📜 U.S. Constitution Training
Journal Tools › U.S. Constitution Training › The Articles

U.S. CONSTITUTION · Module 3

Module 3: Article II, the President

What the Constitution gives the presidency, where it stops, and how the Court has drawn the line.

Last Updated: October 13, 2026 | Reading Time: 33 minutes | U.S. Const. art. II; Amends. XII, XX, XXII, XXV; Youngstown; Trump v. United States

How We Got Here

The delegates who wrote Article II had just fought a king. They had also watched the states answer him with governors who could do almost nothing without a council's consent.1

The Virginia Plan, put forward May 29, 1787, proposed that "a National Executive be instituted; to be chosen by the National Legislature."2 On June 1, James Wilson moved that the executive be one person. Edmund Randolph "strenuously opposed" the idea and called a single executive "the foetus of monarchy." Wilson said unity "would be the best safeguard against tyranny." Roger Sherman saw the office as "nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the Legislature into effect."3 On June 4 the delegates chose a single executive, seven states to three.4

Choosing that person took until September. The first plan had Congress do it. A Committee of Eleven, reporting through David Brearly on September 4, substituted electors, and Gouverneur Morris gave the committee's reasons, starting with "the danger of intrigue & faction" if the legislature made the choice.5

War powers moved the other way. On August 17 the draft gave Congress the power "To make war." Madison and Gerry moved to insert "declare" instead, "leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks." Gerry said he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war." George Mason was "for clogging rather than facilitating war." The change carried, seven states to two, with Massachusetts abstaining.6

Two more fights set the edges of the office. On September 8, Mason asked why impeachment reached only treason and bribery and moved to add "maladministration." Madison answered, "So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate." Mason switched to "other high crimes & misdemesnors agst. the State." The final text drops the last three words.7 On September 15, Randolph moved to take treason out of the pardon power, warning that "The Traytors may be his own instruments." Wilson replied that a President who shared the guilt "can be impeached and prosecuted." The motion lost.8

The delegates signed on September 17.9 Hamilton then defended the single executive in The Federalist No. 70: "Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number."10

The Text

Article II is short. The quotations below follow the National Archives transcription, spelling and capital letters included.11

The Vesting Clause and the electors

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2

Set the first words beside Article I, which vests "All legislative Powers herein granted." Article II has no "herein granted." Chief Justice Taft called "the more general grant of the executive power to the President under Article II" significant in Myers.12 The Court's recent removal opinions read the clause as giving the whole executive power to the President. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Trump v. Slaughter, read the history the other way.

Qualifications and the oath

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:"

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8

It is the only oath whose words the Constitution supplies. Everyone else, state officers included, is "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" under Article VI, clause 3. The President swears to something stronger: "preserve, protect and defend."

Commander in Chief, pardons, treaties, appointments

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he 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, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 3

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11

The Take Care Clause and impeachment

"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 3

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

U.S. Const. art. II, § 4

The House has "the sole Power of Impeachment." The Senate has "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," and "no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." When the President is tried, "the Chief Justice shall preside."

Amendments that changed Article II

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;"

U.S. Const. amend. XII (1804)

"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

U.S. Const. amend. XX, § 1 (1933)

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

U.S. Const. amend. XXII, § 1 (1951)

"In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."

U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 1 (1967)

The Twelfth replaced the clause that had electors vote for two persons, and its House fallback date was itself superseded by § 3 of the Twentieth. The Twenty-fifth affected the succession clause in Article II, § 1.13

Electing and Replacing a President

The Constitution leaves most of the choosing to the states. Each gets as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives. Idaho has two of each, so it has four, and they met at the Capitol in Boise on December 17, 2024.14

The original design gave each elector two votes and made the runner-up Vice President. That broke in 1800, when Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran as a ticket and tied. The House needed 36 ballots to elect Jefferson. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified June 15, 1804, split the ballots into one for President and one for Vice President.15 The Twentieth, ratified in 1933, moved the end of the term to noon on January 20.13

Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020)

Three Washington electors voted in 2016 for someone other than their pledged candidate, and the state fined each $1,000. Justice Kagan wrote for the Court, and every Justice agreed with the result: a state may enforce an elector's pledge. Article II lets a state appoint electors as its legislature directs, the power to appoint includes the power to set conditions, and from the first elections electors acted as agents of the voters and not as independent judges. Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in the judgment on Tenth Amendment grounds. The Court counted 32 states plus the District of Columbia with pledge laws.15

Liberty Perspective: Electors Who Were Meant to Think

Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68 that the choice should be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation."16 The Court agreed in Chiafalo that some Framers expected judgment from electors, then held that the expectation never reached the printed page and that practice settled the other way early. Whether electors should have any discretion left is now a question for state legislatures and, beyond them, for Article V.

