Lesson 09: The Presidency

Starter

A president wants a policy enacted. The fastest route runs through Congress: draft a bill, build a majority in the House, find sixty votes in the Senate, sign it into law. That can take months or die in committee. So the president reaches instead for a pen and signs an executive order — a directive to the federal bureaucracy that takes effect immediately, no vote required.

Critics call it rule by decree. Supporters call it leadership. Both are missing the constitutional question, which is the only one the AP exam cares about: Where does that power come from, and what stops it? An executive order is not a law. It cannot create new authority out of thin air, a court can strike it down, and the next president can erase it with a pen of their own.

That tension — a single executive who must act quickly, hemmed in by a Constitution built to slow power down — is the entire story of the presidency. Today you learn what the office can do on its own, what it can only do with permission, and who gets to say no.

Core Concepts

The presidency is the only branch of the federal government run by a single person. Congress has 535 voting members; the Supreme Court has nine justices. Article II vests "the executive Power" in one president (Article II, Section 1). That singularity is the source of the office's speed and energy — and the reason the Framers worried about it most.

A president's powers come in two families. Formal powers are written into the Constitution. Informal powers are not in the text but have grown up around the office through practice, precedent, and politics. Learn to sort any presidential action into one of these two buckets; the AP exam tests the distinction constantly.

Formal powers (Article II)

These are the enumerated or expressed powers — the ones you can point to in the text.

• Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). The president "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The president directs the military, but — crucially — does not hold the power to declare war. That power belongs to Congress (Article I, Section 8). This split is a deliberate check, and it is the seed of the war-powers conflict discussed below.
• The appointment power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). The president nominates ambassadors, federal judges (including Supreme Court justices), and senior executive officers — but appointments take effect only "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The president proposes; the Senate disposes.
• The treaty power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). The president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." A treaty needs a two-thirds Senate vote to be ratified — one of the highest bars in the Constitution.
• The veto. When Congress passes a bill, the president may sign it or veto it (return it unsigned with objections). Note the citation that trips students up: the veto lives in Article I, Section 7 — the legislative article — not Article II, because it is part of the lawmaking process. Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. A related tool, the pocket veto, occurs when the president takes no action and Congress adjourns within ten days, killing the bill with no chance of override.
• The pardon power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). The president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power is nearly absolute for federal crimes — but it does not reach state crimes or impeachment.
• The "Take Care" Clause (Article II, Section 3). The president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is the constitutional basis for the entire executive branch's job of enforcing the laws Congress writes — and a clause both sides cite in fights over how aggressively a president enforces (or declines to enforce) a statute.
• The State of the Union / recommend measures (Article II, Section 3). The president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." This is the formal hook for the president's role as agenda-setter.

Informal powers

These powers are not enumerated, but they are where modern presidents do much of their work.

• Executive orders. A directive to the executive branch that manages how the government operates and how laws are carried out. An executive order has the force of law but is not a law — it must rest on existing constitutional or statutory authority, it can be challenged in court, and a future president can revoke it unilaterally. Contrast this with a statute, which only Congress can repeal.
• Executive agreements. An executive agreement is a pact between the president and a foreign government that, unlike a treaty, does not require Senate approval. This is the single most-tested formal-vs-informal contrast in the unit. The trade-off: an executive agreement is faster and easier (no two-thirds Senate vote), but it is also less durable — it is not the "supreme Law of the Land" in the way a ratified treaty is, and a successor can withdraw from it.
• Signing statements. A written comment a president issues when signing a bill, often noting how the administration interprets or intends to enforce (or not enforce) particular provisions. Critics argue they let a president rewrite a law's meaning unilaterally.
• The "bully pulpit" / going public. The president uses the unique national platform of the office to rally public opinion and pressure Congress — speeches, addresses, media. Going public is the strategy of appealing directly to the people to move their representatives.
• Agenda-setting. By proposing budgets, legislative priorities, and the State of the Union agenda, the president shapes what Congress and the country debate — an informal power that grows out of the formal "recommend measures" clause.

In Practice. Executive orders and executive agreements share a weakness that statutes and treaties don't: they live and die with administrations. Because an executive order rests on the president's own authority, the next president can sign a one-line order reversing it. Because an executive agreement never went through the Senate, a successor can simply withdraw. This is why scholars say informal powers buy speed at the cost of permanence — the constitutional opposite of the slow, durable lawmaking the Framers designed.

