@kenwhite.bsky.social I offer that there are actually are that presidency lacks any “conclusive and preclusive” powers. That would violate the Constitutions fundamental checks and balances design.
1/
Pardon power? The courts also can erase convictions, and the pardon power does not extend to future acts. Heck anything that can be enjoined by the courts is not “conclusive and preclusive.” Anything that requires funding (e.g., waging war)—or further funding—is not “conclusive and preclusive.”
2/
Obviously, appointments are not “conclusive and preclusive,” as congress has to approve many, and even gets to decide which they must approve.
Checks and balances.
What are the president’s core powers? I don’t know.
3/
But if the argument is that presidents need to be able to act in an unfettered manner, our constitutional design says otherwise again and again and again.
4/
The best arguments for the existence of SOME “conclusive and preclusive” power are not in the constitution itself.
Executive privileged? Most certainly not in the Constitution or an idea of the Founders.
Firing senate confirmed appointees? That ain’t even 100 years old (1926).
5/
