Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this discussion question, read Chapters 5 and 6 in American Government and review Week Three Instructor Guidance. In addition, read the following articles: What Are the Arguments Made in Favor – and Against – the Electoral College?, GOP Leaders United in Defense of the Electoral College, and the ProQuest article Why the Electoral College is Bad for America.
http://humanevents.com/2011/05/18/gop-leaders-united-in-defense-of-electoral-college/
http://search.proquest.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/215688251?accountid=32521
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/8163
Reflect: As the textbook author asserts, the Framers intentionally designed a process for selecting presidents that would minimize the president’s political power – the Electoral College. They hoped this institution would insulate the chief executive from the public because they feared the power of presidents who might be elected by the people. However, the Electoral College has also spawned a long ongoing debate about whether the Electoral College should be abandoned in favor of new methods, which would ensure that the candidate elected has the most popular votes. The controversy over the Electoral College must be understood in order to better understand how and why U.S. presidents are elected. After you have read and studied the Electoral College process, you will critically think about the process and share your insights as you write your discussion.
Write: Explain the positive impact of the Electoral College and defend why the Electoral College should remain as it is currently. Be sure to include both the pros and the cons of keeping the Electoral College as it is currently.
First, all students should summarize how the Electoral College functions.
Second, each student will focus on a specific argument regarding the Electoral College, based on the first letter of their last name.
5 The Presidency
Associated Press/Kyodo
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe the sources of the president’s power and authority. • Explain the presidential elections process. • Analyze the difference between a domestic and a foreign policy president. • Describe how presidents use their political power. • Describe the organization of the White House. • Evaluate the concept of a wartime president. • Analyze how Congress limits presidential power. • Analyze the role of presidential character in evaluating presidents and presidential candidates.
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 107 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
In March 2011, an alliance of NATO countries, including the United States, launched air strikes against Libya in a humanitarian mission to assist rebels fighting against Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi. NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is an alliance of 28 countries that agreed to protect each other in case of attack. In justifying U.S. involvement in Libya, President Barack Obama insisted that the United States was part of a broad coalition. As military operations reached the 3-month point, questions arose about the legality of Amer- ican involvement.
The Constitution states that Con- gress has the authority to declare war, while it also obligates the president to serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. This obligation has led many presidents to engage in military acts without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war. President Obama claimed that his actions were in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires that the president notify Congress of the use of force.
Below is an excerpt from the War Powers Resolution. From Section 2:
The constitutional powers of the President as Com- mander-in-Chief to intro- duce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursu- ant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
From Section 3:
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circum- stances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostili- ties or have been removed from such situations.
According to the War Powers Resolution, a president who dispatches military units for any reason must notify Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Congress then has 90 days to either authorize the operation or demand that the units come home. In the case of Libya, President Obama formally notified Congress of the U.S. military’s participation. However, the speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, demanded that the president explain the mission
© Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press/Corbis
Previous members of President Obama’s administra- tion, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on Ameri- can military operations in Libya on March 31, 2011. Some congressional members contend that U.S. involve- ment in this operation violates the War Powers Act.
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 108 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority
to Congress and obtain its authorization to continue. The president insisted that he had no obligation to seek authorization before launching the air strikes because these actions were “hostilities” and not acts of war. This response angered many in Congress.
As the War Powers Resolution placed the ball in Congress’s court, the House of Representa- tives voted down a bill that would authorize the president to continue American involvement. The president asserted that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it inter- fered with his commander-in-chief power. This episode raises questions about how much authority the president has to make decisions in the commander-in-chief role as framed by the Constitution.
In this chapter, we look at the American presidency and how it has evolved over time. The Constitution grants the president formal authority that is limited by Congress. The extent to which the president has any real power stems from the relationships that he or she estab- lishes and cultivates. The Framers did not fully address the issue of presidential war power because they were uncertain of what the president would do and they did not foresee all the contingencies that might arise that would require the president to exercise war power.
