How does Obama’s use of unilateral powers compare to other presidents?

President Barack Obama meets with Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, who briefs him and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the potential cases of non-travel related Zika announced by the Florida Department of Health earlier today, in the Oval Office, July 27, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama meets with Amy Pope, Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, who briefs him and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on the potential cases of non-travel related Zika announced by the Florida Department of Health earlier today, in the Oval Office, July 27, 2016. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Mark Major, Pennsylvania State University

During a 2008 town hall event, then Senator Barack Obama told the audience that as a legal scholar and teacher, he took the Constitution “very seriously.” He went on to criticize the Bush administration, asserting:

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.”

When he was a presidential candidate, it was easy for Obama to criticize the unpopular Bush administration. Once he was in the Oval Office, though, and facing what two congressional scholars call the “uncompromising opposition” of the Republican Party, Obama’s stance on executive power transformed. He realized that, as John F. Kennedy said, “Many things can be done by a stroke of the presidential pen.”

Kennedy was referring to the unilateral powers of the presidency.

Ways to go it alone

Presidents have more than one way to act without the support of Congress and the courts.

These presidential powers include executive orders, proclamations, national security directives and memoranda. The powers matter because many important policies like integrating the military and institutions like the Peace Corps are products of presidents going it alone.

Mark Major

Mark Major

These actions are often controversial because these powers are not part of the Constitution. Although presidents since George Washington have been using unilateral authority, scholars point out that the use of these powers have become more significant under recent presidents. Indeed, University of Chicago scholar William G. Howell argues that the capacity to go it alone is a key characteristic of the modern presidency.

So President Obama is following a rich tradition. As Concordia University professor Graham Dodds writes in his valuable book, “Take Up Your Pen,” Teddy Roosevelt provided the template for the modern president – a model that all of his successors have emulated, regardless of party.

Although he didn’t invent executive power, Roosevelt redefined what could be construed as legitimate. He “established and largely institutionalized the practice of regularly using unilateral presidential directives for significant purposes,” Dodd tells us. Roosevelt issued more than 1,000 executive directives in areas from race relations to simplifying English spelling. Echoing contemporary Republican complaints about President Obama, critics of Roosevelt decried his administration as a “dictatorship” and declared him “Caesar.”

A busy 100 days

For his part, President Obama hit the ground running once in office. According to one report, he issued more unilateral directives “in his first 100 days than any president since Franklin Roosevelt.”

Early in his tenure, Obama issued directives banning torture, made efforts to make his administration more transparent and ordered Guantanamo Bay closed. He also issued a series of pro-labor directives that reversed Bush-era policies.

Throughout his two terms, Obama has implemented major administrative regulations, nearly 50 percent more than President George W. Bush. These include workplace protections, raising the minimum wage for federal employees, extending rights to marginalized groups including an order banning federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers and raising fuel efficiency standards. The New York Times recently noted that under Obama’s progressive actions, “the government has literally placed a higher value on human life.”

Despite all of this activity, Obama has also shown some restraint in this polarized political era. Consider executive orders – one of the most frequently used unilateral powers with more than 15,000 issued since the Washington administration. Obama has signed just 33 annually on average, fewer than any president since Grover Cleveland during his first term.

One reason for Obama’s cautiousness may be that presidents are less likely to issue directives during periods of divided government. During Obama’s first term, when he enjoyed unified government during his first two years in office, he averaged 37 executive orders per year. This average dropped to 29 in his second term when Republicans were running Congress.

A team of one

So how effective are these unilateral moves?

Research shows usually quite effective. Congress and the courts have trouble pushing back against presidential directives. However, Obama has been frustrated on a few fronts.

For one, Congress has thwarted Obama’s efforts at tackling gun violence. The president’s lack of progress in this arena demonstrates the limits of a unilateral approach. As Bowdoin professor Andrew Rudalevige tells us, “The most substantive shifts Obama is proposing require legislative approval” – and he didn’t get it. Congress also rejected Obama’s early directive to shut down Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court, for its part, has effectively nullified Obama’s actions on immigration reform and temporarily halted his historic reductions of power plant emissions mandated through the Environmental Protection Agency.

No change ahead

Expect more presidential directives from the next administration. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have promised, keeping with tradition, to use the unilateral tools while in the White House.

Additionally, if Trump wins, Obama will likely use his powers to implement last-minute agenda items like trade, immigration and health care. A flurry of last-minute orders is typical when the opposing party is taking over the White House.

While his legislative accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act are noteworthy, President Obama’s legacy will be defined in no small part by what he did alone. Obama joins a long line of presidents who were suspicious of these powers before taking office, but who realized the strong appeal of them as a sitting president.

