The rise of presidential power can be divided into two parts. In the 19th century, the president’s power grew in response to the rapid increase in population and economic power. However, the rise of power was limited and was primarily related to economic growth and national defense. In the 20th century, the situation in the international arena changed drastically, which required further expansion of the presidency. World War II, the Cold War with the USSR, as well as US authority as a global superpower influenced the construction of, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called it, ‘imperial presidency.’ International circumstances made the president become a major figure both in international negotiations and in national policymaking.
US Constitution was a catalyst in the rise of presidential power. It states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In other words, it provides general authority to the president and does not give a list of limits on the president’s executive power. For example, Constitution sets limitations on Congress in Article 1, Section 9. Thus, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President “to act as commander in chief of armed forces, grant pardons, make treaties, receive foreign ministers, appoint ambassadors, judges, cabinet-level officials.” Two other articles give the power to ensure the faithful execution of the laws and veto legislation. This set of president’s abilities makes him quite a strong figure without even support from the parliament.
Nevertheless, the limits of presidential power are expressed in the system of checks and balances. Congress mitigates the destructiveness of some presidential actions by having considerable power to restrain them. First of all, Congress can override a veto by two-thirds of votes in the Senate and the House. Secondly, the Senate confirms all presidential appointments and ratifies treatise. Finally, Congress can remove the president by impeachment. In practice, the considerable power of veto override and impeachment is restricted by the fact that the president usually has a loyal part of the parliament that will refuse to vote against their president. In the case of extreme polarization of two camps in the parliament, the desire to impeach the president from the same part will be absent in almost all cases.
In my opinion, the expansion of the presidency is a negative development. It is especially the case when the president has such big power as in the US. It has led to the polarization of the Democratic and Republican parties in modern times. It seems that the reason is the dominance of the majoritarian system in the United States. The proportional system, predominant in Western Europe, brings more inclusiveness, diversity in views, and representation. In that system, a president has little power or is absent. The coalition formation in fully parliamentary systems brings more stable and safe development.
In contrast, the evolution of the presidency in the US made the system of checks and balances ambiguous. It is usually the case that the new president gets the majority in the Congress, which in the environment of polarization makes the Congress majority loyal to the president. Therefore, my opinion is that presidential power needs to be more limited and constrained in order to spread the responsibility for policies from one person to collective structures.