Some serious constitutional debates are going on in the US Supreme Court these days. The Presidential Powers in the United States debate revolves around theories such as “Unitary Executive Theory” and “Originalism,” which could optimize the balance of power and institutional control of the Presidential Powers in the United States. The basic argument of the Unitary Executive Theory is that all the powers of the executive are vested in the President, and therefore he should have complete authority to appoint or remove any official. Some believe the doctrine could lead to excessive centralization of power, weakening the independence of Congress or other independent agencies.
Now, in recent decisions and legal analysis, the question is Presidential Powers in the United States being raised whether the Supreme Court is deviating from its own fundamentalist viewpoint. This has led many legal experts to believe that if the court moves towards giving unlimited executive powers to the President, it could pose a threat to America’s checks and balances system in the future.
In the US, the Federal Reserve, FTC, or Securities and Exchange Commission are fundamentally subordinate to the executive branch of the President, but in countries like the US, some independent agencies were created to make correct decisions without being influenced by political pressure. But if the President is given the power to remove agencies without cause, the much-vaunted freedoms of democracy may be in danger.
Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as its creator intended, but Living Constitution advocates believe that society, technology, and the economy have changed, so the Constitution must have evolved over time or it would not be able to address modern problems.
This is not limited to America only but it is both a warning and a warning for every democratic country. In the democracies of many countries in the world, many governments or presidents try to increase their powers, due to which the role of institutions like judiciary, media and parliament starts weakening. If the President of America gets all these powers then he can put the entire democracy in danger.
That is why it is important that democracy maintains the spirit of the Constitution, that is, the balance, accountability and independence of a country so that the balance of power remains the real strength of democracy.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the ongoing debate over Presidential Powers in the United States, the autonomy of independent agencies, and the interpretation of the Constitution could determine the course of American democracy. Unfettered executive control would upset the balance of power and weaken institutional accountability. At the same time, limited but clear powers can ensure effective governance. The true strength of democracy lies in the separation of powers, transparency, and the supremacy of the law. The Constitution should neither be rigid nor left entirely to political willβrather, preserving its spirit while evolving it over time is the true democratic path.