The Twenty-second Amendment limits a President to two elections. It followed Franklin Roosevelt's third and fourth wins, in 1940 and 1944.17 The Twenty-fifth makes the Vice President President on a President's removal, death or resignation (§ 1), lets the President nominate a new Vice President for confirmation by both houses (§ 2), and covers a President who cannot serve, whether he says so in writing (§ 3) or the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments say so for him (§ 4). If the President disputes a § 4 declaration, it takes two thirds of both houses to keep the Vice President in charge.

Congress counts the electoral votes. Since the 2022 amendments to 3 U.S.C. § 15, the Vice President's role in the joint session is limited to "solely ministerial duties," and an objection must be in writing and signed by one fifth of the Senators and one fifth of the House.18

Commander in Chief, War Powers and Treaties

Article II makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." Article I gives Congress the power "To declare War," to raise armies, to maintain a navy and to write the rules for both. (Lesson 2, Article I, Congress, covers those powers.) Hamilton sold the split to New York readers in Federalist No. 69. The President's authority, he wrote, "would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy," while the British king's reached "the DECLARING of war."19 In No. 74 he added that "the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand."20

Common Misconception: The President Declares War

The President cannot. Article I, § 8 gives that power to Congress, and the August 17, 1787 change from "make" to "declare" shows the delegates meant it. The President commands the forces Congress raises and may answer a sudden attack. Starting a war is a separate power, and the text puts it in Congress.

The Court said much the same in The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1863). President Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of Southern ports in April 1861, and Union ships seized vessels and cargo for running it. The owners argued that without a declaration of war by Congress there was no war and no right to blockade. Justice Grier, for a 5 to 4 Court, wrote that "Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war" and that the President "has no power to initiate or declare a war," but that if a foreign nation or States in rebellion make war, the President is "bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority." Justice Nelson, joined by Chief Justice Taney and Justices Catron and Clifford, dissented. The case still marks the line between initiating a war and meeting one.21

Practice has drifted from the text. By a Congressional Research Service count, Congress has enacted 11 formal declarations of war, in five wars, and the last came in 1942. Since then it has adopted only authorizations for the use of force, such as the joint resolutions of September 2001 and October 2002.22 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973, 284 to 135 in the House and 75 to 18 in the Senate.23 It limits hostilities to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack, and it orders a use of force ended within sixty days of a required report unless Congress acts.24

Liberty Perspective: Authorization Without Declaration

The text says Congress declares war, and the convention chose that word over "make" with the President's power to repel sudden attacks in mind. Congress has not declared one since 1942. None of the decisions in this lesson says how long the President may use force before Congress must act. The branches have argued that out through statutes, appropriations and elections. If you cover or vote on a deployment, ask what Congress actually enacted before the troops moved.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

With a nationwide steel strike set for April 9, 1952, President Truman issued Executive Order 10340 and had the Secretary of Commerce take over most of the nation's steel mills. No statute authorized it. Justice Black wrote for the Court that the order was invalid: "The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice Vinson, joined by Justices Reed and Minton, dissenting. Justice Jackson's concurrence supplied the frame courts still use. When the President acts with congressional authorization his power is "at its maximum." When Congress has been silent there is "a zone of twilight." When he acts against Congress's will, "his power is at its lowest ebb."25

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)

Congress passed a law letting Americans born in Jerusalem have "Israel" listed as their birthplace on a passport. The State Department refused because the Executive has never recognized any country's sovereignty over the city, and Menachem Zivotofsky's parents sued. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, held the statute unconstitutional because the President alone holds the power to recognize foreign sovereigns. He relied on the Reception Clause ("he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") and on practice since the first administration: "That voice must be the President's." Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, and Justice Scalia, joined by both, dissented separately. Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.26

On treaties, the convention heard Wilson argue on September 7 that treaties "are to have the operation of laws" and should need the House as well. Sherman answered that secrecy ruled that out, and the Senate-only version passed without a dissenting vote. The two-thirds rule in the text covers "the Senators present."

