Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. You can find the discussion about immigration here and on college affordability here.

This week, my students discuss transgender restroom policy. When students in the class were asked in a survey whether people who are transgender should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they identify with or should they have to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as, 60% said they should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender then identify with, 23% said they should be allowed to use the public bathrooms of the gender they were born as, and 17% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

A Middle Ground: Undue Hardship Analysis 

Response 1, Jennifer P. 

Much debate has arose regarding transgender students using restrooms and locker rooms. The middle ground approach differentiates between public restrooms and school locker rooms, where there’s unavoidable public nudity (Park, 2015). This contrast is consistent with public opinion in three swing states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. According to the Quinnipiac University Poll, voters in two of the three states support transgendered people having the right to use public restrooms consistent with their gender identity, but all three states oppose mandating public schools to extend the same right to transgender students in locker rooms (Brown, 2016).

The U.S Departments of Education (ED) and Justice (DOJ) recently issued a joint letter stating they now treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX. They define gender identity as “an individual’s internal sense of gender” regardless of education records or identification documents indicating a different sex (Gupta, 2016), and discrimination based on students’ transgender status can preclude schools from receiving federal funding (Gupta, 2016 page 2). Ten states, including Ohio, are in opposition to these executive agencies over transgender students’ use of locker rooms. Even further, a lawsuit has been filed and these states claim that the federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries by attempting to rephrase the term “sex” to include “gender identity” under federal civil rights laws (Bydalek, 2016).

The two main issues at play in this debate are the separation of powers and federalism. The states argue that the executive agencies have violated separation of powers by usurping Congress’ authority to legislate in this area. The lawsuit alleges their actions “impose new obligations without Congressional authorization” and “effectively amended the relevant statutory language via unilateral administrative action” (Bydalek, 2016 page 21). In addition, their threat to withhold federal funding raises questions of federalism. The lawsuit alleges, “Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for [entities] to act in accordance with federal policies. But when ‘pressure turns into compulsion,’ the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism” (Bydalek, 2016 page 30).

The solution to this issue does not lend itself to a one size fits all approach, but transgendered students should be given reasonable accommodations similar to the process under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as the middle ground approach suggested (Park, 2015). Granting access to facilities is only the beginning, but safeguarding all students’ privacy interests is the harder part. The “significant guidance” issued by ED and DOJ only says “a school may make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy,” but cannot require transgender students to use them (Gupta, 2016 page 3). However, one student should not be able to require a school to completely remodel a locker room at significant cost to the school just to accommodate that student’s privacy. The ADA requires employers and employees to go through an undue hardship analysis (U.S. DOJ, 2008), and it could be adopted to this issue. Therefore, the transgender student should be able to request an accommodation, such as shower curtains, and the school can either provide those that are reasonable or alternatively prove that the student’s suggestion creates an undue financial hardship.

Another benefit of using the reasonable accommodation and undue hardship analysis is that the issue of federal funding could be used as an incentive instead of a threat. The media often highlights unfunded mandates in the context of education, but the ED and DOJ letter amounts to a defunded mandate. According to the lawsuit, direct federal funding “amounts to 9.3% of the average State’s total revenue for public elementary and secondary schools, or $1,128 per pupil” (Bydalek, 2016 page 16). The potential loss of this money would be devastating to a school. Instead of threatening the loss of money, ED and DOJ should encourage additional dollars to be available for the schools to provide reasonable accommodations to transgender students.

Transgender students’ use of locker rooms is a great example of how one issue involves the interplay of many themes, as evidenced here by the separation of powers, federalism, and the right to privacy.

Upholding Rights and Ensuring Privacy

Response 2, Illya S. 

Without a doubt one of the main issues of contention leading up to the current presidential election has been that of transgender students in locker rooms. Every now and again the issue is brought into the public spotlight when stories such as the one at Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinois emerge. Parents and students sued the United States Department of Education after they passed Title IX as well as the local school district for its modern implementation. These groups saw Title IX’s attempts to eliminate discrimination based on sex as an unlawful attempt to force people born to one sex to use lockers rooms that they thought weren’t meant for their sex (Eldeib & Rhodes, 2016).   Continue reading Debate, Week 3: Transgender Students in High School Locker Rooms →

Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. For the next two weeks, I will post a few especially good responses from my students on each issue. You can find the discussion about immigration here.

This week, my students discuss whether or not college should be free in the United States. When students in the class were asked in a survey whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that tuition should free at all public colleges and universities throughout America, 34% agreed that tuition should be free, 60% disagreed, and 6% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

Free Higher Education is Not Feasible

Response 1, Andrea H. 

