Americans fought a long and bloody war to get rid of one tyrant, the English King, George III. They didn’t want to install a new one of their own making. So how did the Framers ensure that the President would have enough power to be an effective chief executive, without making him a dictator? John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has the answer.
#prageru #president #constitution #history #americanhistory
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join
Script:
How much power should we give to the President? This was one of the most vexing (and critical) questions facing the Framers of the United States Constitution in the summer of 1787.
To be effective, the President had to be perceived—both in times of war and peace—as the leader of the nation. For this to happen, he would have to be given significant authority. Americans learned this lesson in the years following the Revolutionary War when the nation floundered under the Articles of Confederation which had no provision for a chief executive.
But this chief executive couldn’t be made so strong that he could become a tyrant. Americans fought a long and bloody war to get rid of one tyrant, the English King, George III. Nobody wanted to install a new one in his place.
The Framers answer is found in Article II.
The opening sentence reads as follows: “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” This might sound straightforward, but it was anything but.
Here’s why.
“The vesting clause” of Article II, as it’s known, differs significantly from the vesting clause of Article I, which concerns the powers of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article I’s vesting clause states: “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…” It then goes on to list those limited powers. That’s it. Congress can’t do anything else.
There are no such limitations specified in Article II. The difference is subtle, but important.
Whereas Congress is given specific responsibilities, the President is given broad responsibilities and wide discretion as to how he fulfills them. This is part of his executive authority.
And just what is that executive authority?
This is spelled out in Sections 2 and 3.
The President is the commander in chief of the armed services. He sets military policy.
He makes treaties with foreign countries. He sets foreign policy.
He appoints his own advisors—what became known as his cabinet. He sets domestic policy.
He appoints judges to the Supreme Court. That obviously gives him a big say in judicial policy.
And finally, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
This list is at once brief and vast because there’s so much involved in all these duties. Indeed, the President stands at the head of the entire administrative apparatus of the Federal government with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. For example, if the President can appoint federal officials, it stands to reason that he must be able to fire them, too.
When you realize that enforcing the law involves layers and layers of people from department heads to federal law enforcement to government lawyers, all of whom are accountable to the President, you start to grasp how much power the chief executive has.
So, how did the Framers keep the President in check?
First and foremost, they gave Congress “the power of the purse,” the power to fund the operations of the federal government. Congress can restrain the President by withholding funding.
The President literally can’t buy a light bulb for a lamp in the Oval Office without a Congressional appropriation. If the President proposes to add a new federal agency or to launch a war, Congress can bring his plans to a halt simply by refusing to fund them.
The Constitution strikes a similar balance in foreign affairs. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, controls the strategy, tactics, and deployments of the U.S. Armed Forces, and also dictates U.S. foreign policy. Only Congress, however, has the power to declare war, and the Senate, by a two-thirds majority, must consent to any treaty negotiated by the President.
Congress also has the power to impeach the President in cases of serious misconduct—treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. But the bar for impeachment is set very high to protect the President’s independence from Congress.
For the full script, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/the-constitution-presidential-powers
source
4 years is not long? It’s been a loooong ALMOST 2 years under the first American Dictator.
Tyranny of the minority in the USA.What you speak of prof is totally wrong.I visited USA and I saw people living on the streets,nobody would help them and also people being swallowed financially by their student loans,completely unfair.The majority tyranny?Are you out of your mind and power mostly given to one person alone?Yeah,very democratic that is..Because you are the most efficient army in the world does not mean this is right!
They should have taught me this in Intermediate.
All assumes of course that at least two of the branches CARE about obeying the constitution. We don't see that at the moment unfortunately.
But we’ve suffered the worst type of tyranny in December 2020 and January 2021, when the Electoral College wasn’t allowed to act in the manner it was intended. Instead they were beholden to the direction of the mob even when there were serious doubts as to the integrity of the ballots and illegal manner of voting in several states.
Furthermore, the future of it is in jeopardy due to the Popular Vote movement. The citizens of those states will no longer have control over their own vote. It will be controlled by the largest population centers of the country, and the Electoral College in each of those states would become obsolete. Completely unconstitutional.
Interesting good video.
I hadn’t noticed before the govt building image had 3 chambers, symbolic.
6:03am NZDT
21 October 2022
I’m shocked a Berkeley guy would say this. Clearly he’s able to think for himself.
If the President wants to buy a lightbulb for the Oval Office, he can go to the store and buy one. You're hilarious, professor. Cheers!…☀
Great information but I want to know more about the platform or ideology because it is not power but what ideology it is? Also I was treated with greater respect from foreigners than Americans in school in the USA? Human rights does not have to be defined only by Western or American versions only? Just because other countries don't have capitalism or Western standards of human rights does not make them oppressive.
