Article II, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution defines the primary roles and responsibilities of the president:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
to which should be added the first sentence of Article II, Section 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Numerous things are not listed among the responsibilities of the president including:
- Ensuring that all Americans have health care
- Being an inspiration in times of national tragedy
- Leading his political party
Those and many, many other things are accretions to the presidency, like barnacles on a boat. The things at the top of this post are the actual responsibilities of the president. They are the things I keep in mind when cast my vote for president. They are the reasons I voted for Barack Obama rather than John McCain in 2008. I disagreed too profoundly with McCain’s “national greatness” approach to foreign policy. They are also the reasons I did not vote for Barack Obama in 2012. He was egregiously wrong too much of the time on foreign policy.
That’s why I approve of these observations from William Galston in his Wall Street Journal column:
A presidential campaign is an audition for the most challenging job in the world. But the Democrats vying for their party’s nomination don’t seem to understand what that job really is. People with White House experience know that presidents spend more than half their time—often much more—dealing with foreign policy and national security. Thus far, Democratic candidates have had little to say about these issues.
and
Two decades of war without end have exhausted the patience of the American people. Mr. Trump has used this sentiment to attack the entire postwar consensus of American foreign and defense policy, and he has twisted anti-interventionism into a zero-sum choice between domestic and foreign interests. If working- and middle-class Americans are struggling, he argues, it is the fault of foreign trade, foreign wars and foreign invaders streaming unchecked across our southern border.
Democratic presidential candidates are not free to ignore this narrative. Whatever their strategists and pollsters may say, every presidential candidate should deliver at least one major speech answering some basic questions:
Do you think America’s longstanding alliances serve our national interests? If so, what will you do to preserve and strengthen them? How will you counter threats from Russia and Iran, as well as a surging China rapidly translating its economic growth into diplomatic clout and military might? Is the Middle East still vital to our interests, or is our engagement there a diversion from more important matters?
Is America’s military the right size, and does it have the right shape, to address core threats to national security? What is the relationship between national security and international trade? If the global democratic tide is receding, how much should we care and what are we prepared to do about it?
In domestic policy, voters often issue specific orders to their elected officials. In foreign policy, they give the president broad permission to act on their behalf. As they examine aspirants for our highest office, they are asking themselves, “Can I imagine this person as commander in chief?†Democratic candidates should give voters some basis to answer this question.
There will be many lessons to be learned from the Trump presidency but here are some that I hope will be learned. We can no longer delegate the prosecution of justice to the Justice Department. We can no longer delegate our foreign policy to the State Department. They cannot be trusted with those responsibilities. We need to elect someone to the presidency who can be trusted with those responsibilities and we won’t accomplish that by electing someone who simply isn’t interested in foreign policy. Foreign policy is something that happens to presidents. It’s the nature of the job. It cannot be escaped.
I found his paragraph starting with “two decades of war†confused. Observing that war in Iraq or Afghanistan is folly is separate and apart from ill advised trade deals or letting illegals come across the border willy-nilly. But otherwise it is hard to argue with his comments.
“We can no longer delegate the prosecution of justice to the Justice Department. We can no longer delegate our foreign policy to the State Department.â€
A pretty damning statement. I can think of a few other departments.
think a better question would be asking “When should America go to war”. Ask the same of the Congressional and Senate candidates , they are the ones who get to declare war.
My views about warmaking appear to be so different from those of most Americans I rarely mention them. I think we should only go to war to defend the country.
That’s one of the reasons I disapprove of NATO expansion. In the last two rounds of expansion we have committed ourselves by treaty to go to war in cases in which doing so would actually increase the threat to the U. S. I find it difficult to consider that self-defense.
I’ve been keeping an eye on the news. No war anywhere. Only national threat is Trump and Climate change. Nonsense of course, except that foreign autocrats watch our news too. And laugh. And perceive the U.S. as a nation in obvious decline.
What does anyone expect of Xi, Putin, Kim? They know know Trump is negotiating with a ball and chain on each leg. Amazing they can keep from laughing out loud. The’ll wait til 2021 and deal with whatever fool we elect next.
We are presently at war in something between 4 and 40 countries. Whatever you call it a war is still a war. The four definites are Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia. Possibles include Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, most of the countries of the Sahel, and several in South America.
““We can no longer delegate the prosecution of justice to the Justice Department. ”
Needs to be severed from the presidency in some fashion. As someone here said (PD?) it is the most political and corrupt of the cabinet level agencies. Way too subservient to Trump and will be the same way with the next POTUS.
While I broadly agree with you, one of many reasons to not have voted for Trump, most Americans dont pay any attention to foreign policy. Not often anyone gets elected on that basis.
Steve
which is great misdirection on the part of the political parties since IMO we should be electing presidents primarily on the basis of foreign policy.
I suggest giving Department of Defense its original name – the Department of War – and make the “Department of Defense” a sub-department consisting of (Norad, Coast Guard?). Wonder what Orwell would think.
I jest!
The Constitution also provides no role for the President in education or health care, two important areas in which the government at all levels has shown its incompetency.
You can add the FBI, CIA and Department of Defense to the list of rogue agencies. The reality is that the long-discussed coup d’etat by the Deep State/Cabal is an accomplished fact. Trump is a figurehead used by the coup winners to hide the reality. They almost removed Obama. He was barely able to avoid a very large war in Syria, which would have involved direct conflict with Russia.
Viz.:
(1) The Pentagon publicly rejects the deconfliction agreement negotiated by Obama and the Russians and forces a renegotiation. Lavrov comments that the US is incapable of negotiating.
(2) The Pentagon publicly refuses to obey orders to remove troops from Afghanistan and Syria and forces the President to change his plans. They actually add 600 troops to the force in Syria.
(3) Pompeo and Bolton reject the agreement reached by Kim and Trump at Singapore and revert US policy to the status quo ante. Complete denuclearization before any reduction in sanctions.
(4) At Hanoi, Bolton rejects a compromise offer from Kim of some facility destruction for some relaxation on sanctions. Bolton adds new demands not previously made. Trump has lost control of the North Korean policy.
I suspect Eisenhower is the last President to actually have control of Defense, State, CIA, Justice, FBI, et al. And one wonders about CIA and FBI even then. The Bay of Pigs was planned under him, and Hoover still ran the FBI.
Pompeo and Bolton are on a tear, threatening in recent weeks regime change in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua and guaranteeing to go to war with China if it attacks any Philippine warship or base.
If Trump loses in 2020, as seems increasingly likely, will any of the socialists or communists running for the Democrat nomination be able to control the rogue agencies?