Debates over the proper scope of executive power in the United States have been a feature of U.S. law and politics dating back to before the nation’s founding. Article II of the Constitution vests the president with “the executive power” and the power to act as the military’s Commander in Chief, but the post-9/11 presidency has been characterized as a striking expansion of executive power, particularly in the area of national security.
Latest in Executive Power
Courts should put the burden on prosecutors to prove that the president did not influence their charging decision—or grant defendants a limited discovery to seek evidence to the contrary.
Just as presidents respond in various ways to norms, so, too, do they react to changes in the legal structure with direct political and governing implications.
Internal limits within Article II constrain the president to act only with good faith and due care.
Having been fired from the executive branch, former Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox offered his services to the judicial branch.
Removing a president under the 25th Amendment might look a lot like a conspiracy.
Essays by Mary DeRosa and Christopher Fonzone and Dana Remnus on the role of executive branch lawyers in times of crisis.
Although senators might be called upon to vote on one charge at a time, they have a responsibility to consider the totality of circumstances when casting that vote.
What if the president, instead of tweeting, issued clear legal determinations that he specifically said are binding on the executive branch?
The New York Times reports that White House Counsel Don McGahn has interviewed extensively with the special counsel, cooperating with the president’s consent but perhaps more extensively than Mr. Trump may have anticipated.
Richard Nixon’s fall came after it became clear that he had “broken faith” with core public expectations of presidential leadership. Donald Trump appears headed for the same fate.