A popular topic of debate surrounding the 2016 presidential election has been the affordability and accessibility of higher education in the United States. The attempted push toward free college tuition at public universities and colleges has sparked a national interest that seems unlikely to end any time soon. This hot topic has led to demand, especially from younger citizens, to know a candidate’s stance on the matter. Though one candidate’s stance on free college can set them apart from other candidates, the idea of free higher education in the United States is not a feasible ambition.

Free public college in America almost sounds too good to be true, and that’s because it is. Implementing free tuition for any student attending a public university would have many negative implications. First, money for the university has to come from somewhere­­— mainly, taxpayers. The financial burden of higher education would ultimately be dispersed throughout society via increased income taxation (Jackson, 2016). Second, making the choice to financially invest in an education likely incentivizes students to be successful through college in order to materialize their investment; whereas, free college could lead to a “no-loss” mindset if failure ensues. In fact, the majority of the European countries with free college don’t graduate over 50% of their students, while the United States is currently ranked fifth out of nineteen countries in this category according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Kelly, 2016b). Another pitfall associated with the idea of free college is the impact the colleges will face. Free tuition for students would also likely compromise the resources and education of those in attendance. Schools will be unable to generate funds, likely leading to a lesser quality education than would be received in present day (Kelly, 2016a). Similarly, if enrollment totals are increased, a college diploma could become devalued and essentially meaningless if anyone and everyone has the opportunity to go to college. Overall, free college tuition has substantial negative consequences on society as a whole and public college institutions.

However, many citizens are still vastly in favor of free college tuition. With ever-rising tuition prices and students graduating with copious amounts of debt, it is easy to see where the support stems from despite the inherent problems with the concept. Tuition should be made more affordable, but free tuition for all is not the answer. Those in support of free tuition argue that free higher education should be a right for all students graduating high school, even those who struggled, since it usually leads to a more stable life (Page & Clawson, 2015). However, performance in high school is often a solid indicator of how one will perform in college, and a person who struggles in high school will not likely succeed through the rigors of college without help. Also, if everyone has access to higher education, enrollment would become unregulated and over-capacitate public schools – further leading to education of a lower-quality to accommodate the influx of students going to college just because they can. In turn, if the majority of the population holds a college degree, their over-abundance would become much like a high school diploma is viewed now, where there is little value placed on having one.

One alternative to free public college tuition for all is Tennessee’s Promise Program, where students gain free community college tuition if they maintain a 2.5 GPA and are at least half-time students. The White House has offered $100 million to support tuition-free community college programs like this across the country (Morris, 2016). Programs like these could be the happy middle ground between today’s college tuition and totally free tuition for four-year universities, and would possibly be a better alternative for those who are not academically qualified for four-year universities.

College tuition is a large point of interest for young citizens, especially those considering furthering their education. Candidates have seemed to voice their support and plans for free public college tuition, but have not stated and shared the negative implications it could potentially have on society as a whole. Overall, the undesirable effects free tuition would place on society outweigh the benefits.

College Affordability as a National Standard

Response 2, Jesse H. 

In the 2016 presidential election, one of the hot topics has been affordable college education. One side of the argument states that higher education prices need to be cut so that lower income students have access to these schools allowing America’s future high school graduates to stay academically competitive on an international level. The other side argues that cutting prices will not actually provide greater opportunities to the lower class, but will instead perpetuate inequality due to an already biased society towards higher income communities.  Continue reading Debate, Week 2: Should College be Free? →

Students in the summer offering of my Introduction to American Politics course were assigned to write their final paper on one of three contemporary political debates in the United States – immigration reform, college affordability, and transgender bathroom policy. For the next three weeks, I will post a few especially good responses from my students on each issue.

This week, my students discuss whether and not immigration is a problem in the United States. When students in the class were asked in a survey about their opinion on government policy towards unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States, 9% agreed that they should be sent back to their home countries, 14% approved of a guest worker program that would allow them to remain, 60% agreed that they should be allowed to remain if they met certain requirements, 14% agreed that they should be allowed to remain without penalty, and 3% reported not knowing.  As you’ll see from the commentary below, there is much more nuance than these numbers suggest.

Immigrants Commit Less Crime and Boost the Economy

Response 1, Alex C.*

Immigration is something that our country has dealt with since its inception.   Ever since the United States came to be, it has been seen as a land of opportunity for those less fortunate. Potential immigrants saw a chance to start a new and better life in the United States. However, many immigrants met resistance when they tried to make the journey to the states because of some misconceptions. Immigration is in fact a good thing for our country because immigrants are not actually more likely to commit crime and they provide the economy a boost through innovation and hard work.

