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.

It can certainly be said that Americans have a long-held penchant for choosing distinguished military heroes as their Presidents. Zachary Taylor was elected to the White House largely due to his illustrious military career in the Mexican-American War. Ulysses S. Grant was boosted into office in a similar way; as the top Union general who had won the Civil War, Grant enjoyed tremendous political popularity. Before becoming involved in politics, a young John F. Kennedy served in the Navy during World War Two, surviving several accidents at sea and later authoring a book on the subject. Perhaps the modern era’s most famous Presidential war hero is Dwight Eisenhower, who, as Supreme Allied Commander, led the American and Allied forces to victory against Nazi Germany in World War Two. And of course, there have been many other military men elected to the nation’s highest office: George Washington, Andrew Jackson, James Monroe, and James Garfield, among several others.

While all of the Presidents listed above were indeed targeted by assassins, unfortunately William McKinley did not survive his encounter. McKinley lost his life in 1901 at the hands of Leon Czolgosz, who fatally shot the President during a meet-and-greet event at the Pan-American Exposition. Sadly, three other Presidents have also been victims of assassination: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James Garfield in 1881, and John F. Kennedy in 1963. Several other Presidents, however, were more fortunate and were able to survive the attempts made on their lives. For example, Theodore Roosevelt, while campaigning for a third time in 1912, was sought in the chest on his way to give a speech. Luckily, the bullet’s path was slowed by the thick bundle of papers (on which Roosevelt’s speech was written) in his front breast pocket, and so the ever-stubborn Roosevelt, despite much bleeding and tremendous pain from the wound, insisted on giving his speech before receiving any medical treatment. President Gerald Ford, in a bizarre twist of fate, was attacked by two separate assailants within the space of a single month. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was nearly killed when John Hinckley, Jr. attacked the President and his Secret Service officers. In the chaos, Hinckley was able to fire several shots, one of which entered one of Reagan’s lungs but was fortuitously removed after a grueling bout of emergency surgery.

Thomas Jefferson, who served as the nation’s third President from 1801-1809, presided over one the largest expansions of territory in American history: the Louisiana Purchase. Undertaken and finalized in 1803, the Louisiana Purchase ceded a vast expanse of Western lands, including the invaluable port city of New Orleans, from the French government to the United States. Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor at the time, was desperately in need of funds to support his massive army and so he approached Jefferson, offering to sell all of France’s continental North American lands to the United States. Although Jefferson had a few doubts as to the constitutionality of this purchase, he felt that he could not in good conscience, following his duties as President to act in the nation’s best interest, allow such a generous opportunity to slip away. The completed deal drastically increased the size of the young nation, opening up wide new lands to exploration and exploitation.