I. Hamilton’s purpose for Federalist 69
   A. Opponents to the Constitution claim that the proposed Head of State (the President) would be as powerful as the King of England. (Americans had just fought to free themselves from the rule of that King, they didn’t want another King.)
  B.  Many Americans feared Constitution would give to much power to a smaller number of individuals and the National Government.
  C. Hamilton sells the proposed executive to the American people as an executive with limited power and contrasts the President to the King of England and even State Governors that had less limits on their power than the President did.
II. Powers of the President according to Hamilton
     A.   Can stop a bill unless Congress approves it w/ ¾ vote.
     B.   Commander in chief of army, navy (at all times), and militias of the states (at certain times)
     C.  Pardons and reprieves in all cases except Impeachment
     D.  Can convene both houses of Congress in extraordinary circumstances
     E.    Commission all officers of the United States.
     F.   Recommend measures of expediency to Congress
     G. can nominate Ambassadors, Public Ministers, Supreme Court Justices and any other officers not mentioned in the Constitution W/ Advice and Consent of Senate.
III. President V. King of England
      A. King: Hereditary, Sacred, not questionable, rules for whole lifetime.  President: up for election every 4 years, subject to Impeachment, amendable to personal punishment and disgrace.
      B. King:  Can command and Raise Armies and declare war. President: Commander in chief but can only fund army w/ Congressional Approval and cannot declare war. 
      C. King:  has vast control of the economy.  President: Cannot make rules for nation’s Commerce.
      D. King:  Head and Supreme Governor of Nat’l Church.  President: No spiritual authority.
     E. King: Can dissolve Parliament for as long as he wishes and when he wishes.  President:  Can only dissolve Congress in certain situations of disagreement about the time of adjournment.
     F. King has unlimited appointment powers.
IV. Powers Held by State Governors and not by the President.
      A.  Impeachment:  Easier to Impeach President than Gov.s of NY., VA., Del.
      B.  Pardons: Gov. Of NY could pardon in Cases of Impeachment (but not in Murder or treason.)  President cannot pardon an impeachment.
      C. Gov of NY can dissolve legislature more often than the President.
      D. Gov. of NY can appoint with consent of a Council of himself and four state senators.  President- Advice and consent of Senate.
V. Conclusion: President obviously has less power than King of England.  Has fewer limits to his power that state Governors in some respects but has more limitations in some respects. 
 
 

1. The nature of the President
1. To be elected for four years
2. Would be liable to be impeached, tried
1. Upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
2. The power of the President
1. To return a bill
2. To be the commander in chief 
1. Only the occasional command
2. Nothing more than the supreme command and direction. 
3. Power to grant reprieve and pardons for offences against the U. S.
4. Can only adjourn the national legislature in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.
5. To make treaties
1. With the advice and consent of the Senate, 2/3 of the senators
6. To be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers.
7. To nominate and to appoint
1. Ambassadors, public ministers, the Supreme Court judges, general officers
3. President vs. King
1. Four years vs. hereditary
2. Amenable to punishment vs. inviolable
3. A qualified negative upon the acts of the legislative body vs. absolute negative
4. Right to commend the military vs. declaring war, raising and regulating
5. Have a concurrent power vs. sole possessor of the power
6. No particle of spiritual jurisdiction vs. supreme head of the national church

