Voters and political parties became additional sources of presidential power and accountability.
Test your knowledge.
The power to pardon creates some overlap in the powers of the presidency and those of the court.
The Twentieth Amendment largely removed the need for power to convene or adjourn Congress.
The president was to participate in law-making, with Congress in the lead.
Test your knowledge against these five questions!
The Written Opinion Clause appears to limit the President in several ways.
The Constitution is silent on the related presidential power to remove.
Several framers worried the power of appointment could be abused.
To faithfully execute the laws of the land, the presidency was assigned executive power that was mostly undefined.
Faithfully executing the laws of the land is one of the most important obligations of the presidency.
The framers feared that a president could be seduced by a foreign power to harm the country.
The framers feared a president could be seduced by a foreign power.
The President’s war powers were quite constrained.
The President would be fully empowered to act in defense of the nation.
The framers agreed that the President would command the armed forces – with several explicit reservations.
The President was to have five main responsibilities.
Two candidates for governor stand together, calling for civility among voters.
Does voting make any difference? Is it worth the trouble? The answer depends upon you. If you and enough other people vote for someone who has pledged to represent your…
In general, constitutions are written by people who expect to live and work together for generations to come. It’s when enough people no longer feel this way that Constitutions are…
Clashes in Berkeley and Portland bring to mind an interesting story about two countries where people who felt frustrated with each other and their governments. Citizens in Columbia and Venezuela…
The U.S. Constitution provides for nearly universal adult access to the ballot. The pandemic is making that difficult. Most voting precincts had historically depended upon retirees to administer the system,…
In times that strain our system of checks and balances, trying for more party purity – meaning moving the two major parties even further apart – is the wrong way to go. Instead, it is time to restore big tent politics.
One of the most fundamental aspects of a democracy is that citizens vote for their leaders rather than politicians selecting their voters through partisan redistricting (gerrymandering). On October 3, 2017, the US Supreme Court heard a case that could end this practice forever. It is hard to know how the justices will rule on this issue but one thing is certain: anything that leads to more political competition will be welcome. As noted in our August 14, 2017 blog, too many states, and too many districts within those states are currently noncompetitive. More than a few districts don’t even provide voters with a choice: no-one wants to waste time and money running as an opposition candidate, knowing they are doomed to lose. Americans deserve better. Let’s hope the Supreme Court justices lend a hand.
Democracy truly is under attack. Cyber techniques are the latest weapons. They are aimed directly at us, seeking to stimulate emotion over thought, sowing doubt and distrust. More computerization is not the answer.