Appointments and Removal

The President nominates, and the Senate consents. Congress may place the appointment of "inferior Officers" in the President alone, the courts or department heads. The Recess Appointments Clause lets the President fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess. In NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), the Court held that pro forma sessions count as sessions and that a recess of more than three days but less than ten is presumptively too short.27

The text says nothing about removing officers. Hamilton assumed in Federalist No. 77 that "The consent of that body would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint."28 The First Congress went the other way in 1789 when Madison argued that removal is part of "the Executive power," a result later called "the Decision of 1789."29

Liberty Perspective: A Power the Text Never Names

Hamilton expected the Senate to have a say in firing. Madison's side won in 1789, Chief Justice Taft built Myers on that debate, and in 2026 six Justices carried it to the FTC. Justices Holmes, McReynolds and Brandeis in Myers, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson in Slaughter, read the same history and found Congress free to limit removal. Both camps cite the Framers. The word "remove" appears in Article II only for impeachment.

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)

Frank Myers, a first-class postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed on February 2, 1920 by order of the Postmaster General, acting for President Wilson, without the Senate's consent. An 1876 statute required that consent. Chief Justice Taft held for the Court that the statute was unconstitutional: the President has the exclusive power to remove executive officers he appoints with Senate consent. Justices Holmes, McReynolds and Brandeis dissented. Myers remains the base of the President's removal power, though Humphrey's Executor cut into it within nine years.30

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)

President Roosevelt asked FTC Commissioner William Humphrey to resign so the Commission could be run with "personnel of my own selection," then removed him in October 1933 without citing a statutory cause. Humphrey died in 1934, and his executor sued for back pay. Justice Sutherland wrote for a unanimous Court that Congress could limit removal of FTC commissioners to "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," because the Commission was "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Myers, he said, was confined to "purely executive officers." The case was overruled in 2026 by Slaughter, below.31

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020)

The CFPB served a civil investigative demand on Seila Law, a California law firm, which refused to comply. It argued that an agency led by one Director, removable only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," violated the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts, joined on this part by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, agreed: "The entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone." The Court refused to extend Humphrey's or Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), to a single-Director agency with significant executive power. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented on the merits. The Court held the removal protection severable, so the agency survived.32

Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. 422 (2026)

Soon after his second term began in January 2025, President Trump removed two FTC commissioners, including Rebecca Slaughter, without identifying a statutory cause. On June 29, 2026 the Court held 6 to 3 that the FTC's for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for himself and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, with Justice Thomas joining all but Part III-B. He found that Humphrey's "has for decades been a result in search of a rationale" and wrote, "If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented: the text, history and practice of the political branches let Congress limit the causes for removal, and stare decisis should have decided the case. This cite is to a preliminary print.29

The Pardon Power and the Take Care Clause

The pardon power reaches "Offences against the United States," so it does not touch state crimes, and it excludes "Cases of Impeachment." Idaho's governor has nothing like it. Under Idaho Const. art. IV, § 7, a board of pardons grants pardons and commutations by majority vote after a hearing in open session and four weeks of published notice, and the governor may grant reprieves and respites only.33

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866)

A. H. Garland served in the Confederate Congress. In July 1865 the President pardoned him, but an 1865 act of Congress barred anyone from practicing in federal courts without an oath that he had never aided the rebellion, which Garland could not take. By a 5 to 4 vote the Court held the act could not be applied to him. Justice Field wrote that the pardon power "is unlimited, with the exception stated," and that "This power of the President is not subject to legislative control." Justice Miller, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Swayne and Davis, dissented.34

The Take Care Clause is a duty and a limit. Concurring in Youngstown, Justice Frankfurter quoted Justice Holmes: "The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power." Idaho's constitution uses almost the same words for its governor, in whom "the supreme executive power of the state is vested" and who "shall see that the laws are faithfully executed."35

Executive Privilege, Immunity and Impeachment

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

A federal district court subpoenaed tape recordings of President Nixon's conversations with aides for a criminal trial, and he claimed an absolute executive privilege. On July 24, 1974 the Court ruled 8 to 0, Chief Justice Burger writing and Justice Rehnquist taking no part. It recognized a presumptive privilege for presidential communications but held that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." It was "the province and duty of this Court 'to say what the law is'" about the claim, and "the generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."36

Common Misconception: Executive Privilege Is Written Into the Constitution

The words appear nowhere in the text. The Court derived a presidential communications privilege from the separation of powers and called it presumptive, which means it can be overcome. In 2024 the Court described it as "inextricably rooted in the separation of powers." A President's claim of privilege starts a dispute. The courts decide how it ends.

