They were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan.
James Monroe also served as Secretary of War, as did William Howard Taft.
Herbert Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce.
George H.W. Bush served as Ambassador to the United Nations and Director of Central Intelligence, both of which are considered Cabinet level positions.
I think that’s it, unless I’ve overlooked someone.
I think that’s correct. But being in the Cabinet is usually seen as being a stepping stone to the White House, not the other way around.
But if the President wanted to increase or decrease the number of Executive Offices how could Congress legally interfere under the separation of powers. Funding them may be another issue.
The executive departments are legal entities and the organization of the executive branch - including the senior staff positions in it - is a matter of statute. The president is in charge of the executive branch, but that doesn’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants. His orders must derive from some legal authority, and that’s almost always a power delegated by Congress. As an example, the president has a large degree of discretion in how he organizes and staffs the EOP, but that discretion is granted to him by Congress. He can’t just create new executive departments or Senate-confirmed jobs by himself, that’s a power reserved for Congress.
I disagree with this somewhat–presidents (or most of them) get a great deal of analysis from the (one hopes) experts in the various departments. How that gets turned into policy is sometimes influenced by the department’s experts or its Secretary, sometimes not, but the EOP hires do not have the resources to gather information and sift through it in the way that the departments do. They are the consumers of analysis, not its generators.
The only way to address this is “it depends.” Ever since Roosevelt turned to Harry Hopkins and his other inside guys, the cabinet has been slighted. And it became semi-official when Kennedy used brother Bobby and Nixon Kissinger, though they were technically cabinet members at least some of the time. When friedo says of special advisors “that’s where the president gets most of his policy advice and analysis,” he absolutely correct.
The departments may produce data and apply a layer of analysis that gets sent up, but a disproportionate amount of that analysis is tossed or disregarded or shot down. The advisors have staffs of their own to get analysis from.
Over time, some cabinet members become influential and some are glorified middle managers and some are worked around until they are eased out. You have to be an insider to know which are which, and that can change from time of appointment. And if a president deliberately starves a department of top personnel, then nothing prepared by that department is going to carry much weight.
But if the President as the head of the executive branch wanted to create a Department of Wall Building and appoint a Secretary into his Cabinet, can Congress say no or would the court say that the President with his implied powers under Article II can arrange HIS branch however he wants.
What legal authority would the Secretary of Wall Building have? What budget? Those are all covered by statute. And how would the new Secretary be in office unless the Senate approved?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution reads that the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … all other Officers of the United States not herein otherwise provided for…; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone.”
The President can only appoint Officers (which for this discussion means Cabinet heads) with the advice and consent of the Senate. Even if he were to call it an inferior position, i.e. non-Cabinet status, Congress has to pass a law first to allow the President to do so.
Any attempt to make a new Cabinet department without going through Congress is non-Constitutional. Hard to imagine any court allowing it.
The President can make political appointments in the Executive Branch outside of Congress, but they wouldn’t have any formal status. They’d be the Harry Hopkins types I mentioned earlier. He had enormous power, but he wasn’t a Secretary after he resigned from Commerce.
You can ask what the difference would be, but Congress does control the budget, and if they wanted to keep from funding the position nothing could stop them. The President could divert funds from the rest of the President’s budget, but the White Budget last year was a meager $36 million. That’s not much to divert from.
The Executive Departments are established by law, specifically US Code Title 5. Since the President doesn’t have the ability to pass laws on his own, he couldn’t declare a new Executive Department. Article II only gives the President authority to ask for reports from the heads of Executive Departments; it doesn’t say he can create them.
The President is head of the executive branch, but the executive branch is so called because it executes (i.e. carries into effect) the laws enacted by the legislature.
So Trump can give someone the title of Director of the Department of Getting Mexico To Pay For The Wall if he likes, but that’s not really or meaningfully part of the executive branch unless there are laws conferring functions on the Director, or giving the Director something to do.
Below the head-of-agency level the President has more freedom. There are far more functions conferred by law on (say) the Secretary to the Treasury than the Secretary can discharge in person. So staff are appointed to assist and advise him, and he delegates various of his functions to various members of that staff at various levels. And this staffing-and-delegation process is not normally regulated by legislation to any great degree; it’s something the executive deparment does for itself and the President, of course, is the head of the executive department.