Of all the Founding Generation’s prescient decisions, few reverberate more today than the checks and balances incorporated into the Constitution. All three branches of the federal government — executive, legislative, and judicial — maintain leverage over the other two, and are in some way beholden. It hasn’t gone entirely smoothly this year, but as America prepares to witness yet again the great miracle of American democracy, namely the peaceful transfer of executive power, the Founders will be vindicated: The Constitution endures even in the most trying circumstances.
The irony is that, even as many have recently worried about presidents having too much power, there are some areas in which the president arguably does not have enough. Scholars have at times become so wary of the “imperial” presidency that they’ve neglected how feckless the occupant of the Oval Office can sometimes be when facing discrete national challenges.
Several years ago, No Labels engaged scholars on both sides of the aisle to think carefully about the procedural reforms required to empower the president to solve problems while still adhering to a clear and constitutional separation of powers. The attendant ideas weren’t designed to steer the government left or right, but rather to make sure that the president had leverage to pursue his or her agenda with some expediency. As President-elect Biden prepares to take office, we believe our nation’s leaders should consider these reforms, less to empower Biden himself, and more to ensure that he and congressional leaders can work without delay to hammer out real bipartisan agreements, and then to implement them.
First, Congress should give the president limited “fast-track” legislative authority. This procedural reform should be familiar in concept to those who follow trade legislation — it allows the White House to submit to Congress fully formed trade agreements for timely up-or-down votes in both houses of Congress. To give presidents of both parties the ability to press the most important elements of their agenda regardless of factional opposition on Capitol Hill, Congress could allow the president to submit two discrete bills a year for fast-track vetting. Members of Congress standing in opposition would still have an opportunity to vote against it — but they would not be able to mire consideration in endless procedural delays or amendments.
Second, the White House should be given a freer hand to cut waste out of the federal budget — particularly the sort of pork-barrel spending that gets tacked on that the president cannot afford to veto. The Supreme Court has ruled that the “line-item veto” is unconstitutional — meaning Congress cannot give Biden a free hand to eliminate individual budget items without review. But Congress could give the president “rescission authority,” which would allow the president to isolate waste in a given bill and send it back to Congress for a standalone up-or-down vote.
Third, the nation’s chief executive should have the authority, like any private sector chief executive, to reorganize the executive departments and agencies of government. For example, if the federal government wants to improve teacher quality, the president should be able to re-orient the dozens of programs running across various federal agencies into one, eliminating redundancy and improving quality. Federal laws passed in the 1930s gave presidents this very power — but it lapsed in 1984. Almost everyone believes the federal government is too complicated today. The person elected to lead the executive branch should have the ability to eliminate redundancy.
Finally, we believe it’s high time to curtail the fissures that so frequently leave the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue at odds. Just like a corporate board’s expectation for open lines of communication with the CEO, the president should be in regular touch with members of Congress, even when they hail from different parties. If many believe there’s too much “gridlock” in Washington, the first step toward unclogging the legislative process is substantive dialogue between the political branches. This shouldn’t be complicated.
For all its flaws, America’s constitutional system remains a miracle. The Founders established a system strong enough to withstand tyrannical impulses almost no matter where they found their way in. But the antithesis of tyranny isn’t gridlock — it’s constructive engagement. However much we treasure the norms of American government, we need Washington to begin solving problems again. That means a clarion call for reform. These ideas, among other worthy suggestions, would build back faith in the capacity of our national leaders to address our country’s great challenges.
Margaret White is executive director of No Labels, a national organization working to revive bipartisanship.