wage declared war alone, cannot override the courts, and depends on public support and a cooperative Congress. But the strength of the constraints varies with circumstances - a President with a supportive Congress, high approval, a united party and favourable events faces far weaker effective constraints than one facing divided government, low approval, a hostile party and adverse events. This variability is why the same office produces 'strong' and 'weak' presidencies, and why the debate over how powerful the President is - and whether the presidency has become 'imperial' - turns on weighing these constraints against the office's formal and informal powers, the task of the final sections.

Worked example

How divided government constrains the President

Explain why a President faces much stronger constraints under divided government.

Divided government defined
The opposing party controls one or both chambers of Congress, so the President cannot rely on a supportive legislature.
Legislation blocked
A hostile Congress can refuse to pass the President's bills and refuse to fund his priorities, stalling his programme.
Scrutiny and appointments
An opposition Congress can launch investigations and (in the Senate) block his appointments and treaties.
The contrast with unified government
Under unified government, a supportive Congress passes his programme and constrains him far less - so the same office is far stronger.

Result: Under divided government a hostile Congress can block the President's legislation and funding, scrutinise him and reject his appointments, sharply strengthening the constraints on the office - which is why presidential power is far weaker under divided than under unified government.

Typical mistakes

Presenting the President as unconstrained, ignoring the formidable checks of Congress and the courts and the political constraints.
Treating the constraints as fixed rather than varying with unified vs divided government, approval and events.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three constraints on the power of the President. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The President and Congress: unified and divided government#

StandardAQA 7152/2: The US presidencyDfE GCE Politics subject content

Unified versus divided government

Fig. 4Under unified government the President can pass most of his programme; under divided government conflict and gridlock dominate.

The relationship between the President and Congress is the central axis of American government, and understanding it requires the concepts of unified and divided government. Because of the separation of powers, the President and Congress are separately elected, can be controlled by different parties, and must nonetheless cooperate to legislate, fund government and act - the President needs Congress to pass his programme and budget, and Congress needs the President to sign its bills. This mutual dependence, combined with their independence from one another, makes the relationship a constant process of bargaining, conflict and negotiation rather than the command a UK Prime Minister exercises over a Commons majority.

Unified government occurs when the President's party controls both chambers of Congress. Under unified government the President is far more likely to get his legislative programme passed, since a friendly Congress shares his goals and party loyalty encourages cooperation - so unified government is the condition in which a President can achieve most and is at his most powerful domestically. Even then, the President cannot take Congress for granted: party discipline is weaker than in the UK, the Senate filibuster can block legislation even with a majority, and members answer to their own constituents, so a President must still bargain and persuade.

Divided government occurs when the opposing party controls one or both chambers of Congress. Under divided government the relationship becomes far more difficult: a hostile Congress can block the President's legislation, refuse to fund his priorities, reject his appointments (in the Senate), and subject him to investigation, while the President can veto Congress's bills - producing conflict, gridlock and, at the extreme, government shutdowns. Divided government has become common, and combined with rising partisanship it has made cooperation between the branches increasingly hard, so that much significant domestic legislation stalls when government is divided.

The President-Congress relationship therefore shapes how much any President can achieve, and analysing it is central to evaluating presidential power. A President's domestic success depends heavily on whether government is unified or divided, on the size of his party's majorities, on his standing and skill in persuasion, and on the intensity of partisanship. The relationship also differs sharply between domestic and foreign policy: the President has greater freedom of action in foreign and military affairs (leading some to speak of 'two presidencies' - a stronger foreign-policy presidency and a more constrained domestic one), because Congress's checks bite hardest on domestic legislation and spending. A strong answer uses the unified/divided distinction and the two-presidencies idea to explain why presidential power varies so much, and to set up the debate over whether the presidency has become 'imperial'.

Worked example

Model essay plan: does presidential power depend on Congress?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether the President's power depends mainly on his relationship with Congress.

Introduction and thesis
Note the separation of powers; signal a judgement - the relationship with Congress is decisive for DOMESTIC power, less so for foreign policy. Introduce unified/divided government.
The case that Congress is decisive
Domestic success depends on passing legislation and budgets; unified government lets the President achieve most, divided government blocks him; the filibuster and partisanship.
Other factors
Presidential power also depends on public approval, party unity, skill (persuasion), events, and unilateral tools (executive orders) that bypass Congress.
The two presidencies
In foreign and military policy the President has far greater freedom, so his dependence on Congress is much weaker there than in domestic policy.
Judgement
Conclude that the relationship with Congress is the single most important factor in the President's DOMESTIC power, but that his power over foreign policy and his informal tools mean it is not the whole story - so 'mainly', not 'wholly'.

Result: A top-band plan argues that the President's relationship with Congress (unified vs divided government) is decisive for his domestic power but far less so for foreign policy (the 'two presidencies'), and that approval, skill and unilateral tools also matter - concluding that Congress is the most important but not the sole determinant of presidential power.

