Structure of the Presidency - AP Government and Politics

If this question were simply worded as "who is the most significant foreign policy advisor to the President," there might be a degree of subjectivity where you could argue that it depends on the President and the circumstances of his Presidency; however, the word "senior" as well tells you that the answer is the Secretary of State. It is the job of the Secretary of State to serve as the President’s primary foreign policy advisor. Whether the President takes this advice, or the advice of other members of the cabinet, is up to the individual President.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 established that in the event that neither the President nor Vice-President are able to carry out the duties of the President, then the office should fall to the Speaker of the House, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then the Secretary of State. At various times in American history, the line of Presidential succession has been changed to reflect the realities and political interests of leading politicians at the time; however, there has yet to be an instance where the office has needed to pass beyond the Vice-President.

This is a tricky question, even though you can easily eliminate the majority of the answers. The answer is “None of the answers are correct.”

Remember, the President is elected to a four-year term. Thus, “2” must be incorrect. “4” and “6” are similarly incorrect for obvious reasons—you should at least know that the President can be elected twice (2x4=8).

Now for the answer that you likely picked: 8. Read the question again (“for how many years—at a MAXIMUM—may a person be President?”). Note two incredibly important things: (1) maximum is emphasized (for good reason); (2) the question does NOT ask “for how many years . . . may a person be elected \[to the office of\] President.” This question requires knowledge of both the office of the president, the 22nd Amendment, and the interaction of the two. The 22nd Amendment technically limits the office of the President to <10 years. Read the Amendment.

“Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” (Emphasis added).

Thus, technically speaking, if a President (prior to being ELECTED President) had to serve not more than two years of a term of the previous president, he (or she) could be elected twice to the office of the President: (not more than 2 years) + (term 1 (4 years)) + (term 2 (4 years)) = Not more than 10 years. Let’s use an example.

EXP: Say that Lindsay Slohands and Salma Kayak decided to run as President and Vice President, respectively. Two years and one day into Lindsay’s first term, she has too much of her favorite drink, Koke-a-Kola, and dies. As VP, Kayak has to step up to the office of the President, which she does, for the remainder of Slohands’ term (<2 years). Kayak then runs twice for the presidency, and serves out her ELECTED terms (for a total of 8 years) with no incidents. Kayak’s total term in office? <10 years. Kayak’s total ELECTED \[to the office of the President\] term? 8 years.

This is a trick question, and a sneaky one at that. The President does not declare war: Congress does. That bears repeating: only Congress can declare war. Thus, the answer is zero, although, technically speaking, we have been in one war since WWI—and that would be WWII. At this point you’re probably asking “but what about Vietnam? Korea? The Gulf War??!” Those are all valid objections, but they are not valid wars. Congress MUST declare war in order for the US to go to war. Otherwise, they are characterized as “armed conflicts” or something similar. They may be referred to as wars colloquially, but they are not formally declared.

The Speaker of the House is next in line if something should happen the president and vice president. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 placed the Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro-Tempore back in the line after they were removed from it many years earlier. President Truman pushed heavily for this after President Roosevelt died in office and wanted to ensure that the president could not appoint all of those in the line of succession, as the only other people in it are cabinet members that were chosen by the president. Truman wanted the Speaker to be first because he believed that the House would be closer to the presidency than the Senate because its members are elected every two years and therefore would be in line with the wants of the people.

The line of power to the President is the following: President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, then Secretary of State. Secretary of the State and President pro tempore of the Senate do appear on the list, but neither of them are number three on the list. The Speaker of the House is the third in line for the presidency, after the President and the Vice President.

The 22nd Amendment was adopted after the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt to limit the number of terms a president may serve. The other qualifications, such as 35 years old and natural born citizen were stipulated by the constitution. Religious qualification is strictly forbidden by the constitution.

This should have been a relatively simple question. The Presidency is the most constitutionally limited office in the US. In other words, the constitution imposes greater eligibility requirements on the office of the President than on any other office in the country. In more concrete terms, the President must have been born a US citizen (there is some debate over “natural born”—but that’s mostly beyond the scope of this course) which means that a nationalized immigrant cannot EVER be president. This stands in stark contrast to the House and Senate which simply impose various temporal restrictions on nationalization (e.g. must have been a citizen for 7 years). Beyond that, the President must be 35—the highest specified age in the Constitution, and he must have been a resident of the US for 14 years (i.e. he cannot have been born a US citizen, then gallivanted off to France for his entire life, return, and seek the office).

This is a difficult question, for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the difference between the Head of State and the Head of Government is always a little tricky. Second, the answers include two actual heads of state (the president and the Queen of England), but those answers are not the best answers as they are examples of a Head of State rather than the Head of State himself. Regardless, a Head of State is a quasi-ceremonial position which is oftentimes held by figureheads (such as the Queen of England) who, while they lack actual power, possess the ability—perhaps even duty—to be the first and foremost representative of their country to the world.

This is a difficult question. Heads of State and Heads of Government are always difficult to keep separate. Additionally, the answers included an actual example of a Head of Government (i.e. the Prime Minister). Regardless, a Head of Government is a non-ceremonial, powerful position in which the holder of it is generally the chief executive and responsible for implementing laws along with supervising the bureaucracy (if there is one).

