‘Tis the season to be nominating. At least it is for President-elect Donald Trump. He quickly announced his choices for various positions within his incoming administration. Some of these picks have received general approval, while others face a tough battle to receive the required Senate confirmation.
Praise and criticism of these picks have fallen along several well-worn lines. Some discuss the nominees in relation to their past governmental or private experience. Others have focused on their private life. Still, others discuss their professional or personal relationship with Trump.
In these discussions, perhaps we should contemplate the purpose of a presidential Cabinet in the first place. Then, we might better assess specific picks Trump has made and will make.
The Constitution does not speak of a Cabinet. The framers rejected formalizing something like it in the text to maintain the efficiency of the presidency. They wished to make the president a one-man head of the executive branch to instill both energy and responsibility in law enforcement. A constitutionally created Cabinet could thwart the president’s energy by claiming power independent of him over executive decisions. A Cabinet could also be a scapegoat the president might blame when things went wrong.
However, there are provisions in the Constitution that presume a Cabinet. The president’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” found in Article II, Section 3, assumes that the president will not enforce the nation’s laws by himself. Doing so would make no sense and, if tried, would obviously result in nearly no actual exercise of executive power. Instead, the wording says the president will oversee law enforcement, thereby meaning public officials will exist who are under his control and carry out the law.
Even more telling is a clause found in Article II, Section 2. This one says the president “may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.” This clause also assumes that the president’s executive power will be exercised through others subordinate to him. More to the point, the clause anticipates law enforcement will occur through formally constructed departments and that those departments will have head officers both over them and under the president.
Taken together, these clauses paint a helpful picture of the Cabinet’s role. First, Cabinet officers help ensure an organized structure for enforcing the nation’s laws. Since the first Washington administration, Cabinet officers have existed, running departments divided up by distinct law enforcement requirements. Secretaries over the Defense Department, State Department, Treasury Department, and others provide officers focused on particular executive tasks underneath the leadership of the unitary president.
Second, the ability of the president to require Cabinet officers’ opinions shows the advisory role these men and women play for the nation’s chief executive. The president has no equal in the executive branch. However, one man has limitations on what he can understand, blind spots regarding particular policy questions. A Cabinet provides a forum for the president to deliberate and refine his own views without compromising his headship of the executive department.
This view of the Cabinet’s purposes should regulate our view of who Trump nominates. First, do they seem competent to enforce the laws that fall under the department they will run? Competent and immoral governance already has weakened trust in institutions. Avoiding further ineptitude or moral turpitude is sorely needed.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Second, do the Cabinet nominees seem capable of advising the president well? For one, this quality requires an ability to persuade and give honest advice that seeks the good of the administration and the country, not personal advantage. For another, this task requires clearly knowing that the president is in charge. The Cabinet officer merely carries out the president’s will, within the law, and advises, knowing the president decides.
This focus might improve our discussions of present nominees. It would also help improve the quality of the Cabinet and, thereby, the good the incoming administration can accomplish.
Adam Carrington is an associate professor at Ashland University.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
