Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 13 - The President’s Two Bodies
  • from Part V - Executive and Administrative Constitutionalism in Effective Democratic Government
  • Edited by Vicki C. Jackson, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts, Yasmin Dawood, University of Toronto
  • Book: Constitutionalism and a Right to Effective Government?
  • Published online: 20 October 2022
  • Print publication: 27 October 2022, pp 167-178
  • View extract

    Summary

    American constitutionalism consists of two quite foundational, conflictual, but ultimately interdependent understandings of the presidency – what we might think of as the president’s “two bodies.” On one view, the presidency is an individual – a “he” (maybe one day “she”). Presidential power is individualistic along three dimensions: it is singular, temporary, and personal. On the other view, the presidency is an institution. It is composite, permanent (or at least indefinite), and impersonal. Ever since George Washington embodied the idea of an institution still in the making, we’ve had this deep tension – these competing impulses between a personal or charismatic president and a more impersonal and deliberative institutional presidency. Public law reveals different perspectives on how to manage this duality. But public law cannot resolve it. Rather, the president’s “two bodies” is the defining ambiguity of the constitutional office. It is the conception on which our understandings of presidential power rest.