5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority
The Framers of the Constitution created a presidency that would take direction from Con- gress. The president is given several formal constitutional powers, most of which are checked by Congress. Presidential power is intended to be used to preserve and protect the Constitu- tion through the president’s expressed and inherent powers. Expressed powers refers to pow- ers listed explicitly in the U.S. Constitution. Inherent powers refers to powers that have been inferred from language in the U.S. Constitution. Together, expressed and inherent powers in the Constitution establish the office of the presidency and give its occupant the authority to preserve and protect the Constitution.
Article II of the Constitution establishes executive power and who may hold it: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II also establishes the president’s formal authority, which includes being commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces and chief executive. The president also has the authority to negotiate treaties, nomi- nate persons for high-level appointed office, veto acts of Congress, and grant reprieves and pardons. The language of the Constitution gives the president the power to make treaties as long as two thirds of the Senate concurs. This example of checks and balances is referred to as “advice and consent” in the U.S. Constitution. The Senate also has the power to confirm presi- dential nominations to high-level office. The veto power, which is the power of the president to reject bills passed by Congress, is found in Article I.
Authority as Commander in Chief
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” This means that the president must authorize any use
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 109 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority
of force by the military. It does not mean that he or she will personally lead troops into battle like a medieval European king. The requirement that presidents authorize the use of force establishes the sacred principle of civilian control of the armed forces. If the military estab- lishment were equal in power to other institutions, it could easily overthrow the civilian gov- ernment and thus upend one of the hallmarks of modern democratic governance, the peace- ful transfer of power.
Civilian control, at least in the early days of the American republic, was ensured by the absence of large standing armies. In fact, the Consti- tution mentions an army and navy only because these were the only two branches of the military that existed when it was written. They were separate departments, and each was equal to the other. The secretary of war and the secretary of navy both sat in the president’s Cabinet.
Today’s Cabinet includes a single secretary of defense, but that posi- tion was not created until after World War II, with the passage of the 1947 National Defense Act,
the law that created a unified Defense Department. Until that global conflict, the United States called state militia—what are known today as National Guard units—into national service. Much of the American fighting forces are still made up of National Guard units. They were called up in 2001 when the nation went into Afghanistan, and again in 2003 when it went into Iraq. Militia members of these units are normally under the command of their respective governors, but once called, they are under the command of the president.
Use of the state militias for national service was formally adopted with the Militia Act of 1792, which gave the president the authority, in the event or threat of an invasion, to call into ser- vice as many troops from state militia as would be needed to repel the invasion. The president would be able to call upon those militia companies that would be “most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action.” This meant that if the country were invaded off the shore of Maine, the president could call on militia companies in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Because they would be close to the place of invasion, they could respond quickly. This would also give the states a role in defending the nation. Instead of having to build national bases in all the states to house a standing army, the army would be formed as needed. Less than a week after the Militia Act was passed, Congress passed a second Militia Act of 1792, which required each able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 to enroll in the militia of his respective state.
The organization of the country’s military forces fundamentally changed in the 20th century. In 1903, Congress passed legislation to organize the various state militias into the current National Guard system, which was to be administered jointly by the National Guard Bureau
Associated Press/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
President Obama speaks to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution specifically establishes that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 110 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.1 Presidential Constitutional Authority
and the U.S. Department of Defense. With passage of the 1916 National Defense Act, approxi- mately one half of the U.S. Army’s available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organizations were National Guard units.
To call the militia into service during a time of crisis is to rely on civilian defense and to democratize the sense of sacrifice, a concept that still resonates today. As an example, when the United States went to war with Iraq in 1991, it amassed around 500,000 troops on Iraq’s border. Most of these troops were taken from state National Guard units. The United States certainly could have used its professional national army, but by calling on state units, the president gave all citizens a stake in the outcome.
Authority to Pardon
Article II, Section 2 also grants the president the authority to issue pardons. The president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.” This would seem to suggest that the president can pardon anyone who has committed a federal crime.
Presidents may pardon convicted criminals who have already served part of their prison sen- tence. The president might issue a partial pardon, which often amounts to a commutation of a sentence, or pardon somebody who has long been a fugitive from justice. President Bill Clinton, for example, pardoned Marc Rich, a financier charged with evading $48 million in taxes and committing more than 50 counts of fraud. Rich had fled the country and was living in Switzerland at the time of his indictment.
