Presidential Power

Presidents Taft and Roosevelt espoused very different theories of presidential power. Roosevelt took a very loose constructionist view of the role of the executive. He believed that the president was given the power to do anything that wasn't expressly forbidden, and even took it a step further. In certain times of crisis, Roosevelt argued, the president would be forced, in acting in the best interest of the country he swore to defend, to take actions that were expressly against the constitution. His view of the occasional necessity of extra-constitutional presidential activity is evidenced by his unprecedented actions to combat the Depression.

Taft's view was entirely the opposite. He believed that the president was allowed only the powers he was specifically granted by the constitution, a strict constructionist view. In metaphor, he thought that the presidency should be a man tightly bound by the constitution, only able to move in the small, specific ways the bindings allowed. Even in times of crisis, if the constitution didn't specifically say the executive could do it, he would be unable to take action.

Roosevelt viewed Taft's theory as preventing the executive from truly doing his best to protect and defend the constitution, especially in situations when its defense would require briefly ignoring it. Taft, in turn, thought that Roosevelt's theory would allow the president to take dangerous amounts of power, possibly enough to permanently disrupt the stability of our democracy.

My opinion, after putting myself in the president's shoes, is very close to Roosevelt's. If the nation I was charged to defend was in trouble, and I could help in an extra-constitutional way, I would. Someone has to take action, and if the circumstances were such that I was the best person to do so, failing to do so would be a great failure of duty.

The risk for abuse exists, of course, but that risk exists whether or not you ascribe to the belief in potential benevolent uses. My espoused theory of presidential power fares best in situations where unusual circumstances would be best served by temporary, tailored increases in presidential power initiated by the executive. If Congress became compromised somehow and was unable to exercise the powers enumerated to them in the constitution, the president is able to step in and exercise the power, thus saving the nation from a dangerous period of neglect.

This theory of presidential power would fare most poorly if a president asserted and exercised increased power inappropriately, in ways that were not in the nation's best interest. The consequences for such an abuse could be disastrous, as it could severely shake people's faith in the stability of the government, which would have very negative effects on the economy and effectiveness of the government.

The palatability of this theory is very much dependent on the personal characteristics of the person in office. If it's someone the nation trusts to have the best interests of the country at heart and to act faithfully on its behalf, I think many would be at ease with this idea. If, however, the nations didn't have faith in the integrity and dedication of the executive, this idea would likely be frightening and unpopular.

The problem, of course, is that you can't practically have rules that change based on how the president is viewed by the nation. Short of an amendment to the constitution modifying the description of the powers of the executive, how much power a president is allowed to get will essentially be as much as he is able. His power relies upon his personal attributes and the political setting, and can be increased at his discretion if he has enough of these qualities. The limit on presidential power is much more practical than constitutional.

As we can see, the biggest factor in determining presidential power is in fact the president's own view of the presidency, combined with his political and personal savvy. I believe that popularly elected president who consciously overstepped his power on behalf of the nation would be more likely to have a positive than a negative impact. I also believe that there's no practical way to prevent a power hungry president from doing this very same thing, whether we subscribe to Taft's theory or Roosevelt's.