When we discus politics, one will sometimes hear the comment that Americans miss the big picture, because they place too much emphasis on the president, and so miss the fact that congress has the real power. And, in some respects that is true, but also inevitable. we love to put a singular face on things, be they loved or hated. And so, rather than the several hundred congressional faces, we decide to focus on the single face of the presidency, or maybe the president and the speaker and senate majority leader. So, it is inevitable that we place more emphasis on the president than his real political power merits. On the other hand, with the growth of regulatory power since 1890 ("A Passing Thought","The Best Historical Example") it has been a long time since the president was limited to his constitutionally delimited duties, so it is also incorrect to argue his office is largely powerless. Thanks to the shift of power from congress to the bureaucracy (which would be exacerbated were we to enact term limits -- see "Why Term Limits Will Fail (And Should)"),  the power wielded by the presidency is very real.

But ideally, the presidency should be a very insignificant job. At least in peacetime.

Just like all our offices, the presidency is modeled after the Roman republic, or, at least, the Roman republic as imagined by Montesquieu (who did err in a number of respects). That is why presidents must be 35 years old, that was the minimum age for the consulship. (Senatorial requirements follow the office of praetor, and congress the quaestorship.) This is also the reason we used to swear in office holders in March and why we have a census every 10 years (Roman censors served 10 year terms). We were not saddled with aediles or a pontifex maximus, and, our censors do not hold an official office, but otherwise our government largely follows the Roman model.

And, under the republic, consuls, despite the respect afforded them, held very little positive power in peacetime. During war time their power was considerable, but in peace they were limited to executive duties. (They lacked even the veto of our president, that power being vested in the plebian tribunes.) The attraction of the consular office was largely that it marked one as having reached the highest office possible, granting status among the senatorial class, and, more significantly, after holding the consulship, one was entitled to a proconsular governorship, during which one could usually plunder enough cash from the locals to more than make up for the cost of running for consul. (As well as possibly win fame and glory from subjugating intransigent locals, as Caesar did in Gaul.)

And were our president limited to his constitutional powers, his peacetime powers would, for the most part, be as boring as those of the consuls. Granted, he would have two powers the consuls lacked. He would possess the ability to veto, and the right to refuse to spend money allocated by congress. Other than that, he would be limited to choices in how to execute laws.

Now, while this sounds rather uninteresting, it actually is an interesting set of powers, as they are of a wholly negative nature. The positive, active powers of the presidency are strictly defined. He can execute the laws enacted by congress, and use the armed forces in carrying out wars declared by congress*. In these cases his use of power is limited by the requirement that congress authorize him to do so, and that he act within the limits set by congress.

All of the discretionary power vested in the president is negative, that is, when he can act on his own, without congressional instruction, he can only act by refusing to exercise power. He can veto bills sent for his signature. He can refuse to spend money. He can decline to execute laws. In other words, the president lacks the ability to extend government power on his own, he can only surrender government power.

And that is the brilliance of the constitution. If we ever followed it as designed, we would have found that the government is severely limited in the power it can wield, and that any exercise of power requires the consent of at least two branches of government (eg. a new law requires congressional approval, and presidential signature as well as execution). No single branch could expand the power of the state, or wield that power unilaterally**. And, as a result, most political offices would seem rather boring, but none more so than the presidency.  While, in war time,t he president would have quite serious responsibilities, in peacetime the power vested in the office would be rather small.

Of course, this is all a moot point, as there is almost no chance that our current politicians would revert to their constitutionally limited pwoers. Nor is there any reason for them to do so, as the public does not want anything of the kind. ("What We Deserve", "Don't Blame the Politicians","Bad Economics Part 6", "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "Who Is To Blame?", "What is Wrong with Us") The public, even many supposed conservatives, are perfectly content to believe the government can solve all our ills, and so the politicians give us what we want, and do their best to solve every problem imaginable. However,m should we ever decide to try solving our problems without the government, I think we would find that my description above fits a truly constitutional government quite well. The presidency, while the "head of state", would be quite a boring office, both for the holder and those watching his actions. Then again, seeing where "exciting" presidents have taken us, maybe that is not such a bad thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Under a properly constituted government, the president would not have the ability to send troops without a formal declaration of war, except for brief assignments of troops in response to unexpected aggression. I know many conservatives support the war powers act, at least the half that allows a president to use troops without a formal declaration of war, but in this case I actually support the Ron Paul types, and agree that it is improper to grant the president discretionary use of troops. We have come to accept this extension of presidential powers only because liberals have been so reluctant to declare war even in the face of actual aggression. However, we should not allow our current political quirks to force us into gutting the constitution. The president is limited to fighting congressionally declared was for a reason, and we should not allow liberal pacifism to drive us to eliminate essential checks on unified presidential power.

** This is another reason I believe that judicial activism, that is reading new "rights" into the constitution is so dangerous, as it gives the judiciary the ability to create new laws, and to effectively wield power unilaterally. So long as the court is simply striking down laws based upon negative rights ("Negative and Positive Rights") there is no problem. But when the courts begin to discover positive rights, obligating the state or private individuals to act, then it is effectively legislating, and that is a big problem. ("Interpretation and Activism", "Why Judicial Activism Hurts")