1. Two presidencies in U. S.
1. One for domestic affairs and the other is for defense and foreign policy.
2. When there is problem with
1. Domestic policy: need to get congressional support
2. Foreign affairs: can almost always get support for policies
3. Domestic v. Foreign policy
1. Relatively simple to make minor adjustments vs. cannot or do not know how to alter since the world has become a highly intractable place with a whirl of forces.
2. The Record of Presidential Control
1. From the end of 30’s, Presidents have often been frustrated in their domestic programs, i.e. F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy
2. In foreign policy, there has not been a single major issue on which Presi. have failed.
3. From 1948-64, shows that Presi. have significantly better records in foreign and defense matters than in domestic policies.
3. World Events and Presidential Resources
1. How does the Presi. manage his control of foreign and defense policy?
1. It does not reside in the constitutional power, has been changed since 1945.
2. The awareness of the possibility of nuclear war
3. Vastly increase our rate of interaction with most other nations.
4. The increasing speed of events in the int’nal arena.
5. The perception that decisions in foreign affairs is irreversible.
4. The Power to Act
1. As Commander-in Chief to move troops: once they have committed American forces, it is difficult for Congress or anyone else to alter the course of events.
2. Can use executive agreement instead of treaties
3. Far greater ability to obtain info on abroad through Dept. of State and Defense.
5. Competitors for Control of Policy
1. The public
1. General public is much more dependent on Presi. in foreign affairs.
2. Pres. Popularity rises after he takes action in a crisis.
3. Problem of public opinion
1. Hard to get operational policy directions
2. Difficult to interpret
2. Special Interest Groups
1. The group structure is weak, unstable, and thin in foreign policy matters i.e. matters in Africa and Asia
2. The strongest interest groups are probably the ethnic associations
3. The Congress
1. A self denying ordinance: they do [not] think it is their job to determine the nation’s defense policies.
2. The congressional appropriations power has tended to reduce its effectiveness since the end of WWII.
3. However, there have been occasion when individual legislators or committees have been influential.
4. The Military
1. The modern tech. and int’nal conflict increased the defense budget.
2. The military have not been united on any major matter of defense policy.
5. Military Industrial Complex
1. Do not control policy and budgeting decisions, nor is there much evidence that they actually try.
6. The State Dept.
1. Modern Presi. expect the State Dept. to carry out their policies.
2. When the Presi. knew what he wanted, he got it.
3. The growth of a special WH staff to help expresses their need for assistance and their refusal to rely completely on the regular executive agencies.
4. Remain in control of their staff
6. How complete is the Control?
1. The success of Presi. in controlling is largely illusory
1. Anticipated reaction:it is achieved by anticipating the reactions of others, and eliminating opposite proposals.
2. Foreign Aid
7. The World Influence
1. The forces concerning the foreign and defense policies affect the ways in which they calculate their power stakes.
2. Presi. now expect to pay the high costs themselves if the world situation deteriorates.
3. Presi. engaged in world politics are more concerned with meeting problems on their own terms.
4. It is worthwhile to organize political activity in order to affect his agenda.

The best way to convince Presi. to follow a desired policy is to show that is might work.

• The President has two jobs in which he deals with domestic affairs and with defense and foreign policy.

• The problem with the President’s domestic policy is that he can’t get congressional support for the programs he supports.
• On the other hand the President can get support for the policies that he believes will protect the nation.

• The number of nations with which the United States has diplomatic relations has increased from 53 in 1939 to 113 in 1966.
• The foreign policy concerns of the President tend to drive out the domestic policy.
• The importance of foreign affairs to Presidents is intensified by the increasing speed of events in the international arena.

• Presidents have to be careful therefore to husband their resources for pressuring future needs because they can not always count on congressional support.
• Presidents don’t always get support from the public so they have to be careful on what they do in office.

• There Are a Number of Competitors For the Control of Policy Making.
• With the President dealing with foreign affairs the Public is much more involved and concerned with.[domestic]
• There are the Interest Groups that compete for control in which the strongest competing for control is the ethnic associations.
• Congress has not been very effective in policy since the end of WWII.
• There have been occasionally a number of individual legislators or committees that have been influential in Congress.
• The Militaries technology and international conflict has increased a deficit in our defense budget which is not helping our economy rise.
• The Military Industrial Complex doesn’t deal with controlling the policy and the budgeting decisions in which there is really no evidence that proves that they deal with it all.
• The World influence deals with the foreign and defense policy of the president and at his own power and stakes.

• To convince the president to approve a policy is show him that it will actually work and is not a waste of time and money.

- “When one man shares authority with another, but does not gain or lose his job upon the other’s whim, his willingness to act upon the urging of the other turns on whether he conceives the action right for him.” The essence of a president’s persuasive task is to convince these men that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do for their sake and on their authority.

- The status and authority the president has add to his logic and charm.
- Status adds to persuasiveness, authority adds more.
- Example: Truman urging wage changes on his secretary of commerce, while the SC was administering the steel mills; Truman’s status gave him claims to his SC’s loyalty.
- Truman had the advantage: possessing formal authority to intervene in matters concerning the SC which ranged from jurisdictional disputes to legislation pending before Congress, and the tenure of the SC.

- Each “power” is a vantage point for him in how other men use his authority; from veto to appointments, publicity to budgeting, etc. the White House controls the most encompassing array of vantage points in the American political system.

- Men in government are aware that at sometime, to some degree, the doing of their jobs, furthering of their ambitions, may depend upon the president. Their need for presidential action, or fear of it, is consistent. Their fear or need is his advantage.
- The men with whom he deals must work with him until the last day of his term; what the president could do tomorrow gives him the advantage today. Continuing relationships change “power” into vantage points in most cases. A president can use their dependence now and later.
- Continuing relationships pull in both ways; a president depends on the men he persuades, and has to reckon with his need or fear of them. Their vantage points confront his own.

