Podcast Summary
The Presidency's Excessive Power Departure from Founders' Intentions: The presidency's power has surpassed the founders' intentions, leading to concerns about potential abuse and impact on individual liberties
The role and power of the presidency in the United States have significantly exceeded the founders' intentions. Legal scholar Eric Posner argues that this shift, which has led to an increasingly powerful presidency, is a cause for concern. While it's true that Congress and the courts play significant roles in decision-making, the president holds considerable influence. This is a departure from the Madisonian Republic's checks and balances system, which aimed to prevent any one branch or individual from having too much power. As we look back on politics from a historical perspective, it's important to remember that seemingly significant issues may not matter in the long run. However, the growing power of the presidency raises questions about the potential for abuse and the impact on individual liberties.
Presidents Shaping the Role of the Presidency Beyond Constitutional Limits: Throughout history, great presidents have shaped the role of the presidency by pushing aside constitutional norms and laws, allowing decisive action but also leading to government straying from the founders' intentions.
The US Constitution, while intended to allow decisive action by the executive while preventing excessive power, has proven to be a loose and murky blueprint for the role of the president. Throughout history, presidents have shaped the role in their image, often pushing aside constitutional norms and laws to achieve great things. This trend, as argued by Eric Posner in his essay "Presidential Leadership and the Separation of Powers," can be seen in the actions of great presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. These leaders, while judged as great, also acted as major lawbreakers. The Constitution's checks and balances make it difficult for the national government to act, but they have also paved the way for presidents to define their roles and exceed their constitutional authority. This trend, as seen in the rhetoric of current political candidates, suggests that the US government has strayed far from the founders' intentions and the classical Roman Republic model of limited government.
The Evolution of the Madisonian System of Government: The Madisonian system, designed to prevent power concentration, has shifted over time, with the presidency gaining more power in the 20th century. While the system has remained effective, its rigidity might not be the best fit for managing complex governance.
The Madisonian system of government, which includes the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, has been a subject of debate and adaptation in the United States. While the system was designed to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the presidency, the balance of power shifted over time. For instance, during the 19th century, Congress held significant authority, but in the 20th century, the presidency gained more power through the creation of an administrative state. However, some presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase, Abraham Lincoln with the suspension of habeas corpus, and the impounding of funds by Lincoln, have at times overstepped their constitutional bounds. Despite these challenges, the system has generally remained effective in maintaining a balance of power. However, the experience of other countries that directly copied the US system suggests that parliamentary systems, which provide more flexibility in distributing power, might be more practical for managing complex governance.
Presidential power in times of crisis: During crises, presidents have expanded their authority, leading to permanent changes in the role and power of the presidency, such as the establishment of the modern administrative state.
The role and power of the presidency in American politics has evolved significantly over time. During times of crisis, such as the Civil War and World War II, presidents like Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt have expanded their authority beyond traditional constitutional boundaries. Lincoln suspended constitutional rules during the Civil War, Roosevelt used the bully pulpit to lead domestic policy, Wilson established the modern administrative state, and FDR acted as a de facto dictator during World War II. These presidents' actions led to permanent changes in the presidency's role, with the administrative state becoming more powerful and influential in American governance. While these actions were often taken in extreme circumstances, they demonstrate the flexibility of the American system to adapt to changing times.
The Expansion of Presidential Power: Since the founding, the US presidency has grown from a small post office to a massive entity with over three million employees, leading to significant expansion in domestic policy and foreign affairs. Congress has delegated much authority, and presidents have challenged the War Powers Act's constitutionality, raising questions about dictatorship.
The power of the US presidency has significantly expanded since the growth of the administrative state, particularly in areas of domestic policy and foreign affairs. The executive branch has grown from a small post office at the founding to a massive entity with over three million employees. Congress, which is supposed to be the center of lawmaking, has delegated much of its authority to the president and the many agencies under his or her control. The president's power in foreign and military affairs has also expanded, with presidents leading the country into wars without formal declarations of war from Congress and using military force without congressional authorization. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, was intended to limit the president's power in these areas, but it has had little effect. Despite this, every president since the War Powers Act has challenged its constitutionality. The accumulation of power by US presidents is not only substantial but cumulative, leading some to question whether the presidency is becoming a dictatorship. However, the term "dictatorship" is loaded and may not fully capture the complex reality of the modern presidency.
President's Role and Institutional Constraints: The President's power is not absolute, it's shaped by his role as leader of the country, party, and executive branch, and the political landscape, making it a complex issue.
While the President of the United States holds immense power, it is not unconstrained. The president's institutional role as leader of the country, the party, and the executive branch creates significant challenges and obstacles that limit his power. The Constitution provides some constraints, but the president's ability to govern is largely dependent on his ability to navigate the complexities of these roles and gain support from various groups. For instance, President Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo Bay faced opposition from both parties, highlighting the president's role as a leader of a political party and the challenges it poses to his agenda. Overall, the president's power is shaped by the institutional environment and the political landscape, making it a more nuanced and complex issue than commonly perceived.