As another example, in 1974 President Gerald Ford issued a full pardon to Richard Nixon for Nixon’s role in the Watergate cover-up, which meant that the former president could never be charged for crimes related to Watergate. The Nixon pardon was viewed as an attempt to heal a badly divided nation and move forward.
A president does not usually decide on pardons by him- or herself. Most of the time, he or she does not know the person being pardoned. Rather, somebody may apply for a pardon, in which case White House lawyers and the Justice Department study the matter and make a recommendation.
Veto Authority
As a check on the power of the legislative branch, the Constitution gives the president the authority to veto bills passed by Congress. One potential consequence of vetoes is that they might invite Congress to respond, if Congress has the votes, by overriding the veto. An over- ride is often seen as a political defeat for a president. Overrides are rare; only 7% of all vetoes have been overridden since the beginning of the republic.
When the president vetoes a bill, the president must veto the entire bill and not parts of it; the U.S. Constitution does not provide for what is called a line-item veto. Congress gave Presi- dent Bill Clinton the line-item veto with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The law was soon overturned by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998). The Supreme Court
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 111 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2 Presidential Elections
struck down the law because the act violates the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7), which requires that bills passed by both houses of Congress be presented to the president for his or her signature. In essence, the Presentment Clause outlines the legislative process, which the Supreme Court argued was violated by giving the president the line-item veto.
Treaty Making and Effective War-Making Authority
Section 2 also says that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” This means that the president can make treaties with other countries, but they are not binding on future governments unless they are ratified by the U.S. Senate. A president may negotiate a treaty to end a war, but the Senate may opt not to ratify it.
In the aftermath of World War I (1914–1918), President Woodrow Wilson sought to make the United States a signatory to the Versailles Treaty, which was the agreement that effectively ended the war. Part of the treaty was a call for the for- mation of a new League of Nations, an intergovernmental organiza- tion that would foster peace and international disarmament. Wilson wanted the United States to join this league, but some members of Congress believed that it could lead to U.S. involvement in conflicts that did not concern the country. When Wilson refused to compromise on any parts of the treaty, the Senate failed to ratify it, and Wilson never recovered politically. When the Senate refuses to ratify a treaty, it puts the president and the nation in a vulnerable position because it can be construed as a sign of weakness. Another country, sensing that weakness, may view it as an opportunity to wage war against the United States.
5.2 Presidential Elections
In addition to stipulating presidential powers, Article II also sets forth guidelines for presi- dential elections. For example, it states that the president “shall hold office during the term of four years.” Presidential elections take place in two distinct phases. The first phase is the nomination phase, which normally begins in January of presidential election years. Through a
Associated Press/Andrew Harnik
Members of anti-war group Code Pink show support for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which was negotiated in the summer of 2015. The deal was controversial because Republican lawmakers felt the Obama administration had withheld information about the deal in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s treaty authority.
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 112 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2 Presidential Elections
series of primaries and caucuses run on a state-by-state basis, delegates are chosen to attend party-nominating conventions. Following the conventions, the party nominees begin cam- paigning for the general election that is held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
Presidential Primaries
Although the nomination season begins in January, those seeking the presidency often begin their quest as early as 2 years before a national election. Candidates may declare their inten- tions to run a year in advance of the nomination season. During this time, they travel around the country and meet voters, state party chairs, and potential donors. Running for office entails a lot of retail politics, which involves candidates interacting with voters one on one, such as by taking part in local events.
The season begins in earnest with the Iowa caucuses. During a caucus, individuals gather for a few hours at a local meeting place and move to a section of the room designated for their favorite candidate’s supporters. During this process, they can be challenged by another candidate’s supporters. At the end of the exercise, the number of delegates apportioned to a candidate is based on the percentage of support each receives.
Iowa does not produce many delegates, but, as the first state in the nomination season, it pro- vides momentum going into bigger contests as an indicator of party support. The next contest is the New Hampshire primary. Primaries are like elections in that polling places are open for at least 12 hours and registered voters come to the polling place and vote as individuals. There are two types of primaries. Closed primaries require that voters be registered with the political party of the primary in which they are voting. Closed primaries exclude registered independents. Open primaries allow registered voters, including registered independents, to choose the party’s primary in which they would like to vote regardless of their party registra- tion. As with caucuses, delegates are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote that each candidate receives.