There are many different opinions on immigration and immigration reform in the United States. Jan Ting (2015) that immigration may be one cause of unemployment., and that the solution to unemployment is reduced immigration (Ting, 2015). Marco Saavedra (2015), on the other hand, was college educated and his parents owned a small business that created jobs and were active in their community. However, they were still viewed as the problem to most Americans because of their immigrant status. Anne-Marie Nuñez (2015) argues that immigrants perform better in educational outcomes than their native-born classmates – “it is immigrants who significantly sustain the population of the U.S. work force” (Nuñez, 2015, p. 5). Sassen (1989) argues that immigration reform has largely failed and that the immigrants are filling valuable rolls in the United States job market. Finally, Donato (2008) emphasizes that more research needed to be done. There is a lot of information out there concerning immigration, but not every scenario and outcome has been explored.

The stereotype that immigrants are coming to the United States and committing crime is largely untrue. Ewing, Martinez, and Rumbaut (2015) argued that immigrants actually commit less crime and are incarcerated at a lesser rate than native-born Americans. Even though the percentage of immigrants grew substantially from 1990 to 2013, the violent crime rate and the property crime rate both fell by over forty percent (Ewing, Martinez & Rumbaut, 2015). They posited that this was due to the fact that immigrants were coming to the United States for a better life (Ewing, Martinez & Rumbaut, 2015). Immigrants must risk a lot when they come to a new country and leave their old lives behind. It would be foolish of them to throw it all away and commit crimes especially since they run the risk of being deported.  Continue reading Debate, Week 1: Is Immigration Really a Problem in the United States? →

Students in my summer course were given the opportunity to complete a candidate statement for extra credit where they were asked to write a 300-400 word statement about which candidate they supported and why. They were required to focus on two to three policy issues on which they agreed with the candidate on.

Out of the students in the class, 49% supported Hillary Clinton, 20% supported Donald Trump, 17% supported Gary Johnson, and 14% supported other candidates. Every few days, I will post some of their statements to this website in order to a) highlight their work and b) to provide some context on how today’s college students feel about the 2016 presidential candidates.

Here’s the schedule for the postings (in alphabetical order by candidate):

• Hillary Clinton (8/8)
• Gary Johnson (8/10)
• Donald Trump (8/12)

Today, we will hear from a student who personally supports Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

Response 1, Alex C.*

Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate. The Libertarian Party believes that individual rights are the most important (Libertarian Party, 2016). I support Gary Johnson for multiple reasons such as his position on gun control, same sex marriage, and abortion.

In terms of gun control, Johnson was quoted as saying, “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” (On the Issues, 2011). This quote aligns with my beliefs because criminals will always be willing to break the law but if guns are illegal it keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens who would use them for self-defense. He points out the fact that tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando, Florida happened in a gun-free zone (Page, 2016). If law abiding citizens had been allowed to carry legally in these places, they may have been able lessen the tragedy by stopping the shooter sooner.

On the topic of same sex marriage, Johnson says “I support gay unions … government ought to get out of the marriage business” (On the Issues, 2011). I think that everyone should be allowed to have the same rights. He also expresses that different religions have the right to believe in anything they choose, but it is not the government’s role to interfere when it comes to peoples’ rights (Ballotpedia, 2011). I agree that people have the right to believe in whatever they choose, but their beliefs should not infringe on the rights of others.

Finally, Johnson supports a woman’s right to choose abortion up until a certain point (On the Issues, 2011). This belief aligns closely with my beliefs on same sex marriage. I think that people have the right to believe and practice anything they want. However, these beliefs should not take away the rights of others. When it comes to an individual’s body, we should not be able to regulate how they treat it.

Even though Johnson is a member of a third party, he takes issue stances that I support. Though he does not have a serious chance of winning, I will vote for him because his beliefs align closely with mine. I think it is good to have options in politics, and Johnson is a good one.

What about you? Why (or why not) do you support Gary Johnson?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited.

“Gary Johnson” by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Continue reading Why We Support Gary Johnson →

Students in my summer course were given the opportunity to complete a candidate statement for extra credit where they were asked to write a 300-400 word statement about which candidate they supported and why. They were required to focus on two to three policy issues on which they agreed with the candidate on.

Out of the students in the class, 49% supported Hillary Clinton, 20% supported Donald Trump, 17% supported Gary Johnson, and 14% supported other candidates. Every few days, I will post some of their statements to this website in order to a) highlight their work and b) to provide some context on how today’s college students feel about the 2016 presidential candidates.

Here’s the schedule for the postings (in alphabetical order by candidate):

• Hillary Clinton (8/8)
• Gary Johnson (8/10)
• Donald Trump (8/12)

Today, we will hear from two students who personally support Hillary Clinton.