Obama's Expansion of Executive Power in Immigration Policy: President Obama bypassed Congress through executive orders, expanding presidential power in immigration policy, setting a precedent for future presidents.
President Obama's use of executive orders, particularly in the area of immigration policy, represents a significant expansion of presidential power. Despite facing a Republican-controlled Congress that thwarted many of his policy goals, Obama employed executive orders to bypass the legislative process. This use of prosecutorial discretion, or enforcement power, allows the president to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. While previous presidents have used this power, Obama's scale and scope of executive action in the immigration arena has been controversial. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked Obama's attempt to grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, reaffirming the importance of the separation of powers and the rule of law. However, Obama's assertive use of executive power sets a precedent for future presidents.
Obama's Unconventional Policy Implementation: Obama used both legal and unconventional methods to implement policy initiatives, expanding presidential power significantly in the process.
President Obama's administration saw both normal constitutional channels and unconventional methods in implementing policy initiatives. He obtained laws from Congress for economic stimulus, financial regulation, and the Affordable Care Act. However, in implementing these laws and responding to the financial crisis, Obama utilized administrative powers with questionable legality. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, Obama expanded his authority and that of his successors to make significant policy decisions in the health and financial sectors, a vast expansion of power. This expansion of authority, granted through Congress, is a significant departure from James Madison's vision of a strictly limited presidency.
Obama's Policy Achievements Through Administrative Powers: President Obama made substantial progress on his policy agenda using executive powers, but faced limitations in areas like healthcare and financial reform
President Obama was able to accomplish a significant amount of his policy agenda through administrative powers, despite facing opposition from a Republican-controlled Congress. However, he was unable to achieve all of his goals, particularly in areas like healthcare and financial reform where a more ambitious approach was desired by his party. The Founding Fathers did not intend for an administrative state, but that is the system we have today. Obama's accomplishments are notable, but historians may evaluate his presidency differently based on unrealized goals and the public's desire for certain policies. I, as a neutral observer, believe that Dodd-Frank was a good idea, and Obama was generally correct in his push for healthcare reform. I knew Obama from law school, but we were not close friends.
Obama's Legacy as a Great President: Complex Problem of Expanding Power: Obama's aggressive governance and constitutional violations may make him a great president, but risks handing off power to a successor with different views. Trump's plans on immigration, taxes, and international alliances could face legal challenges and political backlash, highlighting the power and consequences of presidential actions.
President Obama's legacy as a great president is still uncertain and will depend on how history evaluates his decisions and actions. While some argue that his aggressive approach to governance and potential constitutional violations could make him a great president, others caution that these actions could be used negatively by future presidents. The calculus of a president expanding presidential power while potentially handing it off to a successor with different views presents a complex problem. Obama has acknowledged this risk but has also used executive actions to achieve immediate objectives. A President Trump, with his stated plans on immigration, taxes, and international alliances, could carry out many of his plans, despite potential legal challenges and political backlash. The power of the presidency to influence foreign policy and domestic laws is significant, and the consequences of its use will continue to be debated.
Expanding Presidential Power and Concerns of Dictatorship: Presidents have expanding power but not absolute control, limited by political support and the rights of citizens on American soil.
The power of the presidency in the United States has been expanding, leading to concerns about presidential primacy or even a potential dictatorship. Presidents have the authority to make agreements and even form alliances without Senate involvement, but they are limited in their ability to impact the rights and obligations of American citizens on American soil. While the presidency may not be heading towards full-blown dictatorship, the need for political support and the complexity of public opinion make it a far cry from the absolute power held by historical dictators. The Romans had a temporary dictator role, but modern usage of the term dictator conjures images of figures like Hitler. The president's power is more akin to an administrative state, but the lack of sustained political and executive branch support could limit any attempts to amass excessive power.
Exploring the future of cash through high-stakes robbery, tax evasion, and drug dealing: The future of cash is uncertain as some countries move towards a cashless society, and the podcast Freakonomics Radio delves deeper into the implications of this trend through various connected topics
Despite the potential terrifying implications, the practical use of cash is still constrained by various factors. The upcoming episode of Freakonomics Radio explores seemingly unrelated issues, such as high-stakes robbery, tax evasion, and drug dealing, all connected by the common thread of cash. Some countries are already moving towards a cashless society, and the future may hold the elimination of cash altogether. Money may not even exist in the 24th century. The podcast, produced by WNYC Studios and Dubner Productions, delves deeper into these topics and more. Tune in next time on Freakonomics Radio for a fascinating exploration of the future of cash. The podcast's team includes Greg Rosalski, Irv Agunja, Jake Cowett, Merritt Jacob, Christopher Worth, Caitlyn Pierce, Allison Hockenberry, Emma Morgenstern, and Harry Huggins. You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts, and visit Freakonomics.com for the complete podcast archive, transcripts, music credits, and more.
