In fact, the framers of the Constitution were apparently more concerned about maintaining control over the President than about clearly making him the nation's leader. About the only indication the Constitution contains that he was to be such a leader is the statement that he "shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Art. II, sec.3). He does submit recommendations to Congress at the opening of each of its terms and often at other times. If the President and the majority in Congress are of the same political party, Congress is pretty likely to follow the President's lead; or, if the President has a commanding personality and is clearly popular with the people, he may force measures through even an unwilling Congress. But if differences arise between the President and Congress, especially when one or both houses of Congress are of the opposite party from the President, his recommendations may be entirely ignored. By our system of "checks and balances" the President is "controlled," but he ceases to be a leader when he does not have the "following" of Congress, or of the majority of the people.
President Wilson began his second administration with a majority in both houses of Congress of his political party, and apparently in popular favor. He was clearly accepted as leader and practically all of his proposed measures were favorably acted upon by Congress. In the middle of this administration a congressional election occurred which resulted in a majority in both houses of the opposing party. This result might be considered as a popular vote against the leadership of the President, and his opponents did consider it so. It cannot be absolutely certain that this was intended, for the people were not voting directly on this question. Whether this was true or not, Congress refused to follow his leadership in many important questions, including the treaty of peace with Germany.
CONTROL OF LEADERSHIP IN ENGLAND
It will be helpful to compare this situation with the method by which England has worked out the problem of leadership and control of leadership.
The real executive head in the English government is the prime minister. The king appoints the prime minister, but he always chooses for the position THE RECOGNIZED LEADER OF THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT IS IN THE MAJORITY in the House of Commons (which corresponds to our House of Representatives).
The prime minister having been appointed, he then selects the other members of his cabinet, who are to be the heads of the executive departments, and WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
The prime minister and the other members of the cabinet have seats in the House of Commons, contrary to the practice in our country. THEY ALSO TAKE THE LEAD IN LEGISLATION, for most of the important bills considered in the House of Commons are planned and introduced by the cabinet. So the executive and legislative branches of the English government are not separated as in our country. The same group of men manage the service organization and lead in planning the legislation that makes the service possible.
It sometimes happens, however, that the cabinet introduces a measure which, after discussion, a majority of the House of Commons rejects. This means that on this question the cabinet no longer represents the majority in the House. Then one of two things happens. EITHER THE CABINET RESIGNS in a body to make way for a new cabinet that does represent the majority; OR THE PRIME MINISTER ASKS FOR A GENERAL ELECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. If at this election a majority is again returned that is opposed to the cabinet, it means that the cabinet no longer leads the people, and it resigns. If a majority is returned in support of the cabinet, it means that the old House was no longer representative of the people, and the old cabinet retains its leadership.
This system gives the English people MORE DIRECT CONTROL over their government than we have in our country; it is very much like the method of RECALL that is used in some of our states. At the same time, it assures a real executive leadership WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT, a leadership that is both responsive and responsible to the people.