George W. Bush's presidency has helped accelerate a renewed interest in the legal or formal bases of presidential power. It is now abundantly clear that presidential power is more than the sum of bargaining, character, and rhetoric. Presidential power also inheres in the Constitution or at least assertions of constitutional powers. Judging Executive Power helps to bring the Constitution and the courts back into the study of the American presidency by introducing students to sixteen important Supreme Court cases that have shaped the power of the American presidency. The cases selected include the removal power, executive privilege, executive immunity, and the line-item veto, with particularly emphasis on a president's wartime powers from the Civil War to the War on Terror. Through introductions and postscripts that accompany each case, landmark judicial opinions are placed in their political and historical contexts, enabling students to understand the political forces that frame and the political consequences that follow from legal arguments and judgments.

By revisiting Thomas Jefferson's understanding of executive power this book offers a new understanding of the origins of presidential power. Before Jefferson was elected president, he arrived at a way to resolve the tension between constitutionalism and executive power. Because his solution would preserve a strict interpretation of the Constitution as well as transform the precedents left by his Federalist predecessors, it provided an alternative to Alexander Hamilton's understanding of executive power. In fact, a more thorough account of Jefferson's political career suggests that Jefferson envisioned an executive that was powerful, or 'energetic', because it would be more explicitly attached to the majority will. Jefferson's Revolution of 1800, often portrayed as a reversal of the strong presidency, was itself premised on energy in the executive and was part of Jefferson's project to enable the Constitution to survive and even flourish in a world governed by necessity.

You know you've got what it takes to lead. But are you going to get a shot at the job you deserve? When it comes to women getting to the top, experience and qualifications simply aren't enough. Without 'executive presence' - a perception that demonstrates you're in charge or deserve to be - your career path will eventually be blocked. So if you're aiming for the head of the table, not just any seat, managing your executive presence is the 'It' factor that puts you in the running. Being perceived as a leader makes the difference between successfully advancing through the ranks vs. just plateauing. This factor holds true far more for women. In this engaging and insightful "bible" for women on the rise, executive coach and corporate communications expert Coni Judge, PhD draws on the latest research and over 20 years working with some of the world's biggest companies. Filled with eye-opening insights, analysis and practical advice, Coni will help you be seen as having what it takes to be a true leader. The most comprehensive Executive Presence resource targeted at helping women, you'll learn Coni's breakthrough 'Five Facets' model and how to: - Take command while being likeable and authentic - Build effective relationships that lead to being promoted - Look like a leader and avoid common image mistakes many women make - Project competence and inspire confidence through body language and personal energy - Tackle difficult conversations with your boss and subordinates - Manage corporate social protocols with ease - Navigate potential leadership obstacles that only women face: including motherhood, mean girl syndrome, and relationships A recognized leader in the emerging field of executive presence for women, Coni Judge, PhD, M.S.S., is the founder of Eden Communication Strategies and Eden Image Consulting. For more than 20 years, she's worked with companies, entrepreneurs and business leaders globally on change and transformation. Find Coni at www.linkedin.com/in/conijudge and download bonus materials at www.coni.london.

Judging Bush incorporates the diverse voices of presidential scholars, policy experts, and members of past administrations to present a balanced and systematic initial evaluation of the two terms of George W. Bush.

The surprising truth behind Barack Obama's decision to continue many of his predecessor's counterterrorism policies. Conventional wisdom holds that 9/11 sounded the death knell for presidential accountability. In fact, the opposite is true. The novel powers that our post-9/11 commanders in chief assumed—endless detentions, military commissions, state secrets, broad surveillance, and more—are the culmination of a two-century expansion of presidential authority. But these new powers have been met with thousands of barely visible legal and political constraints—enforced by congressional committees, government lawyers, courts, and the media—that have transformed our unprecedentedly powerful presidency into one that is also unprecedentedly accountable. These constraints are the key to understanding why Obama continued the Bush counterterrorism program, and in this light, the events of the last decade should be seen as a victory, not a failure, of American constitutional government. We have actually preserved the framers’ original idea of a balanced constitution, despite the vast increase in presidential power made necessary by this age of permanent emergency.

Since September 11, 2001, long-standing debates over the nature and proper extent of executive power have assumed a fresh urgency. In this book eleven leading scholars of American politics and political theory address the idea of executive power.

The single most important issue in American constitutional law is the role the Supreme Court should play in interpretation of the constitution. This issue has been a source of controversy since at least 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall proclaimed that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. But public attention has been refocused by the recent debate between Attorney General Edwin Meese and Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. The Attorney General admonished the Justices to confine themselves to strict construction of the Constitution-to apply the Constitution as the framers intended. Justice Brennan rejected this as errant and arrogant because the framers had certainly not thought about the specific problems facing the country today.