George W. Bush: Imperilled or Imperial Presidency?

In recent years the power of the President has been questioned and the extent of their authority may come under two different theories; that of an Imperilled Presidency and that of an Imperial Presidency. An Imperilled Presidency suggests that rather than being too powerful, the President does not have enough power to be effective; whereas an Imperial Presidency is where the US President is out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits. There are many arguments that support both sides of the debate and whether George Bush's reign has been that of either one can be discussed. How Imperial or Imperilled his presidency has been can be measured by comparing his powers with other branches of Government, the powers of patronage and his powers in terms of foreign policy. Recent events such as the War on Terror and the media have had a massive influence over this debate and limitations have been placed upon the President's power, yet other arguments suggest a more Imperial reign.

The attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001 offered Bush an opportunity to establish his political credibility, to reassert presidential leadership and to defend the interests of the United States.

ARGUMENTS:

• As staff numbers increased, many people were appointed who held personal loyalty to the person holding the office of president, and who were not subject to outside approval or control.

• The White House Chief of Staff position has evolved into a powerful executive position when held by a strong-willed figure in an administration of a hands off president who left day to day governance to his cabinet and his Chief of Staff. Donald Regan as Chief of Staff and Ronald Reagan as president were seen as examples of this quasi-prime ministerial relationship.

• A range of new advisory bodies developed around the presidency, many of which complemented (critics suggest rivaled) the main cabinet departments, with the cabinet declining in influence. The National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget are prime examples.

• The Senate does not "advise and consent" to appointments to the Executive Office of the President (with only a handful of exceptions), as it does with cabinet appointments. A corollary of this is that EOP personnel may act independent of, without regard for, and without accountability to Congress.

Some have suggested that the range of new agencies, the importance of the Chief of Staff, and the large number of officials created a virtual 'royal court' around the President, with members not answerable to anyone but the President and on occasions acting independent of him also.

The presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were particularly described as surrounded by "courts", where junior staffers acted on occasions in contravention of executive orders or Acts of Congress. The activities of some Nixon staffers during the Watergate affair are often held up as an example. Under Reagan (1981â€"1989) the role of Colonel Oliver North in the facilitation of funding to the Contras in Nicaragua, in explicit contravention of a United States Congressional ban, has been highlighted as an example of a "junior courtier's" ability to act, based on his position as a member of a large White House staff. Howard Baker, who served as Reagan's last Chief of Staff, was critical of the growth, complexity and apparent unanswerability of the presidential "court".

Criticisms

Those that believe the presidency is not imperial in nature argue that:

• the Executive Office of the President makes up only a very small part of the federal bureaucracy and the President has very little influence as to the appointment of most members of the federal bureaucracy;

• the number of people within the EOP is tiny and there is no institutional continuity at all;

• the organization and functioning of most of the Federal government is determined by federal law and the President has little power to reorganize most of the federal government.

It has also been argued[2] that the concept of the imperial presidency neglects several important changes in