You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The presidency is established by Article II of the US Constitution and is the focal point of the American political system. The President serves as both head of state and head of government — a dual role that contrasts sharply with the UK, where these functions are divided between the monarch (head of state) and the Prime Minister (head of government). The presidency is one of the most studied institutions on Component 3, and the specification directs candidates to focus on presidents from 1992 onwards, so contemporary examples should be drawn from that period. This lesson examines the President's formal (constitutional) powers, their informal powers, the great debate between the "imperial" and "imperilled" presidency, the institutions that support the President, and the rich comparison with the UK Prime Minister.
The Constitution grants the President a set of explicit, formal powers. Examiners expect candidates to know these precisely and to distinguish them from the informal powers that have grown up around the office.
A crucial analytical point is that almost every formal power is shared or checked: appointments and treaties need the Senate, legislation needs Congress, and war in its fullest sense needs a congressional declaration. The Constitution deliberately created an executive that is energetic but constrained — strong enough to act, but unable to act alone on the matters that count most.
The veto deserves particular attention because it is one of the President's most reliable formal powers. When Congress passes a bill, the President may sign it, veto it by returning it with objections, or take no action. If the President vetoes, the bill becomes law only if both chambers override the veto by a two-thirds majority — a threshold so high that the great majority of vetoes are sustained. A distinct variant is the pocket veto: if the President simply declines to sign a bill within ten days and Congress adjourns within that window, the bill dies and cannot be overridden. The veto is powerful not only when used but as a threat, since the mere prospect of a veto can persuade Congress to amend or abandon legislation the President opposes. Importantly, the President possesses no line-item veto allowing the removal of individual provisions while approving the rest; an attempt to grant the President such a power was struck down as unconstitutional, so the President must accept or reject each bill as a whole — a significant limit on executive control of legislation that many state governors, by contrast, do not face.
The presidency is at its most powerful in foreign affairs and national security, and this is the domain where the "imperial" thesis is most persuasive. As commander-in-chief, the President directs the armed forces and, although only Congress may formally declare war, presidents have repeatedly deployed forces into prolonged hostilities on their own authority, presenting Congress with accomplished facts that are politically difficult to reverse. The War Powers Resolution (1973) sought to claw back congressional control by requiring notification within 48 hours of deploying troops and withdrawal within 60 days absent congressional authorisation, but presidents of both parties have disputed its constitutionality and have often acted as though it does not bind them, so in practice the war power lies heavily with the executive.
In diplomacy the President recognises foreign governments, negotiates with foreign leaders and increasingly conducts foreign policy through executive agreements that bypass the Senate's two-thirds treaty-ratification requirement. The President also commands the vast national-security bureaucracy — the intelligence agencies and the armed forces — much of which operates with limited public visibility and only partial congressional oversight. The combination of speed, secrecy and the public's instinct to rally behind the leader in a crisis means that, on the world stage, the President enjoys a freedom of action that is largely absent from domestic policy. This asymmetry between an "imperial" foreign-policy presidency and a far more constrained domestic presidency is one of the most important and examinable features of the office, and candidates should foreground it whenever evaluating presidential power.
The bare text of Article II describes a relatively modest office. The modern presidency is far more powerful than the document alone suggests, because successive presidents have developed extensive informal powers — capacities not enumerated in the Constitution but exercised by virtue of the office's unique political position.
Executive orders are presidential directives to the executive branch that carry the force of law without requiring congressional approval. They rest on the President's constitutional role as chief executive and on authority delegated by existing statutes. Presidents have used them to make sweeping policy — protecting certain undocumented immigrants from deportation, restricting or expanding immigration from particular countries, and reversing predecessors' environmental and climate decisions. Their great attraction is speed and unilateralism: a President frustrated by a gridlocked Congress can act alone. Their great weakness is fragility: because an executive order is not a statute, the next President can rescind it with the stroke of a pen, the courts can strike it down, and Congress can override it by legislation. The result is a recurring "executive-order reversal cycle," in which each new administration undoes much of its predecessor's unilateral policy — a pattern that undermines the stability and durability of policy made this way.
