I have to defend Skowronek. I believe that the President’s ability to succeed is greatly enhanced by the times he lives in historically. Also, as he aptly pointed out some of the most successful Presidents in American history have come after Presidents who have been considered utter failures. The Carter-Regan transition would be the most recent example. Skowronek isn’t saying that the success of these Presidents was solely the result of their place in history but rather that their place in history made success more attainable.

As Skowronek says it is fairly obvious that a President’s success is not determined by the “idiosyncrasies” of personality but rather subject to the ebb and flow of institutional government. Skowronek also succinctly points out how easy (and often) Presidents find themselves caught up in the “conflicting purposes of the institution they represent.”

Skowronek is accurate to say that the President’s personality and drive to succeed is not the main factor determining the success of their administration. Each President over the course of history has had to adapt their will (or personality) to the limitations of the office. The Presidency is restrained by the evergrowing government apparatus

that drives it.

The President’s personality does control what they prioritize or what agenda they put forth. Personality also plays a part in gaining and maintaining public support for actions they intend to initiate. However, the political goals and agendas of the President are merely wish lists. The actual success of failure of the President is more determined by the particular political cycle in which the President finds themselves

Apart from the political cycle many other outside factors including history and tradition limit the President’s actions. The President must also respond to any number of outside emergencies which are unable to be predicted but could alter the direction of the administration or limit the options available to them.

In short , I argue that personality traits can be effective on the campaign trail but less so in the actual governance. Many other historical, institutional, and frankly unpredictable factors way heavily on the President’s ability to succeed.

The original intent of the founders was to balance the power of the executive branch in all aspects of governance. This includes the selection of the judicial appointments which were to include the advice and consent of the senate. Advice, as intended by the founders, would include input in the selection process. However, in practice the President does not seek advice in the selection process. In fact, often the members of the senate hear about the selection from the media at the same time as the general public.

Seeking the advice of the senate prior to the actual nomination could in fact make the process run much smoother. Recent examples of tumultuous nominations could serve as an example were consultation would be a preferable option to the presidents unilateral selection of the nominee. It is certain that in the post Garland debacle that any nomination by a Republican President would have faced fierce partisan resistance from the Democrat party. However, attempts to consult with the opposition party would have (or could have) mitigated some of the caustic atmosphere.

Another added benefit to seeking advice prior to the nomination would be that the President may have an opportunity to flush out in advance any objections that the opposition may have as well as ascertain the level of support within his or her own party. In the case of the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh perhaps some advance word may have been obtained related to the serious accusations made by various individuals related to possible misconduct by Kavanaugh in his youth.

Additionally, objections (by Senator Feinstein and others) to Justice Barrett’s fervent religious beliefs could have been addressed prior to her nomination. This would have avoided the awkward questioning which alienated many Catholics during her confirmation hearing. When the President withholds advance advice and merely presents his or her nominee to the senate for confirmation the process not only sidesteps the protections the founders put into place it also creates a partisan spectacle which highlights the deep divisions within our society.

In conclusion, when the President acts unilaterally he takes away the cooperative nature of the judicial nomination process that the founders intended. It was supposed to be a process where by the President brings his suggestions for the judiciary to the Senate and the Senate would then offer suggestions and guidance as to the candidates merit. Because this “prescreening” of candidates has not happened we have seen individuals put forward who have very contentious debates. This creates a bitter nomination process which does damage to both the institution of the Supreme Court as well as the nominee who is being debated. The candidates undergo a trial in the court of public opinion with serious accusations becoming a type of theater for the public to consume. When this happens those serious issues do not get the attention that they deserve because they are seen as political theater.

Often, those who wish to usurp the Constitution argue that the document is vague and open to interpretation. This may very well be the case in some respects, particularly in the protection of citizens’ rights. The framers did not foresee specific populations which would require protections not directly stated in the original document. However, the framers incorporated a language easily read as malleable in those cases. However, the language used when crafting the separation of powers among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches is not vague or lacking in precise meaning, especially when discussing the President’s role as Commander and Chief.