Response 1, Martin M.*

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton because she supports equality and the rights of LGBT Americans. As Secretary of State, she declared on the global stage that gay rights are human rights, and she made it easier for transgender Americans to change the gender listed on their passports. On the campaign trail, she has vowed, to work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, which would ensure full federal equality for LGBT Americans. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because as a young gay adult, I have witnessed discrimination against myself and other fellow LGBT Americans. I think that the movement for LGBT rights has come a long way but there are still things to be done like passing anti-discrimination laws on both the state and federal level in order to stop LGBT Americans from losing their jobs, losing their homes, and facing harassment just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I also support Hillary Clinton because she supports increasing gun control. She has been a longtime advocate for multiple gun safety regulations that aim at addressing the various problems of gun violence in the United States. Specifically, she wants to strengthen and expand background checks to more gun sales, which would close the gun show and internet sales loopholes. She also wants to take on the gun lobby by holding them accountable for irresponsible actions. In addition, she supports laws that would make it a crime to buy a gun for a person already prohibited from owning one. Finally, she supports legislation that keeps military-style weapons off the streets. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because the only way to reduce the critically high number of mass shootings and instances of gun violence is to have greater control over who obtains guns and what types of guns they can get.

Finally, I support Hillary Clinton because she supports criminal justice reform. As President, she wants to strengthen bonds of trust between communities and police, end mass incarceration, and promote successful re-entry to society by individuals who were incarcerated. I support Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue because I think that the fact that the United States has 25% of the world’s incarcerated population showcases that our criminal justice system needs to be reformed in order to ensure that the United States is truly the land of the free.

Response 2, Illya S.* 

For the 2016 presidential election, I am supporting Hillary Clinton. Not only does she have vast leadership experience from having been in roles such as Secretary of State as well as a New York Senator but several of her policy positions also affirm with my ideology. Two of these policy positions in particular have to do with the issues of foreign policy and access to higher education.

In terms of foreign policy, Clinton plans on mitigating the threat caused by ISIS with three separate courses of action (Hillary Clinton 2016). First of all, she would destroy the terrorists groups’ strongholds in Iraq and Syria, which would require supporting local Arab and Kurdish troops, utilizing diplomacy, and strengthening the air campaign. In addition, Clinton hopes to work closely with our allies in order to disrupt and break up terrorist networks. This would include cooperating with intelligence agencies from Europe and monitoring online activity for security reasons. And lastly, Clinton wants to tighten defense in America through community building, restrictions on gun ownership, and training law enforcement in how to better deal with terror threats and situations (Hillary Clinton 2016). I support this because the measures she wants to take seem like they have the capability of being effective in fighting the threat that ISIS poses while keeping in mind the importance of privacy and respecting different communities in this country.

Clinton believes that through making college debt-free it will be more accessible to everyone (Hillary Clinton 2016). Her proposed plan would allow students whose families earn less than 125,000 a year to not pay tuition at public institutions by the year 2021, and, starting immediately, students from families earning less than 85,000 will not need to pay tuition. Additionally, all community colleges will be made tuition free, and historically minority colleges will be funded to promote the further education of minority populations. State governments will also need to do their part in controlling tuition. Lastly, Clinton plans on supporting students who are already parents themselves. I consider these plans to be very inclusive and fair to a large segment of the population that is struggling to keep up with the costs of post-secondary education (Hillary Clinton 2016). In making education more affordable, it is more accessible for all.

Read Take 1 here.

What about you? Why (or why not) do you support Hillary Clinton?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited.

Continue reading Why We Support Hillary Clinton (Take 2) →

Recently, I took a rideshare service to the Oakland airport and had a forty-five minute conversation with a Trump supporter named Bob*. While Bob was instructed to avoid discussing politics, religion, and sports to ensure good ratings, I convinced him to trust me – that I only wanted to understand. What follows is my attempt to report on and understand how a habitual Democratic voter comes to the decision to support Donald Trump. I do not necessarily think that his experience is generalizable to other Trump supporters, but perhaps provides some more nuances than traditional survey results provide.

What follows is a paraphrase of our conversation (in italics) with my thoughts (non-italicized) below:

Bob is a white male between 50-65 years old and drives for the ride share company full time. While it’s not ideal that he works for them, the job is carrying him through until he figures out his career path. He made boots for trade shows for twenty years before the economy began to unravel and collapse in 2008. He never really liked that job either, but it paid the bills.  

