The Evolution of the Presidency

A Monument to Presidential Legacy: Mt. Rushmore

Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota immortalizes four of America's most transformative presidents
— George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Their
selection reflects the different ways each reshaped the presidency and the nation, symbolizing the
evolving power and purpose of the executive office in American political history.

From a Limited Role to a Central Power

When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the late 1700s, the presidency was intentionally
limited to prevent authoritarian rule. Early presidents like Washington, Adams, and Jefferson
helped define the office through their personal leadership. Still, throughout most of the 19th
century, the U.S. Congress remained the dominant branch of government. It wasn't until the 20th
century — particularly after the 1930s — that the presidency became as powerful as, or arguably
more powerful than, Congress. This shift resulted from historical crises, global responsibilities,
and individual presidential leadership.

Constitutional Foundation of the Presidency

Basic Qualifications and Compensation

As defined in Article II of the Constitution, to qualify as President, a person must be:

• A natural-born citizen of the United States

• At least 35 years old
• A resident within the United States for at least 14 years

The President receives a salary set by Congress, which cannot be increased or decreased during
the term. As of 2001, this salary is $400,000 — a figure reflecting both the importance and
intensity of the office.

Electoral College and Succession

The original method of electing the President was complex and has since been modified by the
Twelfth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments. Electors are chosen by each state, and if no candidate
secures a majority, the House of Representatives decides the outcome. Succession rules ensure
continuity of leadership in case of death, resignation, or removal from office.

Enumerated Powers under the Constitution

Military Powers: Civilian Leadership of the Armed Forces
The President is designated as Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and state militias when
called into national service. This role was deliberately placed in civilian hands to prevent
military dictatorship. While Congress funds and declares war, the President commands the actual
operations — a dynamic that has led to significant presidential authority in wartime, sometimes
bypassing legislative input.

Diplomatic Powers: Foreign Relations and Recognition

The President leads foreign policy by:

• Making treaties (with Senate approval)

• Appointing ambassadors
• Receiving foreign dignitaries
This role allows the President to shape international relationships and respond quickly to
global developments, often making diplomacy a powerful tool of the executive.

Appointment Powers: Shaping the Bureaucracy and Judiciary

With Senate confirmation, the President appoints:

• Ambassadors
• Federal judges (including Supreme Court justices)
• Cabinet members and other federal officers

This power has long-term implications, especially in shaping the judiciary and executive
bureaucracy according to the President's vision.

Legislative Powers: Veto and Influence

Presidents may veto congressional bills, but Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote
in both chambers. Additionally, Presidents can:

• Propose legislation
• Deliver the State of the Union Address
• Convene or adjourn Congress on special occasions

Though not a lawmaker, the President plays a central role in setting national priorities and
directing legislative focus.

Impeachment and Removal

The Constitution allows for the President, Vice President, and other civil officers to be removed
from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This provision
ensures that executive power remains accountable.
Strengthening the Presidency: Key Turning Points
Andrew Jackson: Populism and the Assertive Executive

President Jackson (1829–1837) was a transformative figure. His deep connection to the common
people, extensive use of the veto, and willingness to confront both Congress and states (like in
the Nullification Crisis) redefined the presidency. He treated it as the primary voice of the
people, a departure from earlier, more reserved presidents.

Abraham Lincoln: Emergency Powers in Crisis

During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised extraordinary authority, including suspending habeas
corpus and expanding military operations without congressional consent. Though controversial,
his actions preserved the Union and solidified the idea that the President could act decisively in
times of national emergency.

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson: Progressive Leadership

Roosevelt transformed the presidency into a platform for reform and global power. He viewed
the President as a “steward of the people” who could act unless expressly forbidden by the
Constitution. Wilson, on the other hand, used the office to propose legislation and assert moral
leadership during World War I. Both believed in a more active executive that led both policy and
public opinion.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Modern Presidency

FDR fundamentally redefined the presidency during the Great Depression and World War II. His
New Deal greatly expanded federal authority over the economy, and his leadership during
wartime established the U.S. as a global power. Elected four times, he created the expectation
that Presidents must lead in both domestic and international crises. His legacy shaped the modern
executive branch with its large bureaucracy and policy reach.

Conclusion: The Evolution of Presidential Power

The presidency has evolved from a limited, largely ceremonial role into a powerful, complex
institution that often sets the tone for national policy and international diplomacy. This evolution
occurred not only through constitutional interpretation but also through the force of
circumstances — economic depressions, wars, and global leadership demands — and, perhaps
most crucially, through the actions and ambitions of individual presidents.

Critics have long warned against the “imperial presidency,” where too much power concentrates
in one individual. Nonetheless, in a fast-changing world, the American President is expected to
respond swiftly, decisively, and visibly — often far beyond what the Constitution’s framers
envisioned. The balance of power between the branches remains a vital, ongoing debate in
American democracy.
Separation of Powers and Checks and
Balances in the U.S. Constitution
Introduction: Origins of the Doctrine
The doctrine of Separation of Powers, or trias politica, was conceptualized by Charles-Louis
de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political philosopher. In his
seminal work The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu argued that liberty is best protected
when the functions of government are divided among distinct branches — legislative, executive,
and judiciary — each acting independently and without encroaching upon the powers of the
others. His ideas profoundly influenced both the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France
and the U.S. Constitution, laying a foundational principle for modern constitutional
democracies.