Executive agreements are arrangements with foreign governments that the President concludes without seeking the two-thirds Senate ratification that a formal treaty requires. They allow presidents to conduct foreign policy flexibly and have become far more common than treaties, but, like executive orders, they lack the entrenched status of a ratified treaty and can be more easily reversed by a successor. Their proliferation is a clear instance of the executive expanding its reach by routing around a constitutional check — in this case the Senate's two-thirds ratification requirement — and it is frequently cited as evidence for the imperial-presidency thesis.
The phrase "bully pulpit," coined by Theodore Roosevelt, captures the President's unrivalled ability to command public attention and shape the national agenda. As the single most visible figure in American politics, the President can use televised addresses, press conferences and, in the modern era, social media to rally public opinion, pressure Congress and define the terms of debate. This power of persuasion is informal but formidable, and in the era of mass and social media it has grown into one of the President's most potent assets for shaping the political weather.
When signing a bill, a President may issue a signing statement setting out how the administration interprets particular provisions or which parts it doubts the constitutionality of and may decline to enforce. Critics argue that aggressive use of signing statements amounts to a partial, line-by-line veto that the Constitution does not grant, allowing the President to reshape laws unilaterally.
Key Evaluative Point: The informal powers are the engine of the modern presidency's growth, and their expansion is closely tied to congressional gridlock — the more Congress is paralysed by polarisation, the more presidents resort to unilateral action. Yet these same powers are inherently more fragile than formal, statutory authority, which is precisely why their increasing use is a double-edged development: it makes presidents look powerful in the short term while leaving their achievements vulnerable to reversal.
The political scientist Richard Neustadt argued influentially that "presidential power is the power to persuade." On this view, the formal powers are limited and easily checked, so a President's real influence depends on their ability to bargain, cajole and convince — to persuade members of Congress, the bureaucracy, the public and even foreign leaders that doing what the President wants is in their own interest. Neustadt's thesis is a vital corrective to the image of an all-powerful executive: it suggests that a President who relies on command rather than persuasion will frequently be frustrated, and that political skill, reputation and public standing matter as much as constitutional authority.
The interplay between formal and informal powers is itself a rich theme. The formal powers set the boundaries of what a President may lawfully do, but they are mostly negative or shared — the veto blocks, appointments require the Senate, treaties require ratification — so on their own they make the President more of a brake than an engine of policy. It is the informal powers, above all persuasion and the bully pulpit, that allow a President to drive an agenda forward. A President who possesses formal authority but lacks the political skill to persuade will achieve little, whereas a skilful communicator can extract outcomes far beyond what the bare constitutional text would suggest. This is why two presidents with identical formal powers can have radically different records, and why the strongest analysis treats presidential power as a product of office and individual together rather than of the Constitution alone.
The central evaluative debate about the presidency is whether the office has become too powerful (the "imperial" thesis) or is in fact dangerously weak and constrained (the "imperilled" thesis). The best answers recognise that the truth is conditional and varies with circumstance.
The term "imperial presidency" was popularised by the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1973 to describe an executive that had accumulated excessive power, especially over war and national security, escaping the checks the Founders intended. The supporting arguments include:
The image is of a presidency that has slipped its constitutional leash, particularly in foreign affairs and emergencies, where the President can act fast and present Congress with a fait accompli.
The counter-thesis holds that the President is in reality hemmed in and frequently frustrated:
The two theses are best reconciled by distinguishing domains: the presidency tends towards the imperial in foreign policy, war and national emergencies, where unilateral action is easiest, but towards the imperilled in domestic policy, where Congress, the courts and the bureaucracy impose powerful constraints. A President can therefore be simultaneously dominant abroad and stymied at home — which is why a flat verdict either way is a mark of a weaker answer.
The President's Cabinet consists of the heads of the great executive departments (such as State, Treasury and Defense) together with other officials accorded Cabinet rank. It differs profoundly from the UK Cabinet:
The President is thus far more dominant over their Cabinet than a UK Prime Minister, who must manage senior colleagues who command their own followings within the governing party and who sit, like the PM, in Parliament.
Created in 1939 to help the President manage an expanding federal government, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) has become more influential than the Cabinet in shaping and coordinating policy. Its key components include:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.