Understanding The President's Oath Of Office

The President of the United States is required to take an oath or affirmation to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The President's power to suspend laws

The US Constitution imposes a duty of faithful execution on the President, who must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and take an oath or affirmation to "faithfully execute the Office of President". This duty is commonly known as the Take Care Clause, and it is a major source of presidential power because it seemingly invests the office with broad enforcement authority.

However, it is also a significant limitation on presidential power because it underscores that the executive is under a duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them. The President may neither breach federal law nor order subordinates to do so, and the Constitution incorporates English bars on dispensing or suspending the law. Thus, the President does not have the authority to authorise private violations of the law or nullify laws.

The President also has the power to declare a "national emergency", which gives them access to over 100 special provisions. While many of these are reasonable responses to emergencies, some appear to be dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For example, the President can activate laws that allow them to shut down electronic communications or freeze Americans' bank accounts.

In conclusion, while the President's power to suspend laws is constrained by the Take Care Clause, they do have some discretion in enforcing laws and can access additional powers in a national emergency.

The President's power to amend laws

The President of the United States has a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and to take an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President". This duty of faithful execution is often cited as support for expansive views of presidential power, such as defending the nation in emergencies, withholding documents from Congress, or refusing to execute statutes on grounds of unconstitutionality. However, the original meaning and textual roots of these "Faithful Execution Clauses" have never been fully explored.

The US Constitution does not establish a role for the President in amending it. The process of amending the Constitution involves two-thirds of both Houses of Congress proposing amendments, or two-thirds of the States calling a convention for proposing amendments. These amendments then must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures or three-fourths of conventions in each State. While some Presidents have played a ministerial role in transmitting Congress's proposed amendments to the states, the Supreme Court has stated that the President has no formal constitutional role in the amendment process and cannot veto a proposed amendment.

Despite this, there have been instances where Presidents have played an informal role in the amendment process. For example, President George Washington sent the first twelve proposed amendments, including the Bill of Rights, to the states for ratification. Additionally, President Abraham Lincoln signed the joint resolution proposing the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, even though his signature was not necessary.

The President's power to ignore laws

The President of the United States has a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This means that the President has a responsibility to ensure that the laws passed by Congress are carried out and enforced. This is known as the Faithful Execution Clause or the Take Care Clause.

However, there have been instances where presidents have ignored or refused to enforce certain laws, claiming that they had the right to do so based on their own interpretation of the Constitution. For example, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the act renewing the Bank of the United States, suggesting that the President has the authority to refuse to enforce statutes and judicial decisions that they believe are unconstitutional. Similarly, President Abraham Lincoln justified his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without congressional authorization. These actions suggest that presidents may have some discretion in how they interpret and enforce the laws, particularly in emergencies or when national security is at stake.

On the other hand, there are also constitutional scholars and legal experts who argue that the President does not have the power to ignore laws, even if they believe them to be unconstitutional. They interpret the Faithful Execution Clause as imposing a duty on the President to enforce all congressional laws, regardless of their personal opinions. This interpretation suggests that the President's power is limited and that they cannot act beyond the scope of their office or misuse their powers.

The Supreme Court has also played a role in defining the limits of presidential power. In the case of Trump v. United States, the Court ruled that presidents have a combination of "absolute" and "presumptive" immunities for their official conduct, which has been criticised as undermining democracy and reducing criminal accountability for presidents.

In conclusion, while the President of the United States has a duty to faithfully execute the laws, there is ongoing debate and conflicting interpretations about the extent of their powers, particularly in relation to enforcing laws that they believe are unconstitutional or contradict their policy agenda.

The President's power to enforce laws selectively

The "faithful execution" of the office has three interrelated requirements:

• A duty not to act beyond the scope of one's office (ultra vires).
• A duty not to misuse an office's funds or take unauthorized profits.
• Diligent, careful, good faith, honest, and impartial execution of law or office.

The President's duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" does not mean that the President has to flawlessly execute the laws. It means that the President must make a conscientious and good-faith effort to interpret the statutory authorities and use that effort to stay within them.

The President's power to spend money without congressional approval

The President of the United States is sworn into office by taking an oath or affirmation to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "the best of [their] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". This is specified in Article II, Section One, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.

Article II of the US Constitution imposes a duty of faithful execution on the President, requiring them to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". While the exact implications of this clause have never been fully explored, it is often cited to support expansive views of presidential power. For instance, some have argued that it allows the President to go beyond standing law to defend the nation in emergencies, withhold documents from Congress, or refuse to fully execute statutes on grounds of unconstitutionality or for policy reasons.

However, the President's power to spend money without congressional approval is limited. Article I of the Constitution states that federal funds can only be spent "in consequence of appropriations made by law", and that only the Legislative Branch can make such appropriations. Nevertheless, some Presidents have skirted this requirement through executive orders or by reallocating funds. For example, President John F. Kennedy funded the Peace Corps for seven months without appropriation, using more than a million dollars in Mutual Security Act contingency funds. President Donald Trump also diverted $3.6 billion from the Defense Department to fund the construction of a US-Mexico border wall, declaring a national emergency at the border.

While the President does have some flexibility in spending, their power is not absolute and is subject to constitutional and congressional constraints.

Frequently asked questions