Many posts have discussed the presidency.
Turning next to the opening words of Article II—“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”—the question arises whether those words were meant to grant substantive power or were merely meant to designate the office of the chief executive. First, as our review of the state constitutions showed, the executive vesting clause was not an invention crafted by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Virtually every state constitution included a general grant of executive authority, with the constitutions of three states—South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York—offering clear textual antecedents to the vesting formula found in Article II. In each of the three, there is evidence that the executive vesting provision was read, or assumed to be, a substantive grant of power. When that fact is combined with the most obvious reading of the text itself,78 it seems reasonable to conclude that the opening line of Article II was intended to give the president an actual power. And the fact that the power vested is “the executive power” implies that it was a power that was understood to have a distinct and discernable character.
Also worth noting is how Article II of the U.S. Constitution mirrors much of the structure of the New York constitution. As in the case of New York, Article II’s first section 57 vests the executive power and also spells out how the chief executive is selected. Then, in the following section in both constitutions, the executive is given a set of powers, such as being commander-in-chief and having the authority to grant pardons. And finally, Article II, sec. 3 of the Constitution, echoing Article XIX of the New York Constitution, states:
[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.The section appears as a mix of authorities—some significant, others less so; one seemingly discretionary, the others not (“shall”). What appears to tie them together is that each has in some way a role in keeping the government moving forward. This is both broad, such as in putting forward ideas for legislative consideration and ensuring the nation’s laws are properly administered, and, more mundanely, in formally accepting the credentials of foreign emissaries and ensuring civilian and military officials are properly authorized to carry out their duties. Given this list of responsibilities, it was perhaps one reason the nation’s chief executive was designated as “President,” presiding not over another branch of government or even a single chamber of the legislature but, rather, acting as a steward for government functions most aptly suited to the institution of the presidency.
Finally, with the exception of Pennsylvania’s constitution, the U.S. Constitution is the only constitution in the founding period in which the executive is given both a list of 58 duties and an oath of office. And, with the exception of Georgia’s constitution, the Constitution is the only American governing charter of the period that had an oath specifically tailored for the chief executive. (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”) It’s an oath that points toward the president’s official responsibilities being broader than being a mere executive—with the duty to faithfully execute the laws being just one of several responsibilities listed in Section 3 of Article II—while, at the same time, circumscribing their execution to supporting the political order itself.