The institutional presidency

The president cannot run the government alone, so an institution has grown around the office:

• The Cabinet — the heads of the executive departments (State, Defense, Treasury, etc.), who advise the president and run their departments. The Cabinet is a matter of custom and statute, not a constitutional body.
• The Executive Office of the President (EOP) — agencies that serve the president directly, such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Security Council (NSC). Created in 1939, the EOP is the engine room of the modern presidency.
• The White House staff — the president's closest personal advisors (e.g., the chief of staff), who require no Senate confirmation and serve at the president's pleasure.

The growth of this apparatus is central to the "imperial presidency" debate — the argument that executive power has expanded far beyond what Article II's spare text suggests, especially in foreign affairs and war-making. The counterargument is that the checks still bite: Congress controls the money, the Senate confirms the officers, and the courts can say no.

Checks on the president

Every presidential power meets a counter-power:

• Veto override — Congress overrides a veto by a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
• Confirmation and ratification — the Senate confirms appointments (majority) and ratifies treaties (two-thirds).
• Power of the purse — Congress funds (or defunds) executive action.
• Impeachment — the House impeaches by majority vote; the Senate convicts and removes by a two-thirds vote (Article I, Sections 2–3; Article II, Section 4).
• Judicial review — courts can strike down executive orders or other actions that exceed constitutional or statutory authority.

Document Spotlight: Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton, 1788)

Context. During the 1787–88 ratification debate, Anti-Federalists feared that a single, powerful executive looked too much like a king. In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton answered them — not by promising a weak president, but by arguing that a strong, single executive is exactly what protects a republic.

Key quote (authentic):

"Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws."

Hamilton then lists what produces that energy:

"The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers."

And he defends putting power in one person rather than a council:

"Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number."

What it means. Hamilton argues the executive should be unitary (one person, not a committee) and energetic (able to act quickly and decisively). A single executive can move fast, keep confidences, take responsibility, and be held accountable — qualities a divided executive would dilute. His warning: "A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government," and "a government ill executed... must be, in practice, a bad government."

How it's used on the AP exam. Federalist No. 70 is the go-to document for any argument supporting a strong, capable presidency. Cite it when a prompt asks whether the president should be able to act decisively in a crisis, or whether broad executive power is consistent with the Framers' design. Pair it carefully with its opposite number — see Traps & Confusions on how No. 70 differs from Federalist No. 51.

SCOTUS Case Breakdown

No required case attaches to this lesson. The fifteen required Supreme Court cases for AP US Government do not include a presidential-power case — the executive's powers are tested through the Constitution and Federalist No. 70, not through a mandated case. (For exam practice, you can still apply the SCOTUS-comparison skill to a non-required executive-power case; one is provided in the practice set below.) Save your case energy for the lessons where required cases live — Congress (Baker v. Carr, Shaw v. Reno) and the judiciary (Marbury v. Madison).

Application Practice

Work each scenario the AP way: identify the constitutional issue → state the relevant principle → apply it → predict the outcome.

Scenario 1 — Executive order vs. statute. A president issues an executive order directing a federal agency to stop enforcing a regulation. A business argues the order conflicts with a statute Congress passed requiring that enforcement. Analysis: The issue is the limit of the informal power of the executive order against the formal authority of Congress to legislate. An executive order cannot override a valid statute; the "Take Care" Clause (Article II, Section 3) actually obligates the president to execute the laws Congress passes. Predicted outcome: A court applying judicial review would likely strike the order down to the extent it contradicts the statute — the president cannot legislate by decree.

Scenario 2 — Executive privilege. A congressional committee subpoenas internal advice given to the president, who refuses to hand it over, claiming executive privilege — the asserted power to keep certain executive communications confidential. Analysis: The issue is a separation-of-powers clash between the president's interest in candid advice and Congress's oversight power. Executive privilege is not written in the Constitution (an informal/implied power); it is real but not absolute. Predicted outcome: Courts balance the competing interests — privilege is strongest over sensitive national-security or diplomatic matters and weakest when it would block a legitimate investigation, so a court may order partial disclosure.