He’s registered as a No Party Preference (NPP) in California but has voted Democrat almost all his life. Throughout our conversation, however, he never claimed a party label. He voted for Bill Clinton and Barak Obama both times. He likes Obama and thinks people are too hard on him. Bob thinks Obama is smart; he likes that he is protecting this country and that he keeps the peace. Most of all, Bob thinks Obama is inspiring – that he can calmly, yet convincingly make you believe in him. Obama has, in Bob’s words, “put the country on the right track”.

When I asked him about the issues that were important to him, he reported – honestly and without hesitation – that he did not have time to learn about the issues. He says its, “not (his) job to be involved in everything going on in the world. I don’t know political facts – I have to go with my gut.” During our entire conversation, he never mentioned one issue that was or was not important or inspiring to him. He doesn’t think about politics in his spare time.

Bob also doesn’t talk with most of his friends about politics. If he had to guess, he believes that most of his friends would support Hillary Clinton. However, a personal friend who is a citizen of another country supports Donald Trump. He says his friends don’t influence his political beliefs (much to my research agenda’s chagrin). He says the emotion with which his friends discuss politics on Facebook turns him off entirely. If anything, his friends influence him to be silent about his political beliefs; he seems to have some understanding that Trump is not popular among them.

He’s watched every season of Celebrity Apprentice and saw Trump make calculated, difficult and “politically correct” decisions. While he acknowledged that the show was perhaps just a scripted television show, he was still impressed by Trump’s capabilities. He trusts Trump’s ability to make hard decisions. Trump inspires him. Trump would be his first choice over all the other Republican nominees that were in the race. Despite Trump’s avid support for the Second Amendment, he still wants to vote for him even though he has never owned a gun and doesn’t think it should be so easy for others to own them. 

In the past few weeks, however, Bob has seen Trump make a series of very poor decisions and this troubles him – specifically, his response to the Orlando shootings and his criticism of the judge of Mexican heritage. Trump, to Bob, is a good decision-maker – if he continues to make bad decisions, he may not be able to vote for him come November. Bob thinks Trump needs to be more politically correct and start acting presidential now that he’s the Republican nominee.  

Perhaps equally notable as his staunch support for Trump is his persistent dislike of Hillary Clinton. Bob described Hillary as a “boring, angry women”. Her e-mail troubles and the other things that have enveloped her campaign don’t bother him – she’s just not inspiring. In his gut, he doesn’t trust her. In fact, he would support any other candidate (regardless of political party) besides Hillary. He says he probably would have voted for Ted Cruz or John Kasich over Hillary Clinton. Saying this and actually doing this, however, are two separate things. He even admitted that he’d vote for Bernie Sanders over Hillary because he can relate to his “hippie style”. He’d like to see Bill Clinton back in the White House though. If he could be Hillary’s top advisor, then he’d probably support that.

What should we make of all of this? I’m not sure if we should make very much of it at all. Every individual has a unique story – there is no one size that fits all in the political world. Voting remains a very personal and complex decision. However, I walked away from my conversation with Bob with a greater understanding of a few things.

First, this confirms some of political scientists’ and democratic theorists’ deepest fears – voters’ lack of sophistication and knowledge (Converse, 1964; Lupia, 2016). Here we have a habitual Democratic voter with no real understanding of why he’s a Democrat besides his “gut feeling”. I do not mean to imply that all Trump voters or all Democrats aren’t knowledgeable about the issues; however, it does hold true in this and, I believe, other cases as well.

Secondly, there are a lot of individuals who support and plan to vote for Donald Trump. I think the country’s obsession with political correctness, silences a good number of individuals in our political system. Trump, for better or worse, seems to be giving a voice to those individuals who are afraid to speak. We need to be better at trying to understand one another and permit different ways of thinking. If Democrats knew only one thing about Bob – that he supports Trump – they may have labeled him “as the other side”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth, however. Bob has supported Democratic candidates all his life.

Third, I do believe there is some sexism at play here and perhaps amongst other voters this election season. It’s unclear if his vote is “for Trump” or for “anyone but Hillary.” Bob’s repeated use of “angry woman”, his hopes that Bill would be Hillary’s top advisor if she is elected, and his “anyone but her” mentality lead me to this (tentative) reflection. Is there something about Hillary Clinton’s gender that prohibits him (and others) from voting for her?

I gave Bob five stars – not because I agree with him, but because I appreciate his willingness to openly share his political beliefs. We all need spaces where we can express our political beliefs without fear of judgment.

In what ways has this election season changed what you know about politics? In what ways are you going to try to understand “the other side” better?

Do you have a voter profile to share? Contact me using the form above!

*Real name changed to ensure privacy

“Donald Trump” by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)

When you go to the ballot box to vote for a presidential candidate, it is important to understand what you are electing them to do. Article II of the United States Constitution details presidential eligibility and responsibilities. As with most political power, power is checked by another branch of government. The separation of powers and checks and balances on that power ensures that one branch of government cannot become too powerful. As you will see, most presidential power is checked by another branch of the government – the legislative or judicial branches. However, there are some key areas in which the president possesses more unilateral power.

