No description available.

Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / By examining the interactions between the presidency and the other branches of government, research illuminates the causes and mechanisms by which the presidency, and its power, ebbs and flows. Due to the nature of the powers directly granted to the president within the Constitution, much consideration has been given to presidential power through the prisms of national security, international affairs, and times of national emergency. Yet the presidency consists of more than the roles of commander- and diplomat-in-chief. By looking beyond the more obvious considerations of presidential power, the complexity of the institution’s development is not only revealed, but more fully explained. Consequently, this dissertation analyzes the development of presidential power by looking at the less obvious. It considers the use of formal executive tools to implement congressionally delegated and supported authority in an area of domestic policy: the creation of federally protected public lands. Instead of seeking to understand how the use of presidential power impacted an area of public policy, this research flips that perennial question on its head by asking: how has public land policy contributed to the development of presidential power? The research presented here shows, through the analysis of five public land categories, that the consistent application of executive power within this policy realm, combined with Congressional acceptance of this application, enhanced the overall power of the American presidency. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

No description available.

America's founding fathers designed the Constitution as a malleable contract for governance, envisioning a republic with a struggle among co-equal actors that would serve to constrain and channel the struggle for power. The problem this study was designed to address is that presidents have used executive orders (EOs) when legislation is too difficult to pass due to divided party government, or when making sweeping changes to executive departments or agencies that historically required congressional approval. The purpose of this analysis was to explore whether a contemporary Democratic president are more likely than a Republican to use the EO as a unilateral strategy to pursue domestic/economic policy objectives during times of divided party government. This study compared the use of executive orders under divided government by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic President Barack Obama, examining three EOs issued by each. Reagan and Obama viewed government differently. President Obama saw government as a solution to problems and President Reagan saw government as a source of problems. From this, I inferred that Democrats would be more likely than Republicans to favor federal government intervention in domestic/economic policy. Yet, though both presidents had different agendas and approaches, they both used the EO as a unilateral strategy under divided government. This may reflect that presidents understand that many in the public hold the president accountable for the economic performance of the United States, and economic wellbeing may lead to reelection of a president. / Master of Arts / America's founding fathers designed the Constitution as a flexible contract for control, imagining a republic with a struggle among co-equal actors that would serve to limit and guide the struggle for power. The problem this study was designed to address is that presidents have used executive orders (EOs) when laws were too difficult to pass due to divided party government, or when making far-reaching changes to departments or agencies that usually need congressional approval. The purpose of this study was to gain more insight as to whether a Democratic president was more likely than a Republican president to use executive orders to pursue domestic/economic policy goals when different parties controlled Congress and the presidency. The study examined the use of executive orders by Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic President Barack Obama under divided government, looking in depth at three executive orders each President issued. Reagan saw government as a source of problems and Obama saw government as a source of solutions. This led to the expectation that Democratic President Obama might use domestic/economic intervention by the federal government more often than Republican President Reagan would. Yet, although both presidents had different plans and methods, they used the executive order similarly during times of divided government. This likely reflects that presidents -- regardless of party -- understand that many in the public hold the president accountable for the economic performance of the United States, and economic wellbeing may lead to reelection of a president.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Miami University, Dept. of Political Science, 2008. / Title from third page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 214-231).

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The recent usage of presidential directives by President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump initiated debates around limits of presidential power. Research on the presidential power has shown lack of focus on the presidential directives, misinterpretation and wrong terminology which resulted in false accusations of presidential overreach and abuse of power. This thesis argues that the political gridlock and increasing passivity of Congress have contributed to a shift between the executive and legislative power of government. This thesis will trace the extent to which Congress has become resistant to pass two of the key priorities of President Obama's political agenda - immigration reform and gun regulation, after which the President had to act on the issues unilaterally. The main aim of the thesis is to show that presidential directives of President Obama were not issued in a vacuum and that there were debates, persuasion and negotiations preceding the executive actions in an attempt to advance President's agenda in a form of bipartisan legislation rather than unilateral presidential directive.

No description available.