Two civil cases frame the immunity question. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), held 5 to 4 that a former President has absolute immunity from civil damages for acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility, with Justice White dissenting for four. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), held unanimously that a sitting President has no immunity from a civil suit over conduct before he took office.37

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)

A federal grand jury indicted former President Trump on four counts for conduct during his Presidency after the November 2020 election, alleging a conspiracy to overturn the results. The district court and the D.C. Circuit refused to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity. On July 1, 2024 the Court held 6 to 3 that a former President has absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within his "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for all official acts, and none for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for himself and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and for Justice Barrett except Part III-C. "The President is not above the law," he wrote. "But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented: "In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law." Justice Jackson dissented separately. The Court sent the question of which alleged acts were official back to the district court.38

Liberty Perspective: An Immunity the Text Does Not Mention

Article I, § 6 protects Members of Congress from arrest in most cases and from being questioned elsewhere for "any Speech or Debate." Article II has no comparable clause. The majority in Trump v. United States built presidential immunity from the structure of the separation of powers, and the dissenters said the Framers wrote none. Both opinions cite founding-era sources. Read the opinions themselves before repeating either side's summary.

Impeachment

The grounds are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 65 that impeachment reaches "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust," which may "with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL."39 A conviction removes the officer and can bar future office, but "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a federal judge challenged the Senate's use of a committee to hear evidence in his impeachment trial. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Senate's "sole Power to try all Impeachments" made the claim nonjusticiable, and all nine Justices agreed with the result.40

Landmark Cases

CaseCitationYearHoldingEffect today
Ex parte Garland71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 3331866Pardon is not subject to legislative control.Limits are the textual ones.
Myers v. United States272 U.S. 521926President may remove executive officers without the Senate.Anchors removal rule; narrowed, then reaffirmed.
Humphrey's Executor v. United States295 U.S. 6021935Congress may limit removal of FTC commissioners.Overruled by Trump v. Slaughter (2026).
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer343 U.S. 5791952Steel seizure invalid without statute or constitutional power.Jackson's three categories still frame executive power.
United States v. Nixon418 U.S. 6831974Executive privilege is qualified.Presumptive privilege yields to specific need in a criminal case.
Zivotofsky v. Kerry576 U.S. 12015President alone recognizes foreign sovereigns.Congress cannot force a contrary official statement.
Seila Law LLC v. CFPB591 U.S. 1972020Single-Director agency removable only for cause is invalid.Extended in Slaughter.
Chiafalo v. Washington591 U.S. 5782020States may enforce electors' pledges.Pledge laws in 32 states and D.C. stand.
Trump v. United States603 U.S. 5932024Absolute, presumptive and no immunity by category of act.Lower courts sort official from unofficial acts.
Trump v. Slaughter609 U.S. 4222026FTC removal protection invalid; Humphrey's overruled.Federal Reserve and non-Article III courts left open.

The lesson also cites The Prize Cases (1863), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Clinton v. Jones (1997), Nixon v. United States (1993), NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014) and Morrison v. Olson (1988).41

Where This Shows Up for Officials, Reporters and Citizens

The oath. A newly elected county commissioner, sheriff or clerk swears that "I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Idaho," under Idaho Code § 59-401. Article VI binds every state executive officer to the federal half of that promise.42 The oath belongs to you personally, and no boss can waive it.

An executive order in the news. A reporter should ask which of Justice Jackson's three boxes it sits in. Is there a statute behind it, is Congress silent, or does it run against what Congress enacted? The answer predicts how a court will treat it. Lesson 4, Article III, the Courts, explains who decides.

A firing. When a federal commissioner is removed, ask what the agency's statute says about cause and whether the office exercises executive power. After Slaughter, the Federal Reserve and non-Article III courts are the stated open questions.

The electors. A county clerk's canvass feeds a chain that ends with the state's executive issuing a certificate of ascertainment at least six days before the electors meet, which Congress treats as conclusive on who the electors are, subject to the statute's exceptions.18

A pardon document. A sheriff handed paper claiming to be a pardon should check which government's conviction it covers and who signed it. A presidential pardon reaches federal offenses. An Idaho sentence runs through the Board of Pardons.

