The Politics of Executive Orders: Legislative Constraints on Presidential Power

Deering, Christopher J.; Maltzman, Forrest

doi:10.1177/106591299905200405

Cited by 101 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Theoretically, we extend Howell's (2003) rich framework, which remains the principal nonverbal, formal treatment of unilateralism (see also Deering and Maltzman 1999;Moe and Howell 1999), to build competing models associated with more and less presidential influence. Per our description of formal approaches, Howell's framework has presidents moving first in a game, allowing them to circumvent the legislature when there is either gridlock or no congressional incentive to move policy given the presidential preference and status quo.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Elusive Search for Presidential Power

Chiou

Rothenberg

2013

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unilateral presidential actions, such as executive orders, are widely cited as a key strategic tool for presidential power. However, is unilateral action evidence of unilateralism or might it represent executive acquiescence? We answer this by (1) specifying three competing models, each with a different presidential discretion assumption and generating alternative hypotheses; (2) extending the canonical item-response model to best measure executive-order significance; and (3) comparing competing theoretical models to data for . Theoretically, we show that legislative preferences may impact unilateral actions differently than previously thought and indicate how parties may be influential. Empirically, a model where the president is responsive to the chamber's majority-party median fits the data better than models assuming responsiveness to the chamber median or no presidential acquiescence. Unilateral action appears not tantamount to presidential power, as evidence implies that legislative parties, or the judicial actors enforcing their will, are key conditioning factors.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Elusive Search for Presidential Power

Chiou

Rothenberg

2013

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The greater number of party seats translates into a greater capacity for the president to draw upon members of his own party to influence policies. Scholars have suggested that the greater the president's party seats in Congress, the less likely he will need to issue executive orders to influence policy (Deering & Maltzman, 1999;Krause & Cohen, 1997). Drawing upon our earlier argument relating to issue distinctions, we expect the number of party seats in Congress to influence presidential decisions to issue executive orders on domestic policy but not in the area of foreign policy.…”

Section: Issue Differences: Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Our results support this view, but only in the area of foreign policy. Other scholars have argued that presidents issue more executive orders when they are unable to achieve victories in the legislature (Deering & Maltzman, 1999;Light, 1982). In other words, they use executive orders to make policy when the going gets tough in Congress.…”

Section: Data and Results: The Statistical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Two Presidencies

Marshall

Pacelle

2005

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent scholarly attention has considerably advanced our understanding of executive orders. We argue that executive orders represent a valuable opportunity to assess the relevance of the two presidencies and the distinction between foreign and domestic policies. The over-time analysis demonstrates significant differences in the effects for most of the variables explaining executive orders depending on the issue area. For example, we find that the president's share of congressional party seats significantly affects executive orders on domestic policy, but no such effects are found on foreign policy. This result, as well as many others in the analysis, illustrates that factors shaping the executive's ability to influence policy in Congress differ substantially in their effects on domestic as compared to foreign policy executive orders. We infer from our analysis that the two-presidencies distinction remains a useful one, at least for understanding executive orders.

show abstract

“…For example, recent research suggests presidential rhetoric is a policy making instrument to expand presidential power (Rottinghaus and Maier, 2007) and can set the country's agenda (Kingdon, 1995). Presidential power can be utilized in differing ways without the consent of Congress, the courts, and the public, by signaling to the public through rhetoric a focus and a possible future agenda (Elsea, 2003;Deering and Maltzman, 1999).…”

Section: Leadership and Leader Rhetoricmentioning

confidence: 99%

The power of signaling: presidential leadership and rhetoric over 20 years

Kiessling

Martin

2017

LODJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the power of leadership rhetoric with a theoretical foundation of signaling theory. Past research mostly focus on followers and not other stakeholders and the authors attempt to fill that research gap. Design/methodology/approach The research explored nearly 20 years and 51,500 pages of information from US presidents and explored the impact on stock market volatility using generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity. Findings The research findings suggest that leaders can/do have a powerful impact on stakeholders. In particular negative statements will cause the greatest reaction due to risk adverse stockholders, neutral rhetoric will calm the market and decrease volatility and positive rhetoric was not significant. Research limitations/implications Past research suggests that a focus on the consequences of leadership rhetoric be explored and the research suggests that people do respond to powerful leaders, even if they are not followers. Also the authors filled a gap in regard to the impact of leader communication about economic and marketplace events. Practical implications Practitioners benefit from the research as they can focus upon the US presidents’ rhetoric and strategically apply the research as they can predict the movement of the stock market immediately thereafter. Originality/value Very little research has ever explored the impact of a leader’s rhetoric and the subsequent economic impact, and no one has explored in particular the president’s rhetorical impact (who is considered by many the top leader in the USA).

show abstract

The Politics of Executive Orders: Legislative Constraints on Presidential Power

Cited by 101 publications

References 26 publications

The Elusive Search for Presidential Power

The Elusive Search for Presidential Power

Revisiting the Two Presidencies

The power of signaling: presidential leadership and rhetoric over 20 years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About