Question

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have great trouble recognizing today's presidency. The sentiment of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention was that the Articles of Confederation were flawed because they did not provide for an executive, but few would have supported the far-reaching powers wielded by modern presidents. After what they had suffered under the British monarch, many delegates had serious reservations about awarding too much authority to the executive branch. Those who supported the New Jersey Plan envisioned a plural executive in which two or more individuals would share the chief executive position as insurance against excessive power accruing to a single person. The Framers would be amazed at the vast military resources over which the president serves as commander in chief, to say nothing of the hundreds of departments, agencies, and bureaus that constitute the executive branch.
Some scholars lay the blame (or credit, depending on your perspective) for this "aggrandizement" of the American presidency directly on the Supreme Court. Do you agree? Specifically, do you believe that the Court has been particularly generous to the president in interpreting the scope of the office's constitutional powers?

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 200 characters.