Plan: ‘Actually more IMPERIAL than imperilled’ Discuss this view of the president in the USA. 30 marks

Intro: - definition of imperial and imperilled and then set out clear argument – imperial and imperilled are greatly dependent upon political time as Skowronek suggests, as well as the political climate surrounding the incumbent president. The scope for being ever being ever a solely imperial or imperilled president is hugely limited in practice, demonstrated by the now considered bifurcated presidency. * Imperial – term comes from Schlesinger in 1973 when referring to Nixon. It is linked to the assertion of presidential power, especially in foreign policy, in presidencies from Truman to Nixon – term used to criticise the increasing dominance of the President in relation to Congress * Imperilled – refers to a reduced level in Presidential authority and power as a resurgent of Congress occurred – increasing its authority over the executive through a number of legislative policies, thus practically capping the President’s role domestically and abroad.
Paragraph 1 – YES – could be considered to be more imperial due to the use of executive agreements * Use of executive agreements means that the president is able to bypass congressional approval – and so acts as an aid to circumvent congress * Obama has used a combination of executive agreements, memoranda, public declarations and press statements to push past constitutional restraint – which facilitates Kernell’s theory of ‘going public’ * EG – Exec agreement order 13687 in 2015 with sanctions on N.Korea * Obama & Cuba – ‘USA is changing its relationship with people of Cuba. This is the most significant change in our politics for more than 50 years’ – diplomatic relation, relax trade and travel restrictions and organising and prisoner exchange * ALL undermine the C&B’s –