As discussed in this thread, the Bush Administration has made a very sustained and impressive effort to expand the presidency’s power over the “permanent government” of career civil servants, and to expand its power relative to and independence of oversight from Congress and the judiciary. At least on Dick Cheney’s part, this was actually a matter of principle; he’s been arguing for an imperial presidency since he served under Nixon. Now whatever precedents they have been able to set and whatever institutional changes they have made to expand the presidency’s power and autonomy will pass into the hands of Obama, who, AFAIK, has never much commented publicly on this whole set of issues one way or another. What will he do with it?
The vast majority of Bush’s actions toward the institution of the presidency itself were based on a constitutional separation of powers basis, and many of them had precedent in previous administrations. As a general rule presidents will protect presidential power - I see no reason to suspect Obama will be notably different in this regard.
One thing I worry about is how Presidential Power seems to be a one way ratchet. Bush kept expanding and expanding his powers. Obama may show a lot of restraint compared to Bush, but what could he possibly do to keep a future President from looking to Bush’s actions as a precedent and possibly even expanding it more?
The U.S. Constitution should prevent the future presidents from unilaterally expanding their own powers. However, Bush/Cheney seemed very successful at ignoring provisions of the Constitution they didn’t like. As always, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The people being governed are ultimately the ones who will have to put a stop to mad power grabs.
History show no matter which party is in power and increases the power of the presidency, when the presidency changes power, they keep the existing power. They may not add, or try to add power, but they never give up anything they have gained.
Remember not only is there a division between Democrats and Republicans, there is a division between Congress and the President, and between the Representatives and Senators.
So everyone has to do deals with every divison in national politics to get anything done.
For power to slide back to congress requires a strong congress and weak president. I don’t make Obama for a weakling nor Nancy Pelosi for a Iron Maiden, so don’t expect a rolllback to presidential powers anytime soon.
Clearly, you need to reelect Jimmy Carter ASAP.
I join the chorus. Since at least the Civil War, the history of the Republic has been an almost uninterrupted transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive. I don’t expect President Obama to cede much of the authority his predecessor arrogated to himself illegally.
–Cliffy
That’s exactly how Charlie Savage puts it.
Here’s hoping we didn’t.
The difference will be between bold, decisive action to unify the country in the face of a crisis and deal with an immediate threat, and whatever Obama does
Regards,
Shodan
No, the difference will be between action that relies on the president’s sole authority as W has expanded it, and action that attempts to restore Congress to a greater role in the decisionmaking.
There is every possibility of a truly, truly funkadelic Presidency. 
Getting this image of Obama in an Afro, bell bottoms, platform shoes . . . 
I agree with the posters who say Obama’s not giving up any power the presidency may have gained in the last eight years, regardless of its provenance. Further, given all the other crises swirling around, large-scale action is going to be asked for and expected both for Obama and his appointees. He’s going to have a lot of opportunities to make big moves and I expect he’ll use those whenever he thinks he has a solution.
I expect that with this reservation: He has a Dem-controlled Congress and, therefore, can afford to work with it. And probably will, just to distinguish himself from his predecessor.
I agree with the consensus: Obama isn’t going to formally renounce any of the expanded Presidential power that Bush created even if he has to invoke it less.
But as a related issue, if Obama did want to reduce Presidential power, how exactly would he do it? Issue an Executive Order declaring that he can’t do something? If the limitation of his power is authorized by Executive Order, then it could be reversed by a future Executive Order. The only way presidential power can really be reduced is if it’s done by some other authority like Congress of the Supreme Court.
That raises another point: Congress is at present controlled by the Democrats, but the Supreme Court is very definitely Republican (in theory, of course, it’s nonpartisan and extrapolitical, and you believe that as much as I do). I wonder if we can expect a lot of head-butting between the Obama Admin and the SCOTUS? (Yet another way Obama’s tenure might resemble FDR’s . . .)
I think he should reverse the attemped power play of signing statements by signing a signing statment that he does not recognize the power of a president’s signing statments