The role of the President has been somewhat mythicized over time, think George Washington and his cherry tree. But this legacy does not spur from nowhere. Individual Presidents have had a marked role in setting the tone of the Presidency, in passing policy that would affect the nation for years to come, and in changing how we view Presidential power.

That is in no way to say that the role of Congress, of events, of public opinion have no role. Each of these play a significant part in the success or failure of any administration. But the person who occupies the seat of the Presidency also plays a part. The major critique against this thinking is that it is easy to have a scapegoat when the administration steps wrong or when the public is unhappy. In this way we equate visibility with importance and inflate the role that the person plays with the power of the branch of government. While the President is an easy figurehead to blame, this does not mean that the President as a person is without reproach in these scenarios. 

The President has significant power in choosing staff, negotiating with allies, setting up agencies and institutions, pushing legislation that will be debated, signing and vetoing and passing executive orders. All of these play significant roles in the overall shape that an administration will take. Outside circumstances may force a President to deal with a crisis or to shift agenda priorities, but the President is impugned with the power to make the checklist of what will be accomplished or at least attempted. 

In times of crises, moments that have the potential to shape not just the Presidents legacy, but the future of the country, these decisions often come down to the President. Of course, there are advisors, councils and agencies that inform all possible routes but when many of these decisions are uncertain, it comes down to Presidential decision making. 

While there are many variables that should be examined when looking for patterns of success or failure. We cannot discredit the character and personality of the President when making associations. President George Washington set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power which has remained despite violent protests like we have seen recently. This was not directly implied in the Constitution or in any other institutional patterns. His character, charisma and personality informed and set the mold for what the office of the President would look like. In this same way, many other Presidents have expanded on this role and seen success and failure by their own work. 

In the Constitution, the founders attempted to enumerate and assign powers to different branches of government in order to ensure the separation of power and the ability for one branch to check another. One of the areas that the Constitution is very clear to separate is the power to declare war versus the power to conduct war. This measure was taken with good reason. However, over the decades Presidential power expansion, public fear have allowed for the President to usurp war powers from Congress, consolidating these powers in the Executive branch.

Article II of the Constitution gives the President control over foreign policy. Under this, the President is the Commander in Chief and given the power to direct the military in any engagement. But, the founders intended this to mean that the President could act as a first General when Congress declared war, or act flexibly if the Union was under attack. That is not how this Article has been interpreted. Under the overarching brand of National Security, Presidents have expanded their power to engage in foreign conflict without the approval of Congress. The existence of the War Powers Resolution confirms this.

The War Powers Resolution was established in order to close loopholes that the Executive Branch had used to justify armed conflict without the approval of Congress. Throughout history there are examples of when Presidents have begun conflict without Congress declaring war, or have gone behind the direction of Congress. President Truman’s deployment of troops into Korea is an example of this. This action was taken under the banner of national security, as a preventative measure. But at the end of the day, preventative wars, are still offensive wars which must have the approval of Congress! A different example in the ways that the President bypasses Congress when it comes to war powers is the Iran Contra affair. President Reagan’s administration facilitated arms dealing in Iran to fund Contras activity in Nicaragua when Congress attempted to check the power of the Executive by cutting off funding. This was within the power of Congress as the conflict in Nicaragua was not approved by Congress.

The Constituion, is vague and ambiguous. There are places where it must be interpreted by higher courts to fit with the 21st century. But it is very clear in the separation of powers when it comes to who carries out war and who may declare war. Various Presidents have expanded powers, pushed limits and normalized unconstitutional war powers. However, there is no amendment that addresses this as of yet. Congress, and Congress alone has the power to declare war. The instances where the president has acted unilaterally in offensive or “preventative” conflict, are a usurpation of Congress’ power to declare war.

Alaska has voted Republican since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. While the majority of the state has voted Republican, there is a Democratic minority whose votes are made meaningless by the winner-take- all approach of the Electoral College. For this reason the US should reform its election process to make equality and transparency the two major values for its election.

The founders set up a specific way for elections to run with the idea that our elections would be for a certain type of person. As Loomis points out, they were concerned about knowledgeable and informed votes being cast. However, with the advent of the internet and the advance of technology, these qualms are no longer an issue. While the Electoral College played an important role for centuries, it is now banning votes from holding the same weight and an active detriment to the ‘free and fairness’ of our elections. While the Electoral College has not worked effectively for many election cycles, it was not actively undermining them, but as the last few elections have shown, this is no longer the case. In order to increase progress towards more equal and transparent elections and to uphold the Founders standard of free and fair elections, the United States should elect the President directly by popular vote.