Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Presidential powers are the authorities within the executive arm of the government vested in the president during his four-year term in office that is applied in discharging the powers and duties of his office. The president is the commander in chief of the army, naval forces, and the militia of the different states. He has the authority to command in writing the judgment of the chief executive in any of the office sectors upon any matter involving the obligation of their organization.
Also has the authority to award /grant a stay of execution and pardons for offenses against the state apart from the cases of prosecution. Other powers held are those of making treaties, provide two-thirds of the senators’ present correspondence, appointing ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers. Other powers include; to fill up vacancies during the recess of the senate and adjourning activities of the congress and the state.
The views on an official pardon for crime granting
The argument of the presidents’ authority to grant official pardon for crime against the situation apart from the cases of accusation. The argument is based on the lack of limitation on these powers except that of not pardoning impeached persons. From the framing time, there was a debate at the constitutional convention of 1787 where the founders suggested that congress be involved in pardon business.
Conversely, the other originator associates did not hold up the squabble and held that a single man of discretion and good sense is better en suited for the flimsy conjunctures to balance the intention which may implore for and against the diminution of the sentence.
While the Constitution places no major restrictions on a presidential pardon, problems can certainly result from the haphazard granting of pardon and partiality in the act. There have to be lawful assets to draw upon in surrendering pardon because working under the course of action of title 28 of the U.S.A scheme of a centralized set of laws, segment 1.1 to 1.10, and the state Pardon lawful envoy of the evenhandedness sector should help the president by assessing and exploring all desires for pardons. For each case, he set up a commendation for the evenhandedness sector to the president for the final conceding or rejection of the pardon.
Apart from pardons, the president may also allow lessening of punishment, fines, and amnesty. The debate is that the recommendations of the Pardon legal representative to the president are just but recommendations and nothing more of authoritative value and the president is not bound by any higher authority and none is in any way required to follow the power to grant or deny leniency. From this, it’s clear that the right is bestowed upon the president expressly and is constitutional.
Executive legislation
The legislative arm of the government has tried to limit the executive in that; it does not allow the executive officers to make laws that would give the executive arm especially the president absolute powers. The judiciary limits the executive arm of the government mainly the presidential powers through interpreting the rules, laws, and policies to avoid the executive from interpreting them to suit their selfish enforcement needs that would give it absolute control of the national affairs.
At the legitimate meeting of 1787, the participants easily conquered suggestions to make presidential pardons topic to the endorsement of the legislature, and frontier pardons to people convicted of an offense. Suggestion for constitutional adjustments to limit the president’s pardoning clout has been existing in assembly. The 1993 resolution of the council suggested that the President shall only have the power to grant an amnesty or pardon for a crime against the nation after conviction.
In 2000, a council joint resolution projected amendments to the Constitution that would have allowed crime victims the chance to present statements regarding the proposed pardon or commutation of a ruling. Unfortunately, after the Justice Department officers testified against the amendment, it was withdrawn from deliberation in April of 2000. Finally, any limitation or alteration to the president’s power to give pardons requires an amendment of the Constitution that makes the process more complicated. The checks placed in the way of presidential power have not been successful to a great extent.
The framing time dates back to the 1780s and the proponents having different views on whether to involve Congress in the execution of pardon. After formation, it was applied to ensure the president upholds the Constitution and placed on him the powers of being the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government, authority to appoint judges, ambassadors, and another high-ranking government official, veto legislation; calling the Congress into special session, grant pardons, issue proclamations and orders, administer the law; serve as commander in chief of the armed forces, recommend measures for congressional consideration, submit budgets, propose bills, and recommend other action to be taken by the Congress. It can be argued that these powers have been successfully applied in the administration of state affairs as seen from the smooth running of the government activities and programs.
As seen earlier the decision to grant pardon and reprieve lies solely with the president. This implies that the constitution has no major control over it and the recommendation of the Justice Department is subject to the decision of the president and this superiority is constitutional therefore can only be countered through constitutional amendments. As seen in the framing of these powers some founders thought of making it subject to the decision of the congress but were debated out by the other members. (Mark, 2002)
Conclusion
Presidential powers as a part of the government’s administration are seen to be a key player in the administration of state affairs. However, in certain situations, it overrides other authorities or is overly used at times. This, therefore, makes it evident the need for control and limitation from the other components of the state to avoid over-application of the powers bestowed on it that may require a constitutional amendment to accommodate the desired levels of control.
List of References
Mark, R, (2002). Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability. 2d ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.