Representation

There has been much debate about presidential power within our country for decades. Not only is the limit of the executive’s power under scrutiny, as seen in the Taft v. Roosevelt debate, but the type of representation that the president should provide is also a complex issue. I want the president to act as a politico, rather than a trustee OR a delegate, because if the president is a politico you are able to get the best of both worlds.

Since a politico acts as both a trustee and a delegate depending on the popular saliency of the issue at hand, he is able to make decisions that the people are pushing for, but is also able to step in and make decisions that he thinks are best for the people. The findings in the Canes-Wrone and Shotts piece provide a good example as to when the president should act as a delegate. Issues that constituents think about routinely such as crime, education and economy should be represented by a delegate who will take into consideration the will of the people, since they are the ones who are the most directly effected. Things like the federal reserve, nuclear energy and foreign policy should probably not be up to the popular will of the people and should be looked after by a trustee who will make more informed, conversant decisions.

However there are some cons to this type of representative. If the executive is acting as a politico, according to its definition he is supposed to act in accordance to the popular salience of an issue. Sometimes a representative’s constituents may push for a popular policy to be passed but is it really always the best decision. Sometimes people are blinded by their own opinions and while appeasing the majority is always a popular thing to do, it may not be what is always best for the country. He should strive to represent all citizens, but that’s not very realistic. He should definitely represent just the electorate, but maybe an aim at all citizens with a stronger focus on those in his political party. While I’m sure there are some people of the opposite political party who voted for the president in power, it is largely due to his political party who elected him. 

In the case of the president, I do not think he should be expected to be descriptively representative. Descriptive representation should be present in congress, but isn’t a president supposed to try and represent the will of all constituents? Just because a president is from Tennessee doesn’t mean that he should give special interest to his constituents in Tennessee. Therefore, the president should probably use substantive representation. His constituent’s political needs should always be placed somewhere in the forefront of his mind. While they may not always need the things that are best for them, he should still keep in mind what is important to them and try and act in their best interest.

Roosevelt vs. Taft

Theodore Roosevelt's "stewardship" theory was based off the idea that the president could do anything that the Constitution did not forbid. He believed the president to be a "steward" of the people and "to do all he could for the people." By exercising this type of power Roosevelt believed he was able to do what was necessary for the country and what it demanded. To watch out for the "common well-being" of the nation, Roosevelt believed this type of informal power had to be utilized.

William Taft's "literalist" theory was based upon the idea that the president could not do anything that the Constitution did not permit. He believed that a president's "jurisdiction must be justified and vindicated by affirmative constitutional" provisions, or else those powers do not exist. Taft argues that by giving the executive informal powers is not only limitless, but also unsafe, creating the potential to invade upon private right.

Both Taft, and Roosevelt, make valid points in their views on presidential power. I think that many people would flip flop between the two theories depending upon the president that held office, but in a general sense, I would tend to side with Roosevelt's argument. Certain circumstances call for certain actions which could not have been fathomed by the Framers, so by limiting executive power to that of which only resides in the Constitution would be an unwise call. Times of emergency, like war or natural disaster, call for hasty actions that may not be constitutional provisions. By giving the president room to move outside of the Constitution provides for a better working democracy. Everything the people demand is not going to be within the limitations of the Constitution.

Going back to Taft's argument, I believe that a president's informal powers must be limited as well. Since there is no clear definition of what the common good is, how can anyone really know if a president's actions are in accordance with this ideal? For example, presidents like Richard Nixon, who obviously overstepped their boundaries and abused executive power, need to have some limitations, but it's hard to draw the line where. If a president's power is too limited people may be unhappy with the government's abilities, but if it is loose it runs the risk of being too powerful. I think overall it is a tough question as to where to draw the line.

Ultimately, as I said before, Roosevelt's argument probably makes the most sense, of course with certain limitations. Just because something falls somewhere in between what is legal and what is illegal doesn't always make it right. There can be deviance without having broken laws.