To be clear before moving on, it is important to acknowledge the distinction between the president (the individual who occupies the presidency) and the presidency (the institution/role governed by rules set forward in Constitution). A president’s strengths, character, and abilities are often instrumental to their success or failure in the presidency.

When you elect a President, what can he/she do?

Before taking office, the President takes the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution).

When talking about presidential powers, scholars usually distinguish between expressed and implied powers. Expressed powers are the powers explicitly granted to the President in the Constitution. Implied powers are powers not expressly stated in the Constitution, but have been interpreted by presidents as necessary to faithfully execute laws and defend the Constitution. I detail expressed and implied powers below.

Expressed Powers

• Executive Powers (Article II, Section 2 & 3)
  • Execute laws (via the federal bureaucracy)
  • Appoint officers of the federal government: Most of these appointments require Senate approval.
• Legislative Powers (Article II, Section 3)
  • Veto legislation passed by Congress: This veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (Article I, Section 7). Rather than use the veto power, presidents often threaten to use it – to success. For some context:
    • President F. Roosevelt: 635 vetoes, 9 overridden
    • President Reagan: 78 vetoes, 9 overridden
    • President Clinton: 37 vetoes, 2 overridden
    • President Bush: 12 vetoes, 4 overridden
    • President Obama: 12 vetoes, 1 overridden
  • Deliver State of the Union Address: This power serves agenda-setting and persuasive purposes.
  • Make policy recommendations: Of course, these recommendations require cooperation from and approval by Congress.
  • Convene and adjourn Congress: The president may do so only under extreme circumstances – President Lincoln did so after the outbreak of the Civil War; President George W. Bush did so in the aftermath of Katrina.
• Judicial Powers (Article II, Section 2)
  • Appoint justices to the Supreme Court: A simple majority of Senators must approve the president’s appointments.
    • Here is a great resource on the nomination and appointment process
  • Appoint judges to federal courts: The president’s appointments must be approved in the Senate.
  • Grant pardons and reprieves: This power is limited by prospect of reelection; thus, they largely occur during the President’s last days in office.
• Diplomatic and Military Powers (Article II, Section 2)
  • Appoint ambassadors: The Senate must approve the president’s appointments.
  • Receive ambassadors and other public ministers (Article II, Section 3): Receiving and appointing ambassadors effectively gives the president power to recognize the legitimacy of other nations. By withdrawing its Cuban ambassador, for example, the United States effectively ended their diplomatic recognition of Cuba.
  • Enter into treaties with other nations: These treaties require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.
  • Serves as commander in chief: While the president cannot declare war (Congress does that), they can engage troops in military conflict in the interest of protecting and preserving the Constitution. This power has expanded over time, and Congress has attempted to restrain this power. Despite congressional efforts (i.e., the War Powers Resolution of 1973), this power is one of the most historically controversial powers.

Implied Powers

• Executive Powers
  • Organize federal bureaucracy: The president can establish offices necessary to “faithfully execute the law.” Congress must approve department budgets. If the president creates a new department, Congress must approve its budget.
  • Issue executive orders and exercise executive privilege: These powers are taken both from the President’s Oath (Article II, Section 1), and Article II, Section 3, which states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    • Presidents use executive orders in order to meet their obligation to “faithfully execute” the laws of the nation. Executive orders are declarations issued by the President that relate to the organization of the federal bureaucracy, the execution of federal legislation, and the enforcement of federal court decisions. Executive orders do not require Congressional approval but can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by subsequent administrations. For example, President Nixon issued an executive order to create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and President Eisenhower issued an executive order to enforce court-ordered desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. President Obama’s executive order, which effectively offered temporary amnesty to nearly five million undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S., (arguably) stands as the furthest reach of this power historically. It is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.
    • Executive privilege is the act of withholding information from congressional, judicial, or public scrutiny. President Nixon claimed executive privilege during Watergate, which the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed. However, their ruling did recognize “the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties” (United States v. Nixon).
  • Diplomatic Power
    • Enter into executive agreements: Due to difficulties associated with gathering enough congressional support to ratify treaties, presidents enter into executive agreements with foreign nations. These executive agreements may or may not require congressional approval and may require federal legislation or congressional funding to execute the terms of the agreement.
    • Serves as symbolic head of state in representing the United States throughout the world

Both of the interpretations of expressed and implied presidential powers have grown substantially over time. Once power and responsibility is delegated to the President, it is not easily taken back. The modern presidency is the strongest in United States history.