One of the strongest early endorsements of this doctrine came from James Madison, a principal
architect of the U.S. Constitution, who wrote in The Federalist No. 47:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may
justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, wary of centralized power due to their experiences with
British monarchy, adopted a two-pronged model of governance:

1. Separation of Powers — to divide authority horizontally among the three branches of

government.
2. Checks and Balances — to create institutional safeguards against abuse by any one
branch.

I. The Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the U.S.

The U.S. Constitution embodies this doctrine through a clear allocation of powers:

1. The Legislative Branch (Congress)

Established under Article I, Congress is tasked with:

• Making laws
• Declaring war
• Regulating interstate and foreign commerce
• Controlling taxing and spending policies
• Appropriating federal funds
Congress comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate, forming a bicameral system
that itself reflects internal checks.

2. The Executive Branch

Outlined in Article II, the President — as head of the executive — is responsible for:

• Enforcing federal laws

• Serving as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces
• Conducting

4. Horizontal and Vertical Separation

• Horizontal separation: Powers divided among the three federal branches.

• Vertical separation (Federalism): Powers distributed between the federal government
and individual state governments, ensuring dual sovereignty and protecting local
autonomy.

Checks and Balances in the U.S. Constitution

The system of checks and balances complements the doctrine of separation of powers by
ensuring that no branch of government—legislative, executive, or judicial—can dominate or
misuse its authority. Though not labeled explicitly in the Constitution, this principle is built into
its structure to prevent tyranny and preserve liberty.

Though not explicitly labeled as “checks and balances” in the Constitution, the principle is
deeply embedded in its structure. Article I, Article II, and Article III respectively grant powers
to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches but also include mechanisms that enable each
to restrain the others. The idea was famously championed by James Madison, who described
checks and balances as necessary weapons against the encroachment of power, ensuring
accountability and mutual oversight.

Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality and legality of
actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches. It acts as a guardian of the
Constitution by ensuring that all governmental actions conform to its provisions. In the United
States, this doctrine was established not explicitly through the text of the Constitution, but
through judicial interpretation of Article III in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison
(1803), decided by Chief Justice John Marshall.
This case arose from a political conflict involving William Marbury, who had been appointed
as a justice of the peace by the outgoing President John Adams. When the new administration
under President Thomas Jefferson took office, the new Secretary of State, James Madison,
refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court under
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus compelling government officials to act.

In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court declared that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act
exceeded the original jurisdiction granted to the Court under the Constitution and was therefore
unconstitutional. This decision marked the first time the Supreme Court invalidated a federal
law, establishing the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it is the
duty of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it.

Chief Justice Marshall famously stated:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

This ruling laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial review, giving the judiciary the
authority to invalidate laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution.

The principle was further endorsed by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 78),
where he argued:

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution
is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.”

Judicial review is not directly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but its legitimacy derives
from Article III, which establishes the judicial power of the federal courts. Since the Marbury
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down over 125 federal statutes and hundreds of
state laws as unconstitutional, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional
order.

This power is essential in a constitutional democracy where the Constitution is a higher law,
and all other laws must conform to it. Judicial review prevents arbitrary or excessive use of
power by any branch of government and safeguards the rights and liberties of citizens.

Judicial Review and the Living Constitution

The Constitution is not amended frequently, nor does it contain exhaustive provisions for every
situation. Instead, it provides broad principles meant to guide governance across generations.
As James Madison put it:

“In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes
which ages will produce.”
Thus, the U.S. Constitution is often referred to as a “living document”—one that grows and
adapts through interpretation. The judiciary plays a crucial role in updating constitutional
meaning to address new challenges and societal changes. Through this process, judicial review
allows the Constitution to remain relevant in an evolving political, economic, and technological
landscape.

4.1 Leading Cases

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): This foundational case firmly established the judiciary’s
power to review and invalidate acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution. It
marked a crucial turning point, asserting the Supreme Court’s role as the final
interpreter of the Constitution.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): This case addressed the “Necessary and Proper
Clause” in Article I, Section 8. When the State of Maryland attempted to tax a
federally established bank, the Court ruled that Congress has implied powers necessary
to carry out its enumerated duties. The ruling emphasized that federal laws override
conflicting state laws, reinforcing national supremacy.
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): In this case, the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause in
Article I, Section 8, affirming that Congress has the exclusive power to regulate
interstate commerce. The decision invalidated a New York state law that conflicted with
federal licensing, reinforcing the principle of federal dominance in commercial
regulation.

These landmark cases demonstrate the evolution of judicial review and how it has enabled the
judiciary to resolve constitutional ambiguities, enforce federal supremacy, and protect
individual rights.