Typical mistakes

Assuming unified government guarantees the President's success - weak party discipline and the filibuster still constrain him.
Ignoring the difference between domestic and foreign policy (the 'two presidencies') when assessing presidential power.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that the President's power depends mainly on his relationship with Congress. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

How powerful is the President? The imperial presidency debate#

AdvancedAQA 7152/2: The US presidencyDfE GCE Politics subject content

The imperial versus the imperilled presidency

Fig. 5The President is more 'imperial' in foreign policy and more 'imperilled' in domestic policy - power varies by area and circumstance.

The overarching evaluative question is how powerful the President really is, and it is often framed through the 'imperial presidency' debate. The concept of the 'imperial presidency', associated with the historian Arthur Schlesinger, describes a presidency that has grown so powerful - especially in foreign and military affairs - that it escapes the constitutional checks the framers intended, acting more like an emperor than a constitutionally-limited executive. The evidence adduced for it includes the expansion of the President's war-making power in practice (waging military action without a formal declaration of war), the growth of unilateral instruments (executive orders, executive agreements, signing statements), the enlargement of the Executive Office, claims of executive privilege and secrecy, and the President's dominance of the national stage - all suggesting an office that has slipped its constitutional bounds.

The case that the presidency has become 'imperial' can be developed with care. In foreign and military policy in particular, Presidents have exercised vast power with limited effective check, committing forces and shaping the world with a freedom the framers may not have envisaged. The growth of unilateral action lets Presidents make policy without Congress. The modern President dominates the media and the political agenda, personifies the nation, and commands a huge apparatus of power. For proponents of the thesis, the cumulative effect is a presidency far more powerful than the constrained office the Constitution describes, posing a danger to the balance of the system.

The counter-argument - sometimes captured in the idea of the 'imperilled' or constrained presidency - is at least as strong and must be given full weight. The constraints on the President remain real and formidable: Congress controls the purse and legislation and can block, investigate, override and impeach; the Supreme Court can and does strike down executive action; and public opinion, the media, the bureaucracy and the electoral cycle all limit the office. Far from being all-powerful, Presidents are frequently frustrated - unable to pass their domestic programme under divided government, blocked by the filibuster, checked by the courts, and weakened by low approval or scandal. On this view the office is often surprisingly weak, especially domestically, and the 'imperial' label mistakes moments of assertive foreign-policy power for the general condition of the presidency.

Reaching a judgement means recognising that presidential power is VARIABLE and DIFFERS BY POLICY AREA, and that neither the 'imperial' nor the 'imperilled' label fits alone. A sophisticated conclusion distinguishes: in foreign and military policy the President is often very powerful and least checked (lending some truth to the 'imperial' thesis), whereas in domestic policy he is heavily constrained by Congress and frequently frustrated (supporting the 'imperilled' view); and in both fields power varies enormously with circumstances - unified vs divided government, approval, party unity, skill and events - so the same office produces dominant and impotent presidencies. The strongest answers argue that the presidency is best described not as permanently imperial or permanently imperilled but as an office of great potential power whose actual power fluctuates dramatically with policy area and political circumstance - powerful in foreign affairs and under favourable domestic conditions, constrained and often frustrated otherwise. This differentiated, circumstance-sensitive judgement, weighing the powers against the constraints, is what distinguishes a top-band answer.

Worked example

Model essay plan: is the presidency imperial?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether the US presidency has become imperial.

Introduction and thesis
Explain Schlesinger's 'imperial presidency'; signal a judgement - the office is more imperial in foreign policy, more imperilled domestically, and always variable.
The imperial case
Expanded war powers and military action without a declaration; unilateral tools (executive orders/agreements); the growth of the EOP; media and agenda dominance; executive privilege.
The imperilled case
Congress checks (purse, legislation, override, impeachment); the courts strike down executive action; public opinion, the bureaucracy and the electoral cycle constrain; Presidents are often frustrated, especially domestically.
Distinguish the fields
In foreign/military policy the President is least checked (imperial); in domestic policy heavily constrained (imperilled); power varies with unified/divided government, approval and events.
Judgement
Conclude that the presidency is neither permanently imperial nor imperilled but an office of great potential power whose actual power fluctuates by policy area and circumstance - imperial in foreign affairs, constrained at home.

Result: A top-band plan weighs the imperial evidence (war powers, unilateral action, EOP) against the constraints (Congress, courts, opinion), distinguishes the less-checked foreign-policy presidency from the constrained domestic one, and judges that presidential power is variable and area-specific - imperial abroad, imperilled at home - rather than uniformly one or the other.

Typical mistakes

Concluding the President is simply 'imperial' or simply 'weak', ignoring the variation by policy area and circumstance.
Failing to distinguish foreign policy (least checked) from domestic policy (heavily constrained) - the key to a nuanced judgement.

Active revision

'The US presidency has become an imperial presidency.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for politics

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification

The US Presidency

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

The US Presidency

Key points

How the appointment power shapes the courts

Key points

Why persuasion is central to presidential power

Key points

How divided government constrains the President

Key points

Model essay plan: does presidential power depend on Congress?

Key points

Model essay plan: is the presidency imperial?

Sources

The US Presidency

Key points

How the appointment power shapes the courts

Key points

Why persuasion is central to presidential power

Key points

How divided government constrains the President

Key points

Model essay plan: does presidential power depend on Congress?

Key points

Model essay plan: is the presidency imperial?

Sources