Paul Begala, an adviser to the Clinton administration, put it best, “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Unilateral presidential power in an age of polarized politics

President Barack Obama looks over paperwork between meetings in the Oval Office. (Photo credit/Pete Souza, Official White House photo)

President Barack Obama looks over paperwork between meetings in the Oval Office. (Photo credit/Pete Souza, official White House photo)

Mark Major | Associate Director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy

 

Presidential power, especially their unilateral authority, has been a fierce point of contention in the Obama era. Recently, 43 senators, all Republican, filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging President Obama’s, as they put it, “extra-constitutional assertion of a unilateral executive power” over immigration policy. The public, and many in the press, assume that the controversy centers on an executive order. This is incorrect.

Mark Major

Mark Major

In the case of President Obama’s immigration reform, it deals with “prosecutorial discretion.” Regardless of the term, unilateral executive powers are a compelling, and long overdue, topic for national discussion. Despite this high level of attention to President Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration, health care and gun reform, we have little understanding of this unique presidential power.

It is important to place the current controversy over immigration reform in a larger context of unilateral executive powers. Executive orders, signing statements, proclamations, national security directives and memorandum are all tools that presidents use to shape and influence the policymaking process. Unilateral powers are defined as an array of policies that presidents design without — and sometimes over the objections of — Congress or the courts.

The Louisiana Purchase, Peace Corps, racially integrating the military and many civil rights initiatives are all policies derived from direct presidential actions. These directives seemingly derive their authority from the Constitution or congressional statutes. While unilateral powers have been a unique part of the executive since the founding, their use has substantially increased in the era of the modern presidency. As presidential scholar William G. Howell, author of “Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action,” notes, the modern presidency is defined by its tendency and capacity to go it alone.

In fact, President Obama recently issued a presidential memorandum creating a White House task force on curing cancer. (This did not receive much news coverage or outcry because it is difficult for the opposition to claim that wanting to cure cancer circumvents the Constitution.) However, the Constitution is silent on presidents legislating and acting on their own. While it is not constitutionally mandated, one could argue that executive unilateral powers are an acceptable practice because it is an implied constitutional power, similar to judicial review for the federal courts.

To date, President Obama has issued 228 orders while in office. While he still has eight months left in office, this is less than his two immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and Bush, who issued 364 and 291 executive orders, respectively. Since George Washington, presidents have issued more than 15,000 executive orders. These range from the mundane, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson ordering the American flag to be flown half-mast to honor the death of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, to the controversial, like President Obama’s recent use of this power to curb gun violence.

Controversial or not, many executive orders have policy implications. For example, President Obama, through Executive Order 13513, prohibited all federal employees and contractors from texting while driving.

One can only imagine what today’s presidential candidates would say during the time of either Roosevelt administrations. Teddy Roosevelt ramped up the use of executive orders during a period of the presidency taking a more active and leading role in the political system. His 1,081 executive orders far outnumbered the previous record holder, President Grant, at 217. Teddy’s distant cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, still holds the record for most executive orders issued by a president, however, at a total of 3,721.

The current uproar over the executive unilateral powers is nothing new. Both parties do not have a monopoly on fidelity to the Constitution. The degree of concern over the constitutional process is often dependent on each party’s position of power. In other words, where they currently stand depends on where they are sitting. While Republican presidential candidates claim to hold everything sacred in the Constitution, they, and their congressional allies that held a Republican majority in Congress, were pretty ambivalent about the robust use of unilateral powers during the Bush administration. Ultimately, the high rhetoric masks the crass partisanship.

This speaks to the importance of Congress, our first branch of government. Presidents are more interested in passing legislation because it is “stickier” compared to executive unilateral powers. Laws are more difficult to overturn; they have more staying power due to the American system of separation of powers.

For example, if the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was merely the product of an executive order, then the next Republican to take the Oval Office would simply issue an executive order repealing it. Instead, presidents solidify their legacy in large part through the legislation they shepherd through Congress like FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s tax cuts, etc.

However, as President Obama has stated numerous times, when Congress refuses to act, presidents sometimes will. In an age of both parties refusing to acknowledge the existence of each other, presidents will keep acting alone. Until Congress tempers polarization and reengages in the legislative process — seemingly the primary reason why they were elected in the first place — presidents will continue to rely on their informal unilateral powers to get something done.

Mark Major is the associate director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and a senior lecturer in the department of political science at Penn State. He is the author of “The Unilateral Presidency and the News Media: The Politics of Framing Executive Power.”

Skip to toolbar