The Constitution: Presidential Powers
PragerU
Americans fought a long and bloody war to get rid of one tyrant, the English King, George III. They didn’t want to install a new one of their own making. So how did the Framers ensure that the President would have enough power to be an effective chief executive, without making him a dictator? John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has the answer.
#prageru #president #constitution #history #americanhistory
Show More
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join
Script:
How much power should we give to the President? This was one of the most vexing (and critical) questions facing the Framers of the United States Constitution in the summer of 1787.
To be effective, the President had to be perceived—both in times of war and peace—as the leader of the nation. For this to happen, he would have to be given significant authority. Americans learned this lesson in the years following the Revolutionary War when the nation floundered under the Articles of Confederation which had no provision for a chief executive.
But this chief executive couldn’t be made so strong that he could become a tyrant. Americans fought a long and bloody war to get rid of one tyrant, the English King, George III. Nobody wanted to install a new one in his place.
The Framers answer is found in Article II.
The opening sentence reads as follows: “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” This might sound straightforward, but it was anything but.
Here’s why.
“The vesting clause” of Article II, as it’s known, differs significantly from the vesting clause of Article I, which concerns the powers of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article I’s vesting clause states: “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” It then goes on to list those limited powers. That’s it. Congress can’t do anything else.
There are no such limitations specified in Article II. The difference is subtle, but
