The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was first proposed and established by President Richard Nixon in 1970. Its purpose is to regulate the conduct of businesses and individuals for the purpose of protecting the environment and human health.

A lame-duck president is one who has been voted out of office or finds his or her term limit has expired, but is still serving as president for a few months until the inauguration of the new president. The term is generally used solely to refer to a president who has been voted out of office; it is generally thought that he or she has lost the mandate of the people and therefore cannot try to pass any significant legislation for the remainder of his or her term—he or she is a "lame duck." Probably the most notable lame duck president of the twentieth century is Herbert Hoover, who was voted out of office during the early years of the Great Depression in favor of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

There are three main types of powers held by the President: enumerated powers, powers granted by Congress, and inherent powers. Enumerated powers are those given to the President in the Constitution. Powers granted by Congress are just as the name states. And, inherent powers are those that the President has that are derived from either of the two categories, and exist to allow the President to complete his duties. Of the powers listed above, all besides “to issue a veto” are inherent powers. The President has the power “to issue a veto” according to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, making it an enumerated power.

The President is the only person (thus the Executive the only branch) who can recognize new governments. This is somewhat of a read-between-the-lines tradition that stretches back all the way to Washington, who interpreted the clause “[the President may] receive Ambassadors” to mean that the President had the sole ability to recognize new governments. President Truman, for example, recognized the state of Israel.

A treaty is the only device which is explicitly mentioned by the Constitution. One of the recurring themes of American Politics, however, is institutions looking beyond the “four corners” of the Constitution for power. The president does so in terms of war by his (constitutional) ability to direct troop movements which he can (extra-constitutionally) use to intervene in foreign affairs without the Congressional consent necessary to declare war. The president does something similar with executive agreements. The President has the (constitutional) ability to create treaties—the downside to treaties, however, is that they must be ratified by the Senate. Presidents have maneuvered around that requirement, however, by using an (extra-constitutional) device called the “executive agreement.” An executive agreement is basically exactly what it sounds like—two heads of state agreeing to something. Clearly, however, it must come with more strings attached than just a treaty (because it, unlike a treaty, is not ratified by Congress). An executive agreement cannot supersede existing law, on top of which Congress may pass a law nullifying it, and the courts may strike it down as unconstitutional. 

Upon inauguration, the President and Vice President must be natural born citizens, at least 35 years of age, and United States residents for at least 14 years.

While the President has many informal and formal powers, one thing they cannot do is declare war against other countries without the consent of Congress. In order to declare war, Congress must pass a vote to do so.

Those Presidents who have taken it upon themselves to expand the powers of their office have most often done so in times of either national financial distress (as with Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal) or in order to engage in warfare (as with Thomas Jefferson’s decision to send a secret military expedition to defend US shipping against Tripoli pirates). Such power shifts have become increasingly linked and/or abetted by the technological advantages (such as our nuclear capabilities) and international dominance to which the nation has climbed. Presidents have justified these expansions by citing the government’s need to acclimate to the demands placed upon it by the changing times, adjustments which they assert that the Executive Branch, due to its smaller size, can much more rapidly and effectively make than can the often unwieldly Legislative or Judicial Branches. This claim, however, has been often vigorously challenged by many members of Congress, with varying degrees of success.

Most Presidents, regardless of the era in which they govern, find themselves clashing with the media. During his second term, George Washington spoke out against newspaper journalists whom he alleged were committing “outrages against common decency,” while more recently, both Presidents Bush and Obama have criticized cable news channels and/or hosts. Throughout the nation’s history, nearly every President has accused the press, in one form or another, of covering either their administration or themselves in a biased manner. Bias is the most consistently leveled charge because Presidents naturally have a vested interest in seeing their person, their motives, and their policies presented to the public in the most favorable light, while the press, in all its myriad forms, tends to seize upon drama or controversy as its top priority.

When it comes to determining how much support a President has amongst the public, there are two key factors that must always be assessed: approval ratings and election mandates. Approval ratings are derived from polls presented to the public by various interest groups, think tanks, and impartial government assessors (among other bodies), in which average Americans are asked to rate their satisfaction with and overall opinion of the current President. These results are synthesized and analyzed to determine the approval rating of a President – what percentage of the public approves of the job that the President is doing? What percentage disapproves? Presidents, Congress, the media, and Washington insiders pay close attention to the results of these ratings. The other key factor is election mandates, aka the conclusion from the result of presidential elections that a great majority of the public enthusiastically endorses the President and his/her policies. Taken together, election mandates and approval ratings provide Presidents with a powerful advantage when it comes to advocating for their ideas, urging the passage of favored legislation through Congress, and getting politicians to cooperate with their policies. Most government officials, Congress people, and politicians find that it is to their benefit to work with a President who has positive poll numbers and an election mandate on their side, lest they be seen by the public as not fairly representing their interests and dominant attitudes.