Chapter 9 Exercises

These exercises ask you to apply the chapter's frameworks to actual presidential actions and current events. Most can be completed in one or two hours; a few are longer-form research projects suitable for short papers. Citations should follow the format used by your instructor.

Exercise 9.1 — Track an Executive Order

Goal: Read a specific executive order in full, identify its claimed legal basis, and evaluate it against the chapter's frameworks.

  1. Go to the Federal Register's executive orders database (federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders) or the National Archives Executive Orders Disposition Tables. Pick one executive order issued in the last 18 months by the current president.
  2. Read the order in full. Identify: - The recital section ("By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States…"). What constitutional and statutory authorities does the order cite? - The operative provisions. What does the order actually direct the executive branch to do? Which agencies are tasked? What deadlines, if any? - Any savings clauses or limitations.
  3. Apply Justice Jackson's three-tier framework from Youngstown (Case Study 1). Where does the order fall?
  4. Has the order been challenged in court? Search Westlaw, Lexis, or Google Scholar for litigation citing the EO number. Summarize any rulings issued so far.
  5. Pair the order with one of similar topic from a previous administration of the opposite party. (For instance: a Biden environmental EO and a Trump 1 environmental EO; a Trump 2 immigration EO and an Obama immigration action.) What is similar in structure? What differs?

Deliverable: 1,000–1,500-word memo with the analysis above plus your own assessment of whether the order is, in your judgment, within established executive authority — and what considerations would change your view.

Exercise 9.2 — Read a Presidential Approval Trend

Goal: Place a current approval-rating chart in the historical and durable-polarization context.

  1. Visit FiveThirtyEight's presidential approval tracker (or its successor — projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating, with archived data for prior presidents). Pull the full approval trajectory for one of these presidents: Obama (2009–2017), Trump 1 (2017–2021), Biden (2021–2025), Trump 2 (2025–).
  2. Identify on the chart: - The honeymoon peak. - Any rally-round-the-flag bumps and the events that produced them. - The point at which approval first dropped below 50 percent. - The 40 percent floor (or, if applicable, when the floor was breached). - The party gap — Democratic identifiers vs. Republican identifiers — at three points: inauguration, midterm, end of term.
  3. Compare to the same data for one pre-2009 president (Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush). Where are the patterns similar? Where do they differ?
  4. The chapter argues that durable polarization since approximately 2009 has produced a "40 percent floor" that is structurally different from earlier eras. Does the data you pulled support, complicate, or contradict that claim?

Deliverable: 750–1,000-word analysis with at least two embedded charts (screenshots are acceptable) and a sourced bibliography.

Exercise 9.3 — Article II Text vs. Modern Practice

Goal: Compare the literal text of Article II to a recent specific exercise of presidential authority.

  1. Pick one of these recent presidential actions: - Trump's 2025 use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. - Biden's 2022 student-loan forgiveness order under the HEROES Act. - Obama's 2012 DACA memorandum. - Trump's 2017 travel ban (EO 13769). - Trump's 2020 strike on Qasem Soleimani.
  2. Read the relevant Article II clauses (Section 1's Vesting Clause, Section 2's enumerated powers, Section 3's Take Care Clause). Identify which clauses, if any, the action is grounded in directly.
  3. Identify the statutory authority claimed for the action. Read at least one paragraph of the actual statute.
  4. Write a one-page brief arguing that the action is within constitutional and statutory authority. Then write a one-page brief arguing that the action exceeds that authority. Use steel-man arguments on both sides.
  5. Conclude with your own assessment of which brief is stronger, and why.

Deliverable: 1,200–1,800-word paper structured as two opposed briefs followed by a reasoned conclusion.

Exercise 9.4 — Steel-Man the Unitary Executive

Goal: Reconstruct the strongest version of two opposed positions on the unitary-executive theory.

  1. Read at least one short statement from each side of the debate. Suggested options: - Strong unitarian: Steven Calabresi & Christopher Yoo, The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush (2008), introduction; or John Yoo, Crisis and Command (2009), introduction; or Saikrishna Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning (2015), introduction. - Anti-unitarian: Peter Strauss, "The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch" (Columbia Law Review, 1984); or Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (2010), Chapter 3; or any of Cass Sunstein's recent essays on independent agencies.
  2. Write a 500-word steel-man of the strong-unitarian position. Make the strongest version of the argument. Anticipate the strongest objection and respond to it.
  3. Write a 500-word steel-man of the anti-unitarian position. Same standards.
  4. In a final 300-word section, identify the points where the two positions actually disagree (versus the points where they merely use different vocabulary for the same thing).

Deliverable: 1,200–1,500-word paper. Grading rubric will heavily weight whether the steel-mans are genuinely strong, not whether your conclusion matches the instructor's.

Exercise 9.5 — Find a Veto, Track an Override Attempt

Goal: Trace a recent presidential veto from delivery through any override attempt.

  1. Identify a presidential veto issued in the last six years. Resources: - The Senate Historical Office maintains a list of vetoes (senate.gov/legislative/vetoes). - GovTrack tracks presidential actions on legislation.
  2. For your chosen veto, identify: - The bill (number, title, brief description of what it would have done). - The party composition of the originating Congress. - The president's stated reasons for the veto (the veto message). - Whether the originating chamber attempted an override, and the override vote count. - If override succeeded, what happened to the law afterward; if it failed, what happened to the underlying issue.
  3. Compare the political dynamics — was this divided government? Was the veto on a partisan bill or a bipartisan bill? Did the president's party split?
  4. The chapter argues that the override threshold is essentially never met on partisan bills. Is your case consistent with that claim, or does it complicate it?