This is an interesting question. One would assume that a Head of State could not also be the Head of Government, but one would assume incorrectly! Since these are simply descriptive titles, and not actually people, it is possible to be both a head of state and a head of government at the same time. In other words, it is possible to not only represent your country as the face of the country and the receiver of foreign diplomats etc (head of state) but to also hold a position of power as the chief executive, etc (head of government). In the US, for example, the president is BOTH a head of state AND government. In the UK, however, the roles are split: the Queen is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government.

Agency loss is a problem inherent in any kind of delegation of power. Agency loss is the possibility that your agent—that is, the person to whom you have delegated power—will do something different than what you would have preferred. Any amount of variation is agency loss—not just substantial amounts. When Congress delegates power to the president, for example, Congress must worry about agency loss.

Created in 1947 by the National Security Act, the NSC advises the president on issues related to national security and coordinates information between the different branches of the military and the CIA.

Contrary to popular belief, the President is not, in fact, authorized to declare war. Under the Constitution, ONLY Congress has the power to declare war; the President is instructed to go before Congress and present their case for military involvement, with the final decision left up to both the House and Senate. However, the issue of war powers – and specifically the extent of the President’s permitted exercise of them – is perhaps one of the most contentious modern political controversies. In the last several decades, a new trend has begun to emerge, in which Presidents increasingly insert temporary deployments of troops and other forms of military assistance into foreign conflicts, all without obtaining prior Congressional approval. Informed of the nation’s military actions only once these commitments had been made, Congress has usually chosen to sanction the President’s decisions after the fact – notable examples include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and several sectors of the ongoing War on Terror. Congress did attempt to take back some of its control with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which would have held the President to much stricter rules on activating the army and making military commitments. But every President who has held office since the law’s passage has chosen to simply ignore it – a fact which Congress has yet to effectively challenge.

The rule governing Presidential term limits – a maximum of two four-year terms – was actually set in place with the passage of the Twenty-second Amendment. Ratified in 1951, the Twenty second Amendment owes its existence to the twelve-year Oval Office occupancy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the first (and only) president to put aside the two term precedent established by George Washington. The Twenty fifth Amendment also owes its existence to prior presidential action – ratified in 1967, it was inspired by the chaos left in the wake of President Woodrow Wilson’s debilitating stroke, in which his wife covertly assumed many of his duties while Congress dithered and bickered helplessly.

The Constitution does make mention of the Vice President, although s/he is not officially entrusted with much power. According to the Constitution, the Vice President’s sole responsibilities are to preside over the Senate and to cast the deciding vote in the event of a Senate-wide tie (both tasks are seldom ever carried out). Curiously, the Constitution contains no provisions concerning the White House staffers, the members of the President’s Cabinet, or the First Lady. George Washington is credited with inventing the Cabinet, a team of confidential advisors chosen by the President, the legality of whose appointments are traditionally determined by the Senate. The White House staffers operate under similar conditions – while not mentioned in the Constitution, an office as prestigious as the Executive Branch could hardly be expected to function effectively without a staff. Many of these aides are personally selected by the President and assist him in a wide variety of necessary tasks, from conducting legislative research to serving as liaisons to various Congressional and military departments. As for the First Lady, while the Constitution neglects to mention her, historically Presidents’ wives have occupied a special role within the government hierarchy. Often, the First Lady serves as her husband’s more accessible representative, making numerous public appearances and championing a wide range of causes to promote the common good.

The Constitution’s list of criterion for presidential eligibility is relatively simple and sparse: any potential president must be at least thirty-five years of age, must have lived in the US for at least fourteen years, and must be a natural-born citizen. No prior governmental service is required – theoretically, anyone is eligible to hold the nation’s highest office without having first obtained any political experience at all. Recently, there has been some debate as to the exact meaning of the “natural-born citizen” clause. The Constitution does not elaborate as to what circumstances constitute “natural-born” citizenship and so a key question remains: Can a naturalized citizen, who meets all the other requirements, become President? As of yet, this issue is unresolved, mainly because the Supreme Court has yet to show much interest, but it is not inconceivable to think that this may be the next of the Constitution’s clauses to soon face judicial clarification.

The Framers were greatly concerned about future Presidents becoming monarchial, snatching up greater extensions of their powers or otherwise trying to dictate commands to the other two branches of government. The Framers imagined that Congress, with its bicameral structure and lengthy membership roster, would act as the main deterrent to any scheming president’s pretensions. This viewpoint might perhaps have been influenced by the outsize personalities that many of the early Congressmen possessed but regardless, the Framers predicted that, in the future, Congress would tend to dominate the President. According to their way of thinking, the Chief Executive would defer to Congress’s desires, allowing Congress to set the administrative agenda and confining himself to responding to legislation that Congress issued, instead of sponsoring, inspiring, or pushing for bills himself (as is the real historic norm).

Surprisingly, party allegiance is not generally considered to be one of the most intrinsically important ingredients of each Presidential administration. This is because the party orientation of individual Presidents tends to play a less vital role when compared to the other factors that comprise administrations – namely, each President’s personality, the powers and roles granted to the President by the Constitution, and the makeup of the underlying governmental bureaucracy. Taken together, these four ingredients overwhelmingly put together the institution of the Presidency, regardless of party allegiance, political era, or historical time period.