Chapter 4

1)
In the scenario, President Obama is using his presidential power of executive order to put his
policy in motion without Congressional approval.

In the context of the scenario, the power of executive order could be impacted by Congress if
they passed a law which overruled it or if they threatened the president with impeachment (if
his order is deemed unconstitutional or an abuse of power.)

In the context of the scenario, the president can appeal to the media using the bully pulpit in
order to persuade citizens and apply pressure to Congress; this would help him rally the votes
needed in Congress to support his proposals.

2)
White men are the most represented demographic in presidential Cabinets.

Republicans tend to choose more white men resulting in less diversity, and women are always
underrepresented, but the diversity of the Cabinet has generally increased in recent years.

The makeup of the Cabinet varies by president and represents the shifts in each president’s
leadership. Given the knowledge that Cabinet appointments are an easy way to show
representation, it follows that presidents who are in favor of more equity and civil equality are
going to appoint more Black and Brown Americans and more women to show the true makeup
of the country.

3)
In both Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Marbury v. Madison, the Constitutional idea of checks and
balances is being upheld as presidential power over Congress is reasserted (Kerry) and judicial
review on Congress is created (Marbury.)

The key difference between the cases is the branches of government concerned in the ruling. In
Kerry, the Court is ruling on a separation of powers between the Congress and the president as
they reaffirmed the presidential power of recognizing foreign nations. In Marbury, on the other
hand, the Court created its authority of Judicial Review and established a new check on the
president.

The president could have used the veto power to send the bill back to Congress and for it to be
revised.
 Chapter 4

4) Have the powers of the presidency executed since the Great Depression made the
Presidency a dangerous office?

Although some could argue that the presidency has become a dangerous force in
American government, the truth of the matter is that the office of the president is still within its
limits and can be held accountable to voters and Congress.

In Article II of the Constitution, the framers laid out the basic idea of the what the
executive officer of the country would look like. In this, they gave the powers to pardon, work
with the legislature, enforce laws, and benefit the general public. Each action since then has
worked to benefit citizens through new programs and systems that would support Americans
such as the New Deal and the Great Society.

Even with the newly gained powers of the office, the president is still in a position to be
held accountable to the voters and the Congress. Federalist 70 delved into this topic: the
authors addressed the idea of presidential accountability and argued that the existence of a
single executive left them open to blame, and the institution of impeachment and open
elections mean that a president who abuses their power will be removed from office.
Furthermore, this ability to impeach is guaranteed under Article I of the Constitution.

Critics of the government argue that the president has created new administrations and
offices of the government during and since the Great Depression, thus overstepping his
authority in the government. However, there is no specific rule in Article II of the constitution to
define what offices may exist in government, and the heads of these agencies are still subject to
advise and consent from the Senate. With this, we know that even the most drastic expansions
of presidential power have kept it manageable and in a position equal to Congress.