Public comment. A speaker says the President answers to no court, or that an emergency lets him do anything. Each claim has a case behind it and a limit in the same case: Nixon, Trump v. United States and Youngstown. The honest answer depends on the act.

Idaho's own executive. Idaho elects seven executive officers (art. IV, § 1), and its governor commands state forces "except when they shall be called into actual service of the United States" (art. IV, § 4). Lesson 5, Federalism and the States, covers how state and federal power meet.

Pictures, Numbers and Infographics

Article II is short, but its powers leave records: electoral votes, vetoes, pardons, nominations and wars. The counts below come from the Senate, the National Archives and the Justice Department.

Hand-colored engraving of Federal Hall on Wall Street with a crowd in the street and figures on the second-floor balcony
Amos Doolittle's hand-colored engraving of Federal Hall in New York, the first Capitol, published in 1790. George Washington took the first presidential oath on the building's balcony on April 30, 1789. Credit: Amos Doolittle, Library of Congress. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

By the numbers

  • 538 electors, 270 to win: the size of the Electoral College and the majority needed to elect a President. Each state gets as many electors as it has members of Congress, and the District of Columbia gets 3 under the 23rd Amendment. National Archives, About the Electoral College
  • 2,599 vetoes: from Washington through 2026, 1,533 regular and 1,066 pocket. Franklin Roosevelt cast 635, the most; Washington cast 2. U.S. Senate, Vetoes, 1789 to Present, 2026
  • 15 of 29: Andrew Johnson's vetoes that Congress overrode, more than for any other President. Ford and Truman follow with 12 each. U.S. Senate, 2026
  • 80 pardons, 4,165 commutations: clemency petitions granted by President Biden, against 212 and 1,715 for President Obama. The count leaves out grants made by proclamation to whole classes of people. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney, Clemency Statistics
  • 11 declarations of war: the first against Great Britain in June 1812, passed by the Senate 19 to 13; the last against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania on June 4, 1942. Since then Congress has passed resolutions authorizing military force and used its spending and oversight powers instead. U.S. Senate, Declarations of War
  • 170 of 378: civilian nominees in the Senate's main civilian list confirmed in 2024, with 197 returned to the White House. A separate list of 2,532 other civilian nominees saw 2,020 confirmed, and counting military promotions the Senate confirmed 21,908 nominees that session. Résumé of Congressional Activity, Second Session, 118th Congress
Vetoes by president, 1933 to 2026 Regular veto Pocket veto F. Roosevelt 635 Truman 250 Eisenhower 181 Nixon 43 Ford 66 Carter 31 Reagan 78 G. H. W. Bush 44 Clinton 37 G. W. Bush 12 Obama 12 Trump, 2017-21 10 Biden 13 Trump, 2025- 2 Kennedy (21) and Lyndon Johnson (30) left out to save space.
Among Presidents since 1933, vetoes peaked under Franklin Roosevelt and Truman and have stayed in the teens or below for each President since 2001. Pocket vetoes, cast when Congress adjourns and cannot receive a returned bill, have nearly disappeared. Source: U.S. Senate, Summary of Bills Vetoed, 1789 to Present.
Clemency petitions granted, by president Pardons Commutations Clinton 396 + 61 G. W. Bush 189 + 11 Obama 212 + 1,715 Trump, 2017-21 144 + 94 Biden 80 + 4,165
Obama and Biden granted far more commutations, which shorten sentences, than pardons, which forgive offenses. Clinton, George W. Bush and Trump in his first term granted more pardons. Counts are petitions granted through the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Source: Office of the Pardon Attorney, Clemency Statistics.

Verify Independently

Every citation, quotation and case in this course should be verified independently against the official source (the U.S. Reports or the Court's own opinion, the National Archives transcription, the statute book) before you rely on it, quote it or act on it.

Sources & Further Reading

Primary Sources

Court Opinions

Related Lessons

Knowledge Check

Test your understanding of Article II. No scores are saved: this is for your own review.

1. On August 17, 1787, what did the convention change about Congress's war power?

2. Which words are in the President's oath of office but not in the Article VI oath for other officers?

3. In Youngstown (1952), Justice Jackson said a President who acts against the expressed or implied will of Congress has power that is:

4. What did the Court hold in Chiafalo v. Washington (2020)?

5. Which decision overruled Humphrey's Executor in June 2026?

Reference Materials

Use your browser's print function (Ctrl+P / Cmd+P) to save this page as a PDF for offline reference.

