Yesterday in class we discussed the president’s role with the legislature and what that role was designed to be whether or not we think that it is as it was designed to be. When looking at the way the system was designed, the founders left it open for great interpretation. It doesn’t appear that there is one right answer as to how the president is supposed to approach legislation and the legislature.
Originally, I think that the founders main focus was to keep the presidency from having too much power and to limit the president’s power over legislation and the enactment of laws as much as possible in order to keep the president from being like a king who both enacts laws and carries them out. So, they made the president’s only job the execution of the laws that Congress passes (yes he has other powers, but I am only specifically focusing on powers related to legislation and execution of laws).
Regardless of what was intended, that is obviously not the case today. The president doesn’t just make sure that the laws are executed, he attempts to influence the passage of new legislation that is in accordance with his vision and often times, seems to propose legislation. He works to convince constituents that new legislation is needed and also works to build cooperation in Congress so as to speed the process of creating legislation along. Yes, it is Congress’ job to pass the legislation, as the president cannot do that. The question is whether or not, it is only Congress’ job to work on and influence the passage of legislation. Is the legislature completely separate from the executive? I would say no. The founders designed the branches to check each other so naturally that have to be related in some way and cannot always be completely separate. So because of this, I think the president should have the ability to influence the legislature to some extent. I don’t necessarily think that he should control the legislature though or guide their actions completely. I think that it is the president’s responsibility to instead build cooperation among members in Congress to motivate action on certain issues instead of telling them in which direction to head.
Unfortunately, because Congress is so large and often divided by partisan interests, I think that it would be very difficult for Congress to take action and create the monumental change that is needed in our country. The founders did indeed design the system to be slow, but with today’s quickly changing world, more rapid change is needed. Without a leader, I think that it would be very difficult for Congress to decide in which direction to head, to decide which legislation needs to be passed first. That direction I think is what needs to come from the president. I think that it is the president’s job to provide the vision, to decide which issues to tackle because if he didn’t, I think that much less would get done than does now. In doing this, I don’t think he should force anything to happen but merely build consensus and try to steer Congress in the direction that he believes to be the best for the country. It is possible that Congress would be able to overcome the partisan divisions in order to accomplish things on its own but I think that that would require even more time than the process takes now. I hesitate to say that the president should expedite the process as it is meant to be slow, but I think that sometimes, the current change that is needed needs to happen sooner and not later and should be pushed along by our president.
This issue over the president’s control in legislative affairs is a difficult one to argue. The founding fathers did create the role of the presidency to be abscent from legislative affairs, but like you mentioned in your post, we can see that clearly is not the case today. When we often talk about key important pieces of legislation we don’t reference or call it by the house majority leader’s name or call it by some other Congressional official’s name, we refer to the legislation as the presidents bill. I think it is a phenomenon looking at the evolution of the presidency and seeing just how much of a stake he or she now has in the legislative branch. Nick, you were right with the idea of being able to persuade and create consensus, but I’m still not sure that’s the right way to go. I think that it is important that the president restrains him/herself from getting involved, because too much involvment could affect the way in which legislation is passed, and the president’s position could potentially be compromised by someone who looks out for their own personal gain. This debate his a hard one to juggle, and I don’t think we can completely argue one way or another. I would like to see the president step back a little bit on legislative affairs.
By: mmccloskey11 on December 11, 2009
at 12:10 am