In recent years the power of the President has been questioned and the extent of their authority may come under two different theories; that of an Imperilled Presidency and that of an Imperial Presidency. An Imperilled Presidency suggests that rather than being too powerful, the President does not have enough power to be effective; whereas an Imperial Presidency is where the US President is out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the Constitutional limits. There are many arguments that support both sides of the debate and whether George Bush's reign has been that of either one can be discussed. How Imperial or Imperilled his presidency has been can be measured by comparing his powers with other branches of Government, the powers of patronage and his powers in terms of foreign policy. Recent events such as the War on Terror and the media have had a massive influence over this debate and limitations have been placed upon the President's power, yet other arguments suggest a more Imperial reign.
The attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11 2001 offered Bush an opportunity to establish his political credibility, to reassert presidential leadership and to defend the interests of the United States.
• As staff numbers increased, many people were appointed who held personal loyalty to the person holding the office of president, and who were not subject to outside approval or control.
• The White House Chief of Staff position has evolved into a powerful executive position when held by a strong-willed figure in an administration of a hands off president who left day to day governance to his cabinet and his Chief of Staff. Donald Regan as Chief of Staff and Ronald Reagan as president were seen as examples of this quasi-prime ministerial relationship.
• A range of new advisory bodies developed around the presidency, many of which complemented (critics suggest rivaled) the main cabinet departments, with the cabinet...