Scenario 3 — Executive agreement vs. treaty. A president signs a major arms-control deal with a foreign nation as an executive agreement, avoiding the Senate. Senators object that such an important commitment requires a treaty. Analysis: The issue is formal vs. informal foreign-policy power. A treaty needs two-thirds Senate consent (Article II, Section 2); an executive agreement needs none and is constitutionally valid. Predicted outcome: The agreement is binding while in force, but because it bypassed the Senate it is less durable — a future president can withdraw from it unilaterally, and it carries less domestic legal weight than a ratified treaty.

Traps & Confusions

Formal vs. informal powers. Formal powers are in Article II's text (commander in chief, appointments, treaties, pardons, the veto in Art. I). Informal powers are not written down but have grown through practice (executive orders, executive agreements, signing statements, the bully pulpit). If you can cite a clause, it's formal; if you're describing a custom or tool of influence, it's informal.

Executive order vs. executive agreement vs. treaty. All three get confused. An executive order is domestic — a directive to the executive branch with the force of law but no new lawmaking power, revocable by the next president. An executive agreement is foreign — a deal with another country that skips the Senate. A treaty is foreign — a deal with another country that requires a two-thirds Senate vote. The exam's favorite contrast: treaty (Senate needed) vs. executive agreement (no Senate needed).

The War Powers Resolution's purpose. It is a congressional check on the president, not a grant of presidential power. Passed in 1973, it limits the president's ability to commit troops without congressional authorization. Don't describe it as something that expands the war-making power — it tries to restrain it.

Federalist No. 70 vs. Federalist No. 51. Both are about structuring power, but they pull in opposite directions. No. 70 (Hamilton) argues for a strong, unitary, energetic executive — concentrating executive power in one capable person. No. 51 (Madison) argues for separation of powers and checks and balances — dividing power so "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Cite No. 70 to defend a strong presidency; cite No. 51 to defend limits on it.

Practice Problems

FRQ Practice — Concept Application (FRQ 1)

Scenario. A president believes a national emergency requires immediate action on infrastructure spending, but a closely divided Congress has failed to pass the administration's bill. The president issues an executive order redirecting how an existing federal agency spends money already appropriated by Congress, arguing the order is needed to carry out laws already on the books. Several members of Congress object, insisting that the order rewrites spending decisions that belong to the legislature, and a committee announces hearings and threatens to use its funding power in response.

Prompt. After reading the scenario, respond to the following.

(A) Identify the informal presidential power the president used in this scenario.

(B) Explain how the power identified in part (A) allows the president to act, and explain one limit on that power.

(C) Explain how an interaction between the president and Congress described in the scenario reflects the system of checks and balances.

Model Response

(A) — 1 point. The president used an executive order — a directive to the executive branch that has the force of law but is not itself a statute.

(B) — 1 point (identification of how it works) + reasoning. An executive order lets the president direct federal agencies on how to carry out and enforce existing laws without waiting for Congress to pass new legislation, which is why a president can act quickly when Congress is gridlocked. One limit: an executive order cannot create new authority or override a valid statute — it must rest on existing constitutional or statutory power, it can be struck down by the courts through judicial review, and a future president can revoke it. (Any one valid limit earns the point: judicial review, the need for statutory/constitutional authority, congressional power of the purse, or reversibility by a successor.)

(C) — 1 point. The scenario shows checks and balances because Congress is not powerless against the order. Congress controls the power of the purse (Article I) and can use appropriations to restrict or defund the action; it can also conduct oversight hearings to investigate the executive branch, and it could pass new legislation clarifying the spending. This back-and-forth — the executive acting, the legislature pushing back through its own constitutional tools — is exactly the inter-branch checking the Framers designed.

Total: 3 points.

Common point-loss: - Part A: naming a formal power (e.g., the veto) instead of an informal one. The order is an executive order, an informal power. Writing a vague answer like "the president used his authority" earns no credit. - Part B: describing what happened in the scenario instead of explaining the constitutional mechanism, or forgetting to give a limit — both halves (how it works and a limit) are required for the point. - Part C: describing a check that is not in the scenario, or naming a power without explaining the interaction. The exam rewards explaining how one branch constrains the other (Congress's purse/oversight power checking the executive order), not just listing "checks and balances."