While many of President Theodore Roosevelt’s predecessors saw themselves as servants of Congress, Roosevelt saw the President as the servant or agent of the people. He transformed the legislative role of the President from nominal legislative advisor to outspoken advocate of policies that he thought would strengthen America. Where the Founders believed that powers not granted were forbidden, Roosevelt asserted that powers not forbidden were granted. He was aware that he was shaping the Presidency in a way his detractors would criticize. In his autobiography, Roosevelt wrote that he did not “usurp” power, but that he did “greatly broaden” executive authority. One way he did this was to use his position as a “bully pulpit.”

While questions were raised in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries over the proper distribution of power between state and federal governments, debate over the power of the federal government to regulate the every day affairs of the people intensified in the second half of the Twentieth Century. Lyndon Johnson, interpreting Congress’s role to promote the “general welfare” broadly, assembled a team of experts to discover ways to improve society, and sent dozens of bills to Congress which became Great Society programs intended to benefit the poor and the elderly. Ronald Reagan, by contrast, called the War on Poverty a failure, and proposed budgets which reduced spending on social programs while increasing the size and capabilities of the military. Additionally, Reagan called for lower taxes to spur economic growth, reward perseverance and encourage personal responsibility. The two Presidents had markedly different views on the purposes and constitutional powers of the federal government and carried out the duties of their offices accordingly.

This lesson allows students to analyze the Constitution and ask questions about how the Constitution lays out the President's powers.

John Adams was not a “War President”: he did not lead the country through war as Commander in Chief. However, much of his administration was devoted to avoiding war. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, viewed then by some and now by most as a serious challenge to the First Amendment, were signed into law by Adams, who maintained that “national defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” He did not ask for the controversial sedition law that limited freedom of speech and press, but believed, as Congress did, that provisions facilitating the deportation of foreign nationals and the discouragement of newspaper dissent would help strengthen the United States in the event of war with France. Adams achieved his goal of keeping the US out of war, but history has condemned his decision to sign and enforce this series of laws.

The “Great Writ” or habeas corpus has been an essential civil liberty guaranteed since Magna Carta. In listing powers denied to Congress, the Constitution notes that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” In 1861, Abraham Lincoln invoked this power of Congress—which was not in session—to suspend habeas corpus in certain areas. The next year, as he believed the civil justice system was inadequate to deal with the rebellion, he expanded the suspension throughout the United States and established military tribunals to try citizens charged with disloyalty. In this lesson, students explore Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and constitutional issues surrounding it.

President Woodrow Wilson worried about the influence of subversive elements in the United States—including at first German-Americans and Irish-Americans, and later socialists, communists, and anarchists. In 1915, Wilson asked Congress to pass laws designed to “crush out” the “creatures of passion” who he believed might topple the US government. Congress heeded this call with the Espionage Act of 1917, amended by the Sedition Act in 1918. Criticized by some as unconstitutional, these laws were defended by Wilson and Congress as war measures to enhance the security of the United States.

This lesson allows students to analyze the Constitution and ask questions about how the Constitution relates to the institution of slavery.

During the mid-Nineteenth Century, all three branches of the United States government wrestled with the question of whether the unrestricted spread of slavery was protected by the Constitution. In this lesson, students will evaluate President James Buchanan’s reaction to the Dred Scott decision in light of our nation’s highest principles.

Presidents Buchanan, Lincoln, and Johnson believed that the Constitution protected the institution of slavery. Lincoln came to the conclusion that, in order to preserve the Constitution and the Union it created, he must apply a new understanding of the principles on which the nation was built. The time had come to bring the nation’s policies in line with the of the Declaration of Independence that “…all men are created equal…” In this lesson, students will analyze Abraham Lincoln’s views on slavery and the Constitution as evidenced in the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Andrew Johnson saw himself as a protector of the United States Constitution during and after the Civil War. In his efforts to preserve and restore the Union, he supported the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery. The same motive led him to oppose the Fourteenth Amendment because he believed it would infringe on the legitimate powers of the states. In this lesson, students analyze Johnson’s leadership with respect to Reconstruction, and specifically his response to the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This lesson allows students to analyze the Constitution and ask questions about how the Constitution describes the President as Chief Diplomat.

In his every action, President George Washington recognized the significance of the precedents he set. His efforts to implement constitutional provisions in order to steer the United States through an early foreign policy challenge resulted in Jay’s Treaty—a pact vilified in its own time, but ultimately vital in keeping the United States out of a war with Britain.

As President Woodrow Wilson negotiated with foreign leaders to write the Treaty of Versailles, he was forced to make extreme concessions from his peace plan, the Fourteen Points. He remained confident in the League of Nations—one of his Fourteen Points—to ameliorate remaining injustices in the Treaty. When he sought the Senate’s consent to the treaty, he found some members of that body so opposed to joining the League of Nations that the Treaty was rejected by votes on three occasions. Wilson neither sought nor accepted the Senate’s advice on the Treaty, and for the first time in American history, the Senate refused to ratify a peace treaty negotiated by the President.

President Jimmy Carter’s approach to foreign affairs called for correcting what he saw as injustices, and repudiating American colonialism. Though both negative public opinion and Senate objection originally stood in his way, Carter was able achieve the two-thirds majority necessary for Senate ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977. His methodical and wide-ranging approach to “advice and consent of the Senate” was a key reason for the smooth transfer of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama.

This lesson allows students to analyze the Constitution and ask questions about how the Constitution talks about presidential elections.

The Election of 1824 was the first to be decided in the House of Representatives after the Twelfth Amendment was passed. Jackson received the most electoral votes and the greatest percentage of the popular vote (inasmuch as it existed in 1824), but the House voted for John Quincy Adams. In this lesson, students explore the election of 1824 and evaluate the Electoral College system.

The US Constitution provides an orderly process for electing the President, as described in Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. However, in the election of 1876, two conflicting sets of electoral votes were submitted by each of four states. The Constitution provided no process for determining the legitimate set of votes. Acting outside any constitutional mandate, Congress created a special commission to investigate the returns from Oregon, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. Voting along party lines, the commission ruled that Rutherford B. Hayes had won the disputed election.

The controversy of the election of 2000, unlike the elections of 1800 and 1824, was not at the national level but in a single state. After the United States Supreme Court halted a statewide manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Florida’s electoral votes—and the Presidency—went to George W. Bush. In this lesson, students will explore the statutes, arguments, and court decisions that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Finally, they will evaluate the Court’s decision.