When considering presidential power, here are a few other things to consider

Other Presidential Powers

• Executive
  • Recommend department budgets (delegated)
• Public Opinion
  • Represent the will of the public
  • Shape national agenda
• Political Party
  • Implement party priorities
  • Shape the agenda of the party
  • Symbolic party head

Who is eligible to become President? (Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution)

• ‘Natural born citizen’ or citizen of the United States (yes, this includes Ted Cruz)
• At least 35 years old
• Resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years
• President can serve two terms (22^nd Amendment)

How is a President removed from office?

• Impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution)
• In case of death, resignation, or temporary disability, the vice president becomes president (25^th Amendment)

Certainly, the office of the presidency is an influential one, but it is not unlimited – most presidential powers are checked by other branches of government. The President may have the appointment authority, but bitter confirmation battles over Merrick Garland and Loretta Lynch remind us that this authority is not absolute. In my opinion, the areas that present the greatest potential for presidential abuse reside in the executive order, privilege, and agreement powers. With these implied powers, presidents can act unilaterally without (initially) needing congressional approval in broad executive, legislative, and diplomatic capacities. I believe that this is where the character of a presidential candidate enters into the decision calculus.

Before you cast your vote for the next President of the United States, I think it is important to ask:

• Who is most qualified to execute the constitutional and extra-constitutional roles and responsibilities outlined above according to my worldview?
• Who will respect the checks and balances on presidential power? Who do I trust to not abuse this power?

Barak Obama by Jose Luis Agapito (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

*I take responsibility for any and all errors in this post.

The presidential candidate that I support most in the 2016 presidential election is Donald Trump. Although he is very harsh and aggressive, a lot of his values and opinions on certain issues align with mine. One of the opinions Trump is most known for is his views on immigration. Trump opposes immigration and wants to build a wall to eliminate the threat of illegal immigrants coming into the United States. I support Trump’s position on this issue because as I have been studying economics at Ohio State I have seen that if America continues to allow immigrants to enter the country, it will only be harmful to the citizens who already live here. Illegal immigrants often work for less money and take available jobs and leave American citizens unemployed. Although Trump’s way of expressing his beliefs may sound heartless and mean, he truly is only looking out for Americans. Also, his way of separating his emotions from what’s best for the country shows me that he can be a strong leader and truly make decisions fully in favor of his citizens.

Another view that I agree with is Trump’s stance on gun control. He has stated in several interviews and even his kick-off speech for presidential candidate that he fully supports the Second Amendment and wants to protect it. I support his belief because I have been raised in a family of concealed carriers and have always viewed guns as protection rather than evil. Trump drew me even more towards his view in several of his speeches where he mentioned events that could have turned out differently, or how even been prevented, if the victims were carrying weapons as well. Trump’s loyalty to the Constitution makes me view him as a very strong candidate for president because that is what our government was built on from the beginning. Although many citizens might think badly of Trump for his belligerent, ruthless behavior I can see through his loyalty to both American citizens and the Constitution that he is the best candidate to “Make America Great Again”.

What about you? Why (or why not) do you support Donald Trump?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited

“Donald Trump” by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Students in my spring course were given the opportunity to complete a candidate statement for extra credit where they were asked to write a 300-500 word statement about which candidate they supported and why. They were required to focus on two to three policy issues on which they agreed with the candidate on.

Out of the students who completed the extra credit, 33% supported John Kasich, 32% supported Bernie Sanders, 15% supported Donald Trump, 12% supported Ted Cruz, and 8% supported Hillary Clinton. Every few days, I will post some of their statements to this website in order to a) highlight their work and b) to provide some context on how today’s college students feel about the 2016 presidential candidates.

Here’s the schedule for the postings (in alphabetical order by candidate):

• Hillary Clinton (5/4)
• Ted Cruz (5/9)
• John Kasich (5/11)
• Bernie Sanders (5/16)
• Donald Trump (5/18)

Today, we will hear from three students who personally support Bernie Sanders.

Response 1, Flint C.*

The candidate I believe would make the best President and whom I support is Bernie Sanders. I support Sanders because he believes that when it comes to foreign policy, the measure of how great a country is comes from how they can solve problems diplomatically, rather than with force. Sanders believes war should be an absolute last resort; however, he believes it is sometimes necessary when America’s vital interests are at stake. Sanders was one of the few congressmen to vote against the war in Iraq. I support Sanders on foreign policy because I believe that under most circumstances, war is the worst way to solve problems and is only detrimental to the human race. Specifically, the war in Iraq destabilized an entire region and only fueled the fire of anti-western world radical terrorism. When it comes to dealing with radical terrorist attacks that seem to increase in frequency every year, Sanders advocates for addressing the causes of radicalization rather than responding to radical acts with military force. Specifically, Sanders believes that stopping online radicalization and terrorist funding networks is better for the future than just responding solely with force. On this issue of radical terrorism, I believe that broad aggressive forms of foreign policy only serve to radicalize and recruit potential terrorists. The solution I support for radical terrorism involves more calculated and less hawkish responses to attacks, which aligns with Sanders’ position.

