The creation of the American Presidency and the struggle for executive power

The emergence of the American Constitution in the late 18th century marked a turning point in the history of modern states. At the heart of this historical development was the difficult question of how to establish a strong central leadership without falling into tyrannical structures. The debates of the time laid the foundation for a political systemwhich is still regarded worldwide as a role model and at the same time as a constant challenge to the separation of powers.

The Initial Debate on Executive Power

When the question of future national leadership was placed on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, a depressing silence ensued. The 55 deputies from twelve regions involved knew that they were touching on a critical point of the new system of government. Most representatives considered a strengthening of the executive power compared to theolder alliance rules are absolutely necessary. At the same time, there was great uncertainty about the concrete form of this power and its acceptance by the population.

The weakness of the previous government structure

The previous Union already had a supreme head, but this was only appointed for a period of one year and had hardly any political power to shape it. This weakness reflected the revolutionary trend of upgrading parliaments over leadership and preventing royal arbitrariness. In most states, governors have been relegated to pure executive bodiesand their term of office is strictly limited. However, this dominance of parliaments led to inability to act and financial hardship in the 1780s. Critics called for fundamental reforms to avert the impending disintegration of the federal government.

The shift to a moderate balance of power

The discussions revealed a clear shift away from radical revolutionary ideals towards a moderate balance of power. Economically advanced England was now considered a better role model than other republican systems. The delegates were guided by the separation of powers for the preservation of freedom, which was praised by a famous philosopher. Since in the new worldno hereditary nobility, the House of Lords should represent the individual states. The search for a suitable replacement for the monarchical top proved to be extremely complex.

Choosing a single leader

The motion to place the executive power in the hands of a single person ultimately prevailed against all warnings of monarchical structures. The majority expected a unified will, high effectiveness and clear responsibilities. Meanwhile, many delegates were already thinking of the winner of the War of Independence as an ideal candidate for this newOffice. The requirements for the office were strictly defined, so the person had to be at least 35 years old. In addition, a birth in their own country and a stay of at least 14 years was a mandatory requirement.

The Complex Finding of the Election Process

Finding a suitable election procedure proved to be a lengthy process full of compromises. A direct election by the people was rejected as too radical and detrimental to smaller regions. The election by the national parliament would also have disproportionately favoured the large areas. It was only late that an indirect procedure was agreed, which strengthened federal principles andsmall states. The electors voted in their home regions to prevent corrupt influences in the capital.

Protecting Small Regions and the Vice-Presidency

Victory required an absolute majority of electoral votes, which led to several decisions by parliament in the early days of the nation. Each region, regardless of its size, had exactly one vote in this final decision. The system also spawned the office of Deputy President, which originally fell to the runner-up.Regulation had to be changed as early as 1804, as the main winner was no longer expected to be a political opponent as a deputy. The complex procedure represented a classic balance of interests between large and small regions.

The conscious openness of constitutional competences

The design of the competencies was deliberately open in order to enable a pragmatic adaptation to future developments. This flexibility later proved to be an advantage, but also led to constant conflicts between the powers. The constitution only roughly stipulated that the executive power lies with the president and that the president must faithfully implement the laws.Contrary to the detailed description of legislative rights, the executive powers remained quite vague. The creators of the document thus entered completely new territory, as there were no practical examples of a Republican leadership.

The union of different offices in one person

The new office combined the roles of head of government, head of state and supreme military commander in one person. However, this enormous amount of power was severely limited by the parliament’s participation rights and the commitment to the law. The Senate’s approval was mandatory for the appointment of ministers and judges. As head of state, thePresident of foreign policy, concluded treaties and received foreign envoys. The comprehensive right of pardon was one of the few powers strongly reminiscent of monarchical traditions.

The military leadership and the right to self-defense

Military competencies were also divided to prevent unilateral warfare. While the parliament decided on war and peace as well as the financing, the president was responsible for the actual leadership of the troops. This unclear separation led in practice to constant friction and a creeping expansion of executive power. In national emergenciespresidents resorted to an implicit right to act even without a legal basis to protect the nation. While such measures had to be justified retrospectively, they created a constitutional gray area for future incumbents.

The system of mutual control and impeachment

The system did not follow a strict separation, but a complex web of mutual control to protect individual freedom. In establishing the jurisprudence, the President appointed the judges, while the Chief Justice in turn presided over an impeachment proceeding. Such a procedure could only be successful by a two-thirds majority in the Senatewhich was a high hurdle. This hurdle proved so high in history that the instrument could not be misused for partisan political struggles. Nevertheless, the mere threat of such a procedure in later decades was enough to force a resignation.

The right to object and the postponement of the legislative power

The main line of conflict has always been between the executive power and the parliament, which was originally regarded as the central organ. In order to influence legislation, the president was given a qualified right of appeal, which could only be overcome by a two-thirds majority in parliament. This right was not used as a monarchical blocking instrument, but as protectionagainst hasty and unjust decisions. In practice, the various incumbents used this tool to completely different degrees. Over time, however, the original distribution of roles reversed, so that legislative initiatives today largely come from the top of the government.