- Example: Little Rock and Eisenhower

-"Democracy is a political system for those who aren't too sure that they are right" 
-Unlike other countries, the American system welcomes criticism, and thrives on conflict
between parties 
-Responsible-party, Presidency centered model holds that political parties should be prepared
to overcome constitutional divisions, primarily through Presidential Leadership. 
-Under the U.S. Constitution, due to the Separation of Powers, and the encouragement of
conflict within Congress, it is not feasible to "form a government", meaning primarily the
centralization of power as clear in the British system. 
       Because we truly do not have, nor can form one government, meaning a total centralization
of power, we cannot hold the President accountable for the sucess or failure of his overall
program, because he lacks the power to put that plan into effect. 

SPLIT PARTISAN CONTROL 

-Split party government - President of one party with the other party having majorities in one or
both houses 
-The system of disconnected, independent elections, which is necessary for the separation of powers, ceases to ensure partisan unity 
-With two parties sharing power results in gridlock
        > The production of major legislation is the indicator of gridlock 
-While 12.8 acts passed per Congress while 1 party ruled both houses, 11.7 passed during a split-party Congress 
-Different political combinations will produce different solutions to the same public problems 

-In a federalized, and therefore seperated system, voters can choose a Democrat here,
Republican there 
-Political Parties are organizations to facilitate action in the seperated system 
-Since WWII the President's party has lost on average 30 seats, with a range of 4 to 5 seats [in midterm elections]
-Elections don't automatically produce unity, even when all are ruled by one party 
-Because partisan strategies for coalition building won't work, Presidents and leaders devise cross-party strategies 

STABILITY IN CONGRESS 

-House and Senate have become increasingly professional, career oriented, and institutionalized
-Congressmen and Senators have unprecedented knowledge and experience
-Congress has a well-articulated committee structure
-Incumbent return rate in the House is 90%, while in the Senate its 67% 
    >Average length of service for members after WWII is about 10 years for House and
Senate 
Because in Congress there is NOT high turnover, amateurism, and short memories, the President cannot gain a conceivable edge over the Congress 

-Presidents and Congresses usually work within an agenda orientation that is naturally
associated with broad policy developments. 

But, taxes were raised several times during Reagan's Presidency to avoid the debt, and give
more latitude in policymaking. 

After Bush, the result was an example of a separated system following the 1994 elections 
A policy-ambitious Democratic President with a weak status,  a highly energized Republican
House of Representatives, and a Senate with competitive Republican "would be" Presidentials. 

PRESIDENT CLINTON AND THE SEPARATED SYSTEM 
-Clinton had the least political capital when he entered office 

Weaknesses of Clinton 

-He was governor of a small state, a distance away from Washington, never holding a position in the federal government 
-Because he had worked with a Democratic Legislature, he never had to take Republicans into account 
-Lacked experience in foreign and international relations policies 
-"Policy wonk" (couldn't prioritize and concentrate on a few issues, promising more than could be done) 
-Lacked direct experience in forming, and accomodating to an elaborately articulated staff

Kearns explores how the office of the presidency and the individual become intertwined.
Different Institutions reward different qualities

• rewards depends on the nature of the individual leader’s ambition as well as the institution
• To Kennedy and Nixon the Senate was but a platform to advance their careers
• Johnson, in contrast, held all the qualities to become powerful Senate leader the institution rewarded his qualities and those rewards were the object of his ambitions. He had other aspirations of course but he wouldn’t focus on other chances for more power in another institution because it delineated the work he was currently involved in. He had to depend upon effective performance where he needed to control his current institutional environment
• Thus he was unable to move from majority leader to president on his own
• Demands of institutions are often contradictory (what may be acceptable in one setting is not in another) 64 and 65 allowed Johnson to be successful due to certain circumstances but when the circumstances changed his qualities became ill-suited. His search for control caused him to move toward coercive action to transform the executive branch into his personal instrument.
• Important to understand whether or not a leader is able to achieve his ambitions in a particular setting

• previous evolution had relied on economic policy and welfare, significance of foreign policy, defense establishment, involvement in war, etc with the knowledge of the public and Congressional acquiescence
• Johnson concealed what he was doing and represented a change in the relationships within the constitutional framework which moves, in some part, the presidential institution outside the framework itself.

Johnson’s career helps to reaffirm the significance of consensus politics in effective presidential leadership

• he constructed a consensus from an assembly of particular groups and interests using individuals with whom he could deal directly to influence Congress directly, he created an interlocking web of services and obligations—it became a pluralistic consensus with often contradictory interest which Johnson knew would shape the actions of congress
• Popular support consensus would come from achievement, not a source

• Not realistic to assume a man “grows” in office, they do learn but inclinations of behavior, ambitions, and modes of conduct are deeply embedded (the new Nixon was the old Nixon with more power)

A source of power and illusion is the president’s ability to focus national attention by media

• for five years Johnson dominated the Washington spotlight, the Cabinet was his, the Congress was his, the Great Society was his…
• The man in the center remains in the center when things go bad, thus Vietnam became “Johnson’s War” he personally was dropping bombs, setting back racial/social progress