Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2011, Federal History
…
11 pages
1 file
This article delves into the significance and implications of presidential proclamations during the formative years of the United States (1789-1825), focusing on the Founding Father presidents. It argues that proclamations were crucial in establishing the authority of the executive office and communicating with the American public, differing from executive orders, which target government entities. The study highlights key proclamations and their contexts, revealing how these documents provide insight into the political landscape and challenges of the early republic.
The scholarly turn to the unilateral presidency has expanded our understanding of the presidency and executive power, but, to date, this body of work has focused on presidents since the New Deal. This is somewhat surprising, given that many of the most well-known unilateral orders were issued before 1900. Rather than being isolated events, they are part of a longer list of unilateral presidential orders among early presidents that, as a group, have received little scholarly attention. This article seeks, first, to introduce "settle down" proclamations (which are issued as warnings to the public) issued by presidents before Theodore Roosevelt as a way to further understand the development of executive power in the early presidency. Second, it uses these proclamations to test whether the findings of the unilateral presidency scholarship hold with respect to unilateral power before the twentieth century. The article concludes by comparing unilateral power to prerogative power and proposing a path for future research.
In studying President Bush’s use of signing statements, executive orders and proclamations, I plan to analyze the number of orders and proclamations, how they affected the scope of his authority, and how it was received by Congress and the courts. An executive order can be described as a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government having the force of law. An executive proclamation is “an instrument that states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law”
Political Science Quarterly, 2001
American Political Science Association annual …, 2002
Studies in American Political Development, 1995
A central paradox of the modern American presidency is that citizens regularly call for strong presidential leadership while at the same time their political culture predisposes them to be reluctant followers.1 One of the ways contemporary presidents resolve this paradox is by invoking an electoral mandate. By persuading others that he possesses a mandate from the voters to pursue a particular policy agenda, a president can disguise his leadership under the pretense of simply carrying out “the will of the people.” The presidential mandate thus enables presidents to lead while seeming to follow, to exercise power over people under the guise of empowering the people.
Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 2007
2007
Citizens and scholars are again confronted with a question presented by necessity and the law: Because no law can anticipate every contingency, how can any set of laws remain fundamental and practical? How can discretion be made compatible with democratic consent? Before he became president, Thomas Jefferson had devoted twenty-five years to this problem. Author of the Declaration of Independence, constitutional reformer, wartime governor, diplomat, and opposition leader, Jefferson arrived at a way to resolve the tension between contingency and a written constitution. This solution was an executive that would be both strong and democratic. Indeed, it would derive its strength, or its energy, from its democratic sources and present an alternative to Alexander Hamilton's understanding of executive power. Thus, Jefferson's Revolution of 1800 brought about a transformation of the presidency because the architect of that revolution had a plan for executive power. But this plan was itself subject to events, and Jefferson had to alter its course throughout his presidency. By revisiting Jefferson's understanding of executive power, we better understand Jefferson's presidency and more fully trace the development of modern executive power.
Public Administration Review, 2009
2012
The inauguration is the ceremonial legitimization process of the American head of state. This institution has not been regulated in the United States; the elements of the programs have developed through tradition and customs over time since George Washington’s first inauguration in 1789. This writing aims to introduce the history of the early U.S. presidential inauguration days; at the same time it also raises the question whether the inauguration has a legal role apart from its social one. The conclusion shows that the oath-taking is the single omnipresent element in the head of state’s induction into office, therefore, that is the legally relevant and necessary element sufficient in itself to complete the President’s ceremonial legitimization.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
The Political Quarterly, 1962
Tulsa Law Review, 2017
Political Thought and the Origins of the American Presidency, 2021
University of Minnesota Law School, 2009
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 2022
American Journal of Legal History, 2023
University of Richmond Law Review, 2011
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010
with G. Krause, Journal of Politics, February 2000: 88-114.
Perspectives on Politics, 2005
Pace Law Review, 2010
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 1999
The Review of Politics, 2011
Reconfiguring the Union: Civil War Transformations (Studies of the Americas) , 2013
Journal of the Early Republic, 2010
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000