Candidates who win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary are often advantaged in the early weeks of the nomination season because money follows winners. Candidates who win either of these contests are able to draw significant contributions and media atten- tion, which in turn help them to spend money on advertising in bigger contests that produce more delegates. Those who do not fare well early in the season usually find it difficult to raise money and will likely drop out. Raising funds is critical because a successful candidate can spend more than $500 million. Voters living in states holding their primaries late in the season will likely choose between just two candidates unless all but one candidate has with- drawn from the race.
Each political party finishes the first part of the presidential election season during the sum- mer of the election year with its nominating conventions. Each party nominates a president/ vice-president ticket based on the number of delegates received by the presidential candi- dates. The presidential nominee is the person receiving the most delegates, and the presumed nominee selects the vice-presidential candidate. The official campaign for president then begins in September.
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 113 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2 Presidential Elections
The Electoral College
The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col- lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is dictated in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a num- ber of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa- tive . . . shall be appointed an elector.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes cast (including three for the District of Columbia), and a candidate needs a simple majority—270—to win. For most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state wins that state’s electors. The only exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote in each state’s congressional district. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state also earns two statewide votes.
Each candidate’s party signs up a slate of electors, who are then pledged to vote for that can- didate. As an example, New York casts 29 electoral votes. In 2012, the two major candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, signed up slates of 29 electors each in the state (see Fig- ure 5.1). Because Obama won the popular vote in New York, his slate voted in the Electoral College and Romney’s slate did not. The winner-take-all system often results in candidates earning a far higher percentage of electoral votes compared with the popular vote. For exam- ple, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned 43% of the popular vote and President George H. W. Bush earned 38%. (Independent candidate H. Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote but did not win the popular vote in any state. This means that Perot did not win any Electoral College votes.) Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote with 69%; Clinton earned less than half of the popular vote and more than two thirds of the Electoral College vote.
In choosing where to invest resources, candidates and their campaign organizations usually choose states with close races (often called battleground states). They tend not to spend too much time or money in states where they are already likely to win or lose that state’s Electoral College vote. Because minority groups, whether racial, ethnic, or religious, tend to be concentrated in large, electoral vote-rich states, the electoral sys- tem provides representation for these groups that they otherwise might not enjoy. If they vote as a group, they can form a voting bloc
Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin
As president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Electoral College vote count that reelected President Barack Obama in 2012.
Figure 5.1: Electoral College map of 2012 election
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote.
From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg).
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 114 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg
Section 5.2 Presidential Elections
The Electoral College
The president is elected by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. The Electoral Col- lege is composed of electors from each state. The number of electors each state is allotted is dictated in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a num- ber of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa- tive . . . shall be appointed an elector.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes cast (including three for the District of Columbia), and a candidate needs a simple majority—270—to win. For most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state wins that state’s electors. The only exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, which allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote in each state’s congressional district. The candidate who wins the popular vote in the state also earns two statewide votes.
Each candidate’s party signs up a slate of electors, who are then pledged to vote for that can- didate. As an example, New York casts 29 electoral votes. In 2012, the two major candidates, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, signed up slates of 29 electors each in the state (see Fig- ure 5.1). Because Obama won the popular vote in New York, his slate voted in the Electoral College and Romney’s slate did not. The winner-take-all system often results in candidates earning a far higher percentage of electoral votes compared with the popular vote. For exam- ple, in 1992, Bill Clinton earned 43% of the popular vote and President George H. W. Bush earned 38%. (Independent candidate H. Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote but did not win the popular vote in any state. This means that Perot did not win any Electoral College votes.) Bill Clinton won the Electoral College vote with 69%; Clinton earned less than half of the popular vote and more than two thirds of the Electoral College vote.
In choosing where to invest resources, candidates and their campaign organizations usually choose states with close races (often called battleground states). They tend not to spend too much time or money in states where they are already likely to win or lose that state’s Electoral College vote. Because minority groups, whether racial, ethnic, or religious, tend to be concentrated in large, electoral vote-rich states, the electoral sys- tem provides representation for these groups that they otherwise might not enjoy. If they vote as a group, they can form a voting bloc
Associated Press/Jacquelyn Martin
As president of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Electoral College vote count that reelected President Barack Obama in 2012.