The founding fathers intended for congress and congress alone to have the power to declare war. This was done because they (the founders) understood the gravity of a decision that would impact every level of society and needed to have an opportunity for robust debate among the people’s representatives. This was a direct effort to avoid vesting the power to engage the nation in armed conflict with another nation at the whims of a chief executive. The design of the Constitution was to balance the nation’s powers among the coequal branches of government and avoid the potential for a chief executive to usurp power and bring in a reign of military despotism.

The founding fathers, in their wisdom, also recognized that if the nation were suddenly under attack, the consultation of congress to declare war would make the nation vulnerable to the immediacy of the threat. Thus, they granted the President the ability to assume the role of Commander and Chief in the direct defense of an unexpected offensive move from an enemy. Otherwise, the assumption of the Commander and Chief was only to be used after congress declared war. It was never intended that the President could engage in offensive military action without the consultation of congress.

How did we arrive at the current unconstitutional position of the President’s role in directing military actions he deems “short of” an official declaration of war? As with the changes in the executive branch’s role that occurred within the age of the modern Presidency, they began in stages and usually under the influence of a cataclysmic event. After witnessing the workarounds FDR used to push his war policies, Truman pushed the envelope even further with his unilateral engagement in Korea.

Once a President engages a particular power and is not challenged by the judiciary or congress, it emboldens that President and those that follow to push the envelope even further. Thus, over time presidents throughout the Cold War exercised unconstitutional powers to engage the U.S. military in actions that should have required congressional approval. In later years the horrors of 9/11 witnessed the President expand powers even further under the auspices of his role as Commander and Chief, and incursions into the rights of the citizenry occurred. It is worth noting that while congress authorized military action after 9/11, the language in the authorization act was typically vague and open to interpretation.

When the restraints of Presidential power are written in vague legalese, it is not surprising that the executive branch will interpret those directives in a light that grants them the most power and flexibility. This was not the intention of the founders. The founders understood the tendency for individuals to seek higher levels of power and authority, which is why they strictly limited the role of the President to Commander and Chief. The movement toward increased powers and flexibility in the office has led to decreased freedoms and foreign engagements without consultation of congress. For the United States government to return to a balanced government, the legislature must retake the powers of war from the President.

I side firmly with the “con” argument against abolishing the electoral college. I believe Busch & Shafer cut to the heart of the argument when they stated that the main detractors of the electoral college object due to its perceived unfair nature and its contribution to partisan politics (Ellis & Nelson, ed., 2021). Busch & Shafer then ask a very simple question; how would any of the changes offered by critics impact these same concerns of the electoral college critics? (Ellis & Nelson, ed. 2021). This very inciteful question is at the center of my argument. It does not require an in-depth investigation to discover the political acrimony present in today’s hyper-partisan climate. If the electoral college was abolished and some form of popular vote emerged, it would greatly exacerbate this problem and could be a precursor to acts of violence. It is well known that the highest population centers are on the West and East coast regions that are dominated by one political ideology, whereas the central states and the South generally are dominated by the rival ideology. If popular vote alone were the determiner of the Presidential election, then one party’s voice would dominate when choosing the President. States with lower populations would feel subjugated to the whims of individuals with whom they have clear ideological differences. The current system certainly is not perfect, but it allows for individuals who come from regions with lower population to feel like they have a voice in the system. Abolishing their “say” in elections would amount to sparking the same rage that fueled the American Revolution, “No taxation without representation.” In the end, in most cases the winner of the popular vote has won the presidency with notable exceptions in recent elections. These exceptions, I believe, are indicative of the heightened polarization of the nation in certain regions. The electoral college tempers most violent flare-ups post-election because the populace feels that, win or lose, their candidate had a fair shot at winning. Remove the appearance of equitable results and mix in the perception that the election was tilted in favor of a political party that has opposing ideology, and anarchy will ensue. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton lost the election but won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes. The vote count in Los Angeles County alone nearly accounts for the popular vote victory by Clinton (FEC, 2016). Imagine the anger that would be demonstrated if a plurality of the states felt that their President was determined by one county in California! The electoral college gives voice to those who, under any other system, would be drowned out by single counties in large states.

                                                                               Works Cited

Ellis, Richard, and Michael Nelson. Debating the Presidency. London: Sage Publishing, 2021. Pp 63-65.

Walther, Steven (Chair). FEC. “Election Results for the U.S. Presidency, 2016” Federal Election Commission Report, 2016. Free public resource.