Footnotes

  1. Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, pp. 136-138, as summarized in the syllabus to Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. 422 (2026).
  2. Madison's Notes, May 29, 1787, Virginia Plan resolution 7, Avalon Project, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_529.asp.
  3. Madison's Notes, June 1, 1787 (Wilson, Randolph, Sherman), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_601.asp.
  4. Madison's Notes, June 4, 1787. Aye: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia. No: New York, Delaware, Maryland. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_604.asp.
  5. Madison's Notes, September 4, 1787 (Committee of Eleven report; Morris and Wilson), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_904.asp.
  6. Madison's Notes, August 17, 1787. Aye: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia. No: New Hampshire, Connecticut. Massachusetts abstained. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp.
  7. Madison's Notes, September 8, 1787, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_908.asp. Mason's spelling is "misdemesnors." The final text is U.S. Const. art. II, § 4.
  8. Madison's Notes, September 15, 1787. On Randolph's motion: Virginia and Georgia aye, Connecticut divided, the other seven states present no. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_915.asp.
  9. Madison's Notes, September 17, 1787, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp.
  10. The Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton), Library of Congress text, https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70.
  11. National Archives, The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription, archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript. The oath is set out as two paragraphs here. The transcription joins the lead-in and the oath with a dash.
  12. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (Taft, C.J.), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52.
  13. National Archives, The Constitution: Amendments 11-27, archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27. Twelfth: passed Dec. 9, 1803, ratified June 15, 1804. Twentieth: ratified Jan. 23, 1933. Twenty-second: passed Mar. 21, 1947, ratified Feb. 27, 1951. Twenty-fifth: passed July 6, 1965, ratified Feb. 10, 1967.
  14. Idaho Capital Sun, "Idaho officially casts Electoral College votes for Trump and Vance" (Dec. 17, 2024), reporting that Idaho's four electors met at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise.
  15. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020), slip op. at 3-4, 8-18; opinion at supremecourt.gov. The U.S. Reports page comes from the Court's slip-opinion table for the 2019 term.
  16. The Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton), https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70.
  17. Constitution Annotated, Overview of Twenty-Second Amendment, constitution.congress.gov.
  18. 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 15, as amended by Pub. L. 117-328, div. P, tit. I, § 109(a) (Dec. 29, 2022), law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15.
  19. The Federalist No. 69 (Hamilton), https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70.
  20. The Federalist No. 74 (Hamilton), https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80.
  21. The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1863) (Grier, J.; Nelson, J., dissenting, joined by Taney, C.J., and Catron and Clifford, JJ.), loc.gov. Decision date, March 10, 1863, per Justia.
  22. Congressional Research Service, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, RL31133 (updated Apr. 18, 2014), everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31133.html.
  23. U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, vol. XXXV, doc. 26 (editorial note), history.state.gov.
  24. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541(c), 1544(b) (Pub. L. 93-148, Nov. 7, 1973), law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1544.
  25. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/579. Black's quotation is at 585; Jackson's three categories are at 635-638 (Jackson, J., concurring).
  26. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015) (No. 13-628, decided June 8, 2015), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-628.
  27. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014) (Breyer, J.; Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ.), decided June 26, 2014.
  28. The Federalist No. 77 (Hamilton), https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80.
  29. Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. 422 (2026) (preliminary print, page proof pending publication), supremecourt.gov. Pin cites follow the preliminary print.
  30. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/52.
  31. Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/295/602.
  32. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), slip op. at 11-12, supremecourt.gov.
  33. Idaho Const. art. IV, § 7, legislature.idaho.gov.
  34. Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/333.
  35. Idaho Const. art. IV, §§ 1, 4, 5, legislature.idaho.gov.
  36. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683.
  37. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (Powell, J.; White, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun, JJ.); Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (Stevens, J.; Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).
  38. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), supremecourt.gov. Quotations are from the opinion of the Court (Roberts, C.J.) and the dissent of Sotomayor, J.
  39. The Federalist No. 65 (Hamilton), https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70.
  40. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/506/224.
  41. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), as described in Seila Law and Slaughter.
  42. Idaho Code § 59-401, legislature.idaho.gov; Idaho Const. art. III, § 25 (oath of legislators); U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 3.