The U.S presidency has for several years been an endlessly fascinating subject for study and analysis by scholars and commentators on public affairs. Along with its counterpart, the state governorship, with which its evolution as an institution has been inextricably intertwined, the presidency has commanded the attention of the public in every period of the nation's history. Given this level of attention it might come as a surprise to discover that, unlike the United States president, the Texas governor shares executive powers with other elected executive officials. The U.S president, through the approval of the state, appoints and can solely eliminate members of a cabinet. In Texas, however, Article IV of the Texas Constitution establishes a multiheaded executive branch of the plural executive over which the governor has only little formal powers.
The inauguration of Texas governor takes place on the third Tuesday in January of every fourth year, often in the odd-numbered years before a presidential election. The executive powers that the governor is awarded includes the ability to nominate people to fill appointive offices, and practicing little control over state administration as authorized by the Texas Constitution as well as by statutes enacted by the Texas legislature. These powers are helpful in: Nominating state officials, handling issues that result from civil disorder as well as natural disasters, making budget management and participating in the state budget, announcing policies through executive orders, executing public proclamations for ceremonial and other purposes
In some respect, the governor is responsible for exercising executive powers like the ones wielded by heads of other larger groups such as university presidents, business chief executive officers, union leaders, or the United States president, although with apparent differences. Obviously, the executive powers of the governor of Texas resemble those of the country' other 49 state governors. Nevertheless, different state laws and state constitutions give other governors more executive powers while some other governors are given less.
Unlike the Texas governor, the constitution guarantees the President various prerogatives, constrains his ability to act unilaterally but slowly describes only vague where his powers end. One superiority of the President is found in security-and defense-related issues. He is the 'Commander in Chief' of the armed forces. The prerogative in foreign policy is improved by the fact that he is capable of making treaties. In addition, the president is able to recommend legislation to the Congress and is capable of vetoing bills sent by the Congress. An additional power of influencing legislation is using the presidential signing statements. This gives the President the opportunity to make interpretation of the law as it is compliant with the interpretations of the President based on the constitution because his duty is to faithfully execute the laws.
The Congress in return restrains the power of the President through his abilities to override vetoes and it is expected to approve high governmental officials such as the public ministers and ambassadors. Furthermore, only the Congress has the right of declaring war. In addition, the Congress makes the choice to spend the federal budget. The judiciary limits presidential powers by interpreting binding what the constitution actually means.
As a result, the court is able to amend laws or declare a law or an order unconstitutional and oversee the President's actions. Nevertheless, the President is capable of interpreting the rights and duties of his office with intentions of complying with his task to take care that laws are executed in a faithful way, to be independent of congressional attempts to undermine his authority. Therefore, the United States President was given the ability to act as a national leader but even impeded by the system of checks and balances to act like a tyrant.
Even when an executive has extensive administrative powers like the U.S president does, various other agencies have considerable independence. In Texas, where the executive is decentralized and the governor has limited direct administrative powers, administrative autonomy is increased. Agencies still seek the governors support, however, since the governor is capable of influencing the legislature when considering appropriations bills as well as other important matters. The governor's item veto can additionally have a significant impact on the funding of an organization.
The cooperation of the governor is essential due to his or her appointive power to policy-making boards and commissions. Since the interests of an agency are often similar to those of its constituency, they both expect the governor to appoint board members who will advance their mutual political objectives. In addition, the support of the governor gives the agency greater bargaining power to legislators and interests groups. Even though the Texas governor has few direct administrative powers, he or she is capable of influencing and also shaping agency programs and success through veto power and appointments to policy-making commissions and boards.
The U.S president, on the other hand, personifies American government for most people. People expect the president to act decisively and effectively in dealing with national issues. They expect the president to be compassionate, to have the ability to show concern for issues that confront individual citizens. The president, while undertaking these duties, is the focus of public attention and is the leading celebrity of the nation. The president is capable of mobilizing public opinion, to have a direct communication with the people, and offers direct and reassurance to advance policy initiatives in both domestic and foreign affairs.
The residents of Texas and those of America have differing expectations of what their governor and president should focus on when in office. These expectations are for the most part rooted in the nature of the office, adding support for the idea that citizens are aware of the differences between different executives and will likely consider those differences when evaluating candidates.
The Texas Constitution has three specific requirements to become governor in the state. The governor is expected to be at least thirty years of age, have resided at least five years in the state of Texas, and be a citizen in the U.S. Table 1, makes a comparison of these three requirements against those for the U.S presidency and for governors in other states. The state governor is restricted from holding any other job or receiving outside compensation, a limitation notably absent from the state's legislature.
The Texas Constitution specifically states that the Governor elected in the general election, is expected to be installed on the first Tuesday after the organization of the Legislature, or as soon as practicable, and is expected to hold his office for the term of four years, or until the duty of his successor is installed. Beyond the requirements of the constitution, the governors in Texas have often shared other common features. Most of them have been white, rich people.
A majority of modern governors have had higher education, mostly in law, and most Texas governors have also had military experiences, ranging from services in the U.S Army or Navy to services in the Texas National Guard or Texas Air Guard. Even though the myth of the Texas ranchers or Texas oilman is normally used for taping into the Texas legend at the time of gubernatorial campaigns, few modern governors have actual experiences. Remarkable exceptions include Dolph Briscoe, who was a rich cattleman and horse trader, and Clements and Bush, who made fortunes in oil.
By and large, modern governors of Texas have had previous political experiences. Most of the state's governors have risen from the ranks of other Texas offices which includes the Texas Legislature, the Railroad Commision of Texas, and often the lieutenant governor's office.
The democratic theory focuses on the legislature more than it does the executive. Nevertheless, since chief executives and administrative agencies are essential components of government, they too are expected to take measurements against the democratic ideal. In Texas, the legislature has been the dominant branch of state government through most of the history state. Indeed, Texas is normally cited for the weaknesses related to the office of the governor. Nevertheless, a Texas governor with boldness and ideas can have the support of the public and enhance in a great way the limited constitutional and statutory powers of the office. Bargaining techniques, leadership, and persuasive ability rather than the formal powers of the governorships are the keys to gubernatorial success. The most obvious example is George Bush, who parlayed the Texas governorship into the presidency of the United States.
Cite this page
Similarities and Differences Between Texas Governors and the U.S. President. (2022, Apr 04). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/similarities-and-differences-between-texas-governors-and-the-us-president
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- The Rise and Decline of Arab Nationalism
- How Political Candidates Engage With the Public Essay
- Essay Sample on Racial Wealth Gap
- Essay Sample on Corporate Policies
- Why You Need to Register as a Voter Essay
- Image of Islam and Muslim in the West Paper Example
- Trail of Tears: The Forced Migration of the Cherokee Nation - Essay Sample