On criminal justice, Sanders believes that the war on drugs has failed. He believes that imprisoning non-violent offenders costs taxpayers money, ruins families, and doesn’t solve the underlying problems. Sanders believes drug related imprisonment should be dealt with rehab rather than imprisonment. I support Sanders on this issue because I, and most psychologists, see drug addiction as a mental illness, and it should be treated as such. Nonviolent drug related offenders should be sent to rehab until they can integrate back into society and contribute to society instead of draining resources in an overcrowded prison system. Sanders also believes that the death penalty should be abolished, except in rare circumstances. I support his stance on this because killing someone for killing others is redundant. The death penalty does not work as a deterrent, and very often, it costs taxpayers more than life in prison.

Response 2, Aaron S.*

Historically, I have identified as a Republican; I supported John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. As of late, the Republican Party has lost track of what’s important. The GOP doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the true issues at hand. This has made it attractive for me to change parties, because of the Democratic Parties’ ability to make necessary changes that are good for Americans. I support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate for president. He embodies the moral and political views that I look for in a presidential candidate.

Bernie Sanders believes that abortion is women’s choice. He has always been a feminist, and he displays it by fighting for women’s rights, especially equal pay for women. I agree with his views for gender equality. I think we have an ethical obligation to ensure gender equality so that our daughters can have the same opportunities as our sons. Bernie Sanders also supports same-sex marriage. This stance goes along with his stance on women’s rights. He not only believes in gender equality, but he believes in equality for all. This is very important to me because I believe that all are created equal.

When it comes to foreign policy, Bernie Sanders believes in creating a coalition with middle-eastern countries in order to stop the terrorist group ISIS. He believes that working with surrounding countries will not only help the U.S. financially, but it will create better opportunity for peace with the Middle East. I agree that we should have a coalition with Middle Eastern countries in order to help stabilize the area. Tactically, this makes the most sense because diverse pressure will result in better outcomes. For almost my whole life, I have lived in a country that is at war. Because of this, I am cautious when deciding on whether or not to get involved in global issues. We need a President that will fight for gender equality, same-sex marriage, and smart foreign policy. This is why we need to elect Senator Bernie Sanders as our next President.

Response 3, Karlis T.*

I support Bernie Sanders because he supports the Equality Act as well as other measures regarding LGBT equality. Senator Sanders is a cosponsor of the Equality Act, which would add new sections to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include those with different sexual orientations or gender identities. Not only does he cosponsor this specific act, but he also wants to get rid of legislation that puts other rights in jeopardy. I support Bernie Sanders position on this issue because I believe that even those with different sexual orientations or gender identities than me deserve to have the same rights given to me by this country. Growing up in the 21^st century, it has been very clear that the United States of America have become much more progressive. During this time I have accepted that my religious ideals shouldn’t affect others rights.

I also support Bernie Sanders because he supports increasing access to higher education. Senator Sanders has talked about six steps that would make college tuition virtually free, as well as help many to be debt free after going to school. One of the six part plan is to fully pay for college by imposing a tax on an incredibly small percentage on Wall Street speculators. I support Bernie Sanders position on this issue because as an accounting major at Fisher College of Business, I have paid attention to Wall Street and understand how much a small percentage would mean in tax revenues. Seeing how much my parents have paid for my schooling makes me support equal access to higher education. Neither students nor their parents should not go into debt just to send themselves to college.

Finally, I support Bernie Sanders because he supports fair immigration policy. His plan outlines many aspects of our regulation policies as well as the inhumane deportation programs, and his ideas to change them are fair and built around the way our nation is supposed to work. Senator Sanders is the son of an immigrant and argues that our nation is built around immigration. I support Bernie Sanders position on this issue because I believe our country should work in this way with immigrants. As the grandson of immigrants on both sides of my family, I truly think we should be doing this in a much more sensible and fair way.

All in all, I support Senator Bernie Sanders to be the next President of the United States, for many reasons more than the three topics outlined above.

What about you? Why (or why not) did you support Bernie Sanders?

*Responses shared with written permission from the authors. Replication in any form, without permission from the author, is prohibited

“Bernie Sanders 104 03/04/2016” by Todd Church (CC BY 2.0)