in the united states, the president is controlled by the
constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar
as it deals with presidential power, however, the american
constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.
with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since
they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in
1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it
was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has
far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in
the authority of the president have been brought about
without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless
without significant illegality.
this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional
changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.
perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared
legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events
in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is
presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both
liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is
