Civics 101: America’s founders designed a flawed presidency, yet the role keeps growing

Editor’s note: This is the next in a series of essays by Fresno State political science and history professors on the theme of Civics 101 — a review the American system of government and how it is supposed to work. Today’s essay looks at the presidency. The essays will be published once a month this winter and spring leading up to the June 7 California primary.

Imagine if Donald Trump and Joe Biden were both president at the same time. This arrangement, known as the plural executive, was considered by our nation’s founders, but they ultimately settled on a singular executive. The impetus behind the plural executive was the fear of a return to a monarchy, where authority could easily be abused. Having successfully won their independence from the despotic King of England, giving too much power to one individual was loathsome to many new Americans.

Advocates of a singular executive argued that decision-making with multiple executives would be difficult and perhaps dangerous to the new republic. Alexander Hamilton would later write in support of the singular executive in the Federalist Papers, the series of newspaper articles written to win support for ratification of the Constitution. “Decision, activity, secrecy, and d(i)spatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man…” An overarching concern of the founders was the ability of the executive to respond quickly to sudden attacks from hostile nations. England and Spain held territory surrounding the fledgling country and there was no guarantee that those neighbors would not try to expand their borders.

The adoption of a singular executive was more feasible because the separation of powers between the three branches, and the checks-and-balances system, would restrain the executive’s inclination to seize more power. In particular, the most dangerous and potentially abusive power, the power to declare war, would rest with Congress. Separating the war-making power from the national leader was an important component of the design of the office because history is replete with kings, czars, and emperors who sought to establish their power and legacy through endless wars to expand their territory. Instead, the president, under our system, would conduct the war as commander-in-chief once the collective decision for war had been made by Congress.

Aside from the singular executive, there was surprisingly little debate about the powers that the new Constitution would bestow upon the president. Convention delegates inserted into Article II the seemingly innocuous phrase, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Delegates spent much more time specifying the powers of Congress. Since George Washington was widely expected to become the first president, delegates felt reassured that he would not abuse these newly established powers. After all, Washington had given up his power as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army when some thought that he might seek to be king over the new nation. Victorious military leaders relinquishing their powers were virtually unheard of in history.

With few exceptions in the 19th century, most notably the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, presidents largely fulfilled the role of a weak executive envisioned by some framers of the Constitution. Presidents sparingly wielded their veto power, their ultimate legislative weapon, and Congress became the dominant branch of government during this time.

However, in the 20th century, this power dynamic significantly changed. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, presidents began to view their role more expansively and used the office to proactively address social problems confronting the nation and international issues they believed to be in the national interest. For example, Teddy Roosevelt went after oil and steel monopolies (similar to the scrutiny Big Tech companies are now receiving) and brokered peace between Russia and Japan.

While TR, and later Woodrow Wilson, expanded the role of the president, most scholars believe the modern presidency was created under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Facing the Great Depression, FDR thought the president should do everything possible, and then some, to alleviate economic suffering. His package of economic relief, the New Deal, became the yardstick by which future presidents would be evaluated. Since then, fairly or not, responsibility for the nation’s economic well-being has been placed on the president, even though presidents can do very little on their own to impact economic conditions.

In foreign affairs, the president’s powers have grown exponentially since World War II. Congress and the Supreme Court have been reluctant to assert their authority in this realm. Presidents no longer rely on congressional declarations of war for military intervention. One pivotal event was the decision by President Truman to engage militarily in the Korean War without authorization from Congress. Subsequently, on numerous occasions, and now somewhat routinely, presidents of both parties have authorized military actions to defend what is arguably in the national interest. Presidents refer to their “executive power” and other constitutional provisions to justify these actions.

With this history and context in mind, where are we today in regard to presidential power?

On the one hand, presidents were not intended to have as much power as they do to conduct military interventions. Many observers believe that Congress needs to reassert its authority over the president’s military actions. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War, remains ineffective at restraining these actions, and presidents don’t believe they are bound by it.

On the other hand, the public thinks presidents have more unilateral power over the economy than they actually do. Economic conditions are the central factor in presidential elections, and President Biden’s current approval ratings are, in part, a reflection of this unrealistic expectation. Presidents have virtually no tools at their sole discretion to turn economic conditions in a positive direction, including high inflation. And, even with support from Congress, there are few legislative options (price controls is an unpopular one used in the past). Inflation is a problem best left for the Federal Reserve Board.

The founders created an executive office with ambiguous powers that have evolved in response to the events and issues confronted by the occupants. Although we can debate how much power the president should have and what they should be held accountable for, most of us can agree that President Trump and President Biden serving simultaneously would not be in the national interest.