Deliverable: 750–1,000-word analytic memo with citations.

Exercise 9.6 — Analyze a Presidential Signing Statement

Goal: Read an actual signing statement and evaluate it against the constitutional framework.

  1. Find a signing statement issued by the current or immediately previous president. The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara (presidency.ucsb.edu) maintains a searchable archive.
  2. Identify any constitutional objections raised in the statement. What provisions of the bill is the president signaling that the executive will interpret in a particular way, or refuse to enforce?
  3. Evaluate the objection: is it grounded in a plausible constitutional reading, or does it appear to be a line-item-veto in disguise?
  4. The chapter notes that the Supreme Court has signaled (in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and elsewhere) that signing statements do not bind courts. Find one academic article or law-review note arguing that signing statements are appropriate, and one arguing that they are not. Summarize both.

Deliverable: 1,000–1,500-word paper that includes the actual signing-statement language, your analysis of the constitutional objections, and a comparison of the academic positions.

Exercise 9.7 — Democracy Audit: Federal Funding to Your District

Goal: Investigate how presidential party affects federal funding flows to your specific congressional district.

This is a longer research exercise. Students may work in pairs.

  1. Identify your congressional district number. (If you live in a state with a single at-large district, that is your district.) Identify the representative and party.
  2. Find federal-grant data for your district. Resources: - USAspending.gov (highest-quality public data; search by congressional district). - SAM.gov for federal contracts. - Your representative's website often lists "secured" federal projects.
  3. Compare federal-spending flows during one presidential term of each party. (For example: Trump 1 fiscal years 2017–2020 vs. Biden fiscal years 2021–2024.) Look for differences in: - Total federal grant dollars to the district. - Composition by category (transportation, agriculture, education, defense, health). - Any earmarks or "community project funding" requested by your representative and approved.
  4. Adjust for inflation when comparing across years.
  5. Were there major statutory drivers (e.g., the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the CARES Act of 2020) that account for differences? Was the difference attributable to presidential discretion, congressional appropriations, or formula-driven flows?
  6. Interview, if possible, one staff member from your representative's district office about federal funding processes. (Most district offices will respond to student research requests.)

Deliverable: 2,000–2,500-word research memo with data tables, sources, and an honest discussion of what the data does and does not allow you to conclude. This exercise feeds into the cumulative Democracy Audit project; save the data and citations for use in later chapters.

Exercise 9.8 — Read the Opinion: Youngstown (Jackson Concurrence) OR Trump v. United States

Goal: Read a primary-source Supreme Court opinion and reconstruct its argument.

Pick one of the two options.

Option A: Justice Jackson's Concurrence in Youngstown (1952)

  1. Find and read Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, at pages 634–655 of the U.S. Reports. Most law-school casebooks excerpt this opinion; full text is on Justia, the Supreme Court Historical Society's site, and Cornell's Legal Information Institute.
  2. Identify, in your own words: - The three tiers Jackson articulates. - The reason Jackson places the steel seizure in the third tier. - Jackson's discussion of the relationship between the president's claimed inherent authority and the structure of separated powers.
  3. Pick a recent presidential action (you may use any from Exercise 9.1 or 9.3). Apply Jackson's framework. Defend your placement.
  4. Discuss one feature of modern presidential power — independent agencies, broad AUMFs, the administrative state — that the Jackson framework does not, on its own, fully resolve.

Option B: Chief Justice Roberts's Majority Opinion in Trump v. United States (2024)

  1. Find and read the majority opinion in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). The opinion is widely available; supremecourt.gov has the slip opinion.
  2. Identify, in your own words: - The three categories of presidential conduct the majority distinguishes (core, outer perimeter, unofficial). - The reasoning the majority uses to justify presumptive immunity for outer-perimeter conduct. - The treatment of evidence: when can evidence of official conduct be used in prosecutions for unofficial conduct?
  3. Read at least the first ten pages of Justice Sotomayor's dissent. Identify her three strongest objections to the majority's reasoning.
  4. Apply the majority's framework to one hypothetical: a future president directs the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival on pretextual grounds. Is the directive a "core" power, "outer perimeter," or "unofficial"? Does the framework's vagueness matter for your answer?

Deliverable (either option): 1,500–2,000-word paper that demonstrates close engagement with the actual opinion text. Quote at least three passages directly. Citations should include page numbers in the U.S. Reports or slip opinion.

Notes on grading

For all exercises:

  • Steel-manning is graded. A paper that presents a position you agree with strongly and a position you disagree with weakly will receive a lower grade than a paper that presents both positions at full strength, regardless of which side the conclusion supports.
  • Sourcing matters. Cite primary sources (the actual EO, the actual opinion, the actual statute) before secondary sources. Cite secondary sources from across the political spectrum, not only from one side.
  • Honest uncertainty is rewarded. When the constitutional or empirical question is genuinely contested, a paper that says so and explains why will receive a higher grade than a paper that claims spurious certainty.