It could be argued that the US President is becoming increasingly weaker rather than stronger, despite the writings of Arthur Schlesinger in his book ‘The Imperial Presidency. Gerald Ford remarked that the “Presidency was in peril” showing the fall of power for the US President. There are many limits on the powers of the President, however many could argue that these are not enough in preventing the president from being imperial from the other branches of government.
One argument that the Presidency is imperilled is that no President has been able to exert the same amount of power that Franklin D Roosevelt did during the 1930s and 40s. Roosevelt remains the President to have increased the role of the executive branch of government with his New Deal policies which created organisations such as EXOP. He also broke the convention that a President only stood for two terms, becoming the only President to be elected for four terms. However, once his presidency was over, the powers of the President were soon limited to prevent the President from becoming too powerful. The 23rd amendment ensured that a President would serve no more than two terms. Thus all the Presidents following FDR have been unable to demonstrate as much power as he did. Even his successor, President Truman, could not do as much in office as FDR, despite having to deal with the fallout from the end of World War Two.
In contrast however, some Presidents have been able to show a large amount of power overseas, rather than in domestic affairs. The President’s power overseas may derive from his Constitutional role as ‘Commander in Chief’ and makes it difficult for Congress to interfere with his dealings abroad. Congress may have the power to declare war, but has not done so since 1941 against Japan, yet the US has deployed troops abroad many times since then. As a result, the President can do a lot more