Figure 5.1: Electoral College map of 2012 election
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote.
From “Electoral College map,” by G. Skidmore, 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg).
that can make or break the state for a candidate, because the winner of the state’s popular vote (no matter how slim the margin) will win that state’s electoral vote in all but two states.
Still, there are those who maintain that the Electoral College system is not democratic. It rarely happens that a candidate who wins the popular vote loses the Electoral College, but it has happened four times, including 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In the presidential election of 1876, Samuel Tilden, a Democrat from New York, won the popular vote over Republican Rutherford B. Hayes from Ohio. The Electoral College vote was in question because Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each sent two sets of electoral votes to Congress.
In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote over Republican Texas Gov- ernor George W. Bush. Gore was leading in the Electoral College on Election Day, although the outcome in Florida was unknown. Without Florida’s 25 electoral votes, neither candidate would have the needed 270 electoral votes to win (266 for Gore, 246 for Bush). The number of total electoral votes cast was 537, and not 538, in 2000 because an elector from the Dis- trict of Columbia abstained from voting in the Electoral College that year, although Florida’s electoral votes would put either candidate over the top. After several recounts and an order from the Florida Supreme Court to have a full recount, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the recounting to stop. Bush was declared the winner, and Gore conceded defeat. Many Florida voters, especially minorities, believed that their votes were not counted because of confusion
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 115 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg
Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents
about ballot design, misplaced ballots, and other concerns. This election especially left a sour aftertaste because it appeared to many that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of a presidential election for the first time.
5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents
The president of the United States is the most important political leader in the country. When the president speaks, the words carry weight and have influence. But the president’s influ- ence is not even in all policy realms. Political scientist Aaron Wildavsky famously observed that from a political standpoint, the nation is usually led by two presidents embodied in one person. One is a domestic policy president, who tends to be weak, and the other is a foreign policy president, who tends to be strong.
The Domestic Policy President
In the realm of domestic policy, Congress tends to dominate because Americans tend to be more concerned about issues closer to home than they are about issues abroad. Because most members of Congress are elected and reelected on the basis of local issues and their ability to deliver goods back to their districts, Congress is reluctant to defer to the president on those domestic issues. On the contrary, if a presidential agenda interferes with the interests of a member’s constituency, that member may choose to vote against the president even if he or she is of the same political party.
A domestic policy president is also reined in by changes in the composition of Congress. The president’s party most often experiences losses in midterm congressional elections, which weakens the presidential mandate. A mandate is the perception that an elected official can do what he or she thinks the people want because of the popular support due to an electoral vic- tory. Winning by a wide margin means a stronger mandate. Additionally, Congress members winning reelection may be anxious about the next election and may less often support the president’s agenda. In the midterm election of 2014, President Obama’s party lost 13 seats in the House of Representatives and nine seats in the U.S. Senate. In losing those nine seats in the Senate, the Democrats lost their majority party status. Midterm elections are best understood in the context of surge and decline theory. Surge and decline theory argues that midterm con- gressional elections, which are considered low stimulus because the general public pays less attention compared with high-stimulus presidential elections, attract core voters. Core voters tend to vote against the president’s party in midterm congressional elections. Consequently, the president’s party tends to lose seats in both houses of Congress during midterm elections. While the end result may be gridlock, it may also be viewed as an assertion of constitutional checks and balances.
Still, the president is increasingly expected to play more of a role in domestic policy. During an economic recession, when more people are out of work, the public tends to hold the president responsible and expect that the president will pursue policies that create jobs. During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt actively pursued policies to get the nation
fin82797_05_c05_107-132.indd 116 3/24/16 1:42 PM
© 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.3 The Difference Between Domestic and Foreign Policy Presidents
back to work. Following World War II, Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946, which specified a greater role for the president in economic policy. To that end, the law established the new office of the Council of Economic Advisors, a group that would monitor the economy and prepare reports that the president would submit to Congress each year. This meant that the president and his staff would be involved in planning the budget and, by extension, estab- lishing the nation’s domestic policy priorities.