For example, women in Muslim countries are equal but different rather than the Western notion of equal but the same. Does that mean women are oppressed. Of course not. They aren't oppressed.
Or that China or North Korea today has human rights collectively based on ancient Chinese or Korean ideas mixed with Communism or Juche or the Divine Mandate of Heaven instead of Western? Does than mean that they don't have human rights? Of course not. They do.
Also the Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere owned the land collectively rather than individually. Just because they don't have a Western notion of individual ownership does not mean they don't own the land. Of course they do.
This, coming from the guy whose immoral chicanery created the greatest imbalance of Executive power ever witnessed. We're still dealing with this man's horrors.
#yoosuck
The REAL problem I have with this presentation is you never mentioned that executive orders are invalid to the people. You DID mention that the president is NOT the "king" (tyrant) but failed to mention that executive orders are to direct his EMPLOYEES how to conduct themselves or to carry out his orders but they are NOT law!!! FDR wrote the most orders in our history but many have been written that were totally invalid but have been treated like they are valid. The emancipation proclamation was an illegal EO and so was DACA. Most all of orders written by modern day presidents are NOT valid because only congress can make law, which must be approved or ignored by the president. If he approves bills they become law, if he ignores they become law (after 3 days) and if he vetoes congress can override. My point is, the president has BECOME tyrannical.
I think with the most recent election, it's safe to say that four years can be too long to wait to vote an incompetent leader out of office.
The president nominates Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, and public ministers, and negotiates treaties, but all require approval by the Senate.
Guys I'm confused, why does the video say that the president is "so dependent on the will of the people" when it then goes on to say that the people don't actually get to choose the president, and instead the electoral college makes the actual decision? It sounds to me like the president is only accountable to the electoral college.
The problem is not presidential power, but corporate power. We need to reverse the Reagan era economic policy of allowing business essentially free reign. 60% of inflation is literally corporate profits from price gouging. Reign in the monopolies.
It’s very scary with the individual that is currently occupying that position and how incompetent he is.
Wow a professor from Berkeley on PragerU, impressed and worried for Professor Yoo.
This guy is UC Berkley professor!?
I don’t care for the new human animations. However, I’ve been a fan of PragerU since 2018. 🥰🌟🇺🇸
Thanks.
Right now, we have a president who is not seeing to it that our laws are dutifully executed. He is ignoring rightfully passed laws on immigration.
So biden shibe impeached for not rightfully enforcing our laws
If only the constitution was taught in public schools again as it once was.
Wow, great, informative video!
Hey asking here, how many children are allowed to die a year before we have to discuss our right to own guns again?
Cowards cough cough
THE BAR WAS SET VERY HIGH UNTIL PRES TRUMP WAS ELECTED, THEN THEY THRU THE BAR ON THE GROUND… PHUCKING DEMOCRATS!!!!!
Sad there are 3 mil people brainwashed by MAGA propaganda… Not a single one of your "educational" vids are free of racism, homophobia, sexism, I could be here all day, but point is you freaks letting your little crotch demons watch this, should have them ripped from your hands.
Tyrants target that which is good for they see themselves as good.
This is the guy that wrote the torture memo, effectively encouraging the US to torture criminal of war against international law btw
Land does vote, people do. US system is so messed up
In response to the YouTube video Egypt: Bishoy Chooses Bravery and since the comments there are now turned off(More Praeger U Censorship), I will post here instead what I would have posted there:
There are only 2 restrictions in Islamic countries for nonMuslims as a condition them to freely practice their nonMuslim religion:
The first one is that proselytizing(trying to convert others) by nonMuslims is forbidden or prohibited. The second one is that nonMuslims are not allowed or permitted. to blaspheme the Islamic religion or Muhammad. That's it! Otherwise, they are free to practice their religion.
There are only 2 restrictions in Communist or Juche countries for religious people as a condition them to freely practice their religion:
The first one is that all religions must be registered with the government. The second one is that they must not use religion as a pretext to criticize Socialism and use it as a pretext to advocate capitalism. That's it! Otherwise, they are free to practice their religion.
🙏🙏🙏
Parliamentary system is much better…
A Prime Minister who is demented and ineffective can be replaced easily …
Fun fact: some of the Founding Fathers, most importantly Alexander Hamilton, suggested the President (and the Senators) should be elected for life, thereby creating an elected monarchy to rule the US.