AP® United States Government and Politics review sheet from Aim for Five (aimforfive.com/gov/units/2/2-5)
Unit 2 · Topic 2.5
2.5 Checks on the Presidency
The Senate must confirm many of the president's choices, including Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors and federal judges, which creates clashes with Congress, especially under divided government. Because federal judges serve for life, judicial appointments are often a president's longest-lasting legacy. When Congress blocks their plans, presidents may turn to unilateral actions like executive orders, which face their own limits.
Key terms
- Senate confirmation
- appointment power
- Cabinet
- life tenure for federal judges
- executive order
Appointments and Senate confirmation
The appointment power lets the president nominate top officials, but Article II requires the Senate's “advice and consent.” Confirmation takes a simple majority. Nominees usually go through a hearing before the relevant Senate committee, such as the Judiciary Committee for judges, before the full Senate votes.
Positions that need confirmation include Cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, heads of many agencies, a few top posts in the Executive Office of the President (such as the budget director), federal district and appeals court judges, and Supreme Court justices. In total there are well over a thousand such positions, so confirmation fights can leave offices empty for months.
The Cabinet is made up of the heads of the 15 executive departments, plus other officials the president gives Cabinet rank. Presidents use the Cabinet to run the departments and carry out their agenda, but department heads also answer to Congress for their budgets.
Why confirmations get contentious
- Divided government: when the other party controls the Senate, it can delay or reject nominees.
- Polarization: confirmation votes are increasingly close to party-line, even for nominees once seen as routine.
- High stakes for courts: a lifetime judgeship can shape law for decades, so interest groups on all sides mobilize.
- Senate rules: a single senator can place a hold on a nominee. Since 2013 and 2017, though, all nominations can be advanced by simple majority, which makes the majority party's control of the Senate decisive.
Judicial appointments as a lasting legacy
Article III says federal judges hold office “during good behaviour,” which in practice means life tenure: they serve until they die, retire or are impeached and removed. A president serves at most eight years, but judges they appoint may serve 25 or 30 years or more. That's why presidents tend to choose younger nominees who share their judicial philosophy, and why Supreme Court vacancies draw so much attention.
The Senate has rejected Supreme Court nominees. In 1987 it voted down Robert Bork 58–42, a fight so intense that “borking” became slang for a fierce campaign against a nominee. Other nominees have withdrawn before a vote.
Other checks on the president
- Veto override (two-thirds of both chambers)
- Power of the purse: Congress can refuse to fund the president's priorities
- Treaty ratification (two-thirds of the Senate); for example, the Senate refused to approve the Treaty of Versailles after World War I
- Oversight hearings and investigations
- Impeachment and removal
- Judicial review: courts can strike down executive actions, as in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), when the Court blocked Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War
Going around Congress
When presidents can't get bills through Congress, they often turn to unilateral tools: executive orders, directions to agencies on how to enforce laws, and executive agreements. These let presidents act quickly, but they have weaknesses. They can be challenged in court, Congress can cut off funding, and the next president can reverse them with the stroke of a pen, so policy made this way can be unstable.
Worked examples
Try each one yourself first, then open the solution.
- Example 1
Explaining a check under divided government
A president nominates a federal appeals court judge. The Senate, controlled by the other party, delays the vote for over a year until the president's term ends. Explain the check involved and why the stakes are high.
Show the solutionHide the solution
- Step 1: Identify the constitutional basis: the president nominates judges, but the Senate must give advice and consent (Article II).
- Step 2: Explain the check: by refusing to hold a vote, the Senate majority uses its confirmation power to block the nominee.
- Step 3: Connect to divided government: the opposing party has an incentive to wait for a president it prefers.
- Step 4: Explain the stakes: federal judges have life tenure, so one appointment can shape rulings for decades.
Answer: The Senate is using its confirmation power, a check on the president's appointment power. Divided government gives the majority a reason to delay, and life tenure makes the seat especially valuable.
Common mistakes
- Saying Senate confirmation requires two-thirds. Confirmation takes a simple majority; two-thirds is for treaties, removal after impeachment and veto overrides.
- Saying the House confirms appointments. Only the Senate does.
- Assuming executive orders are permanent. A later president can revoke them, and courts and Congress can limit them.
On the exam
- Questions often ask why judicial appointments matter so much. The answer to connect is life tenure: judges outlast the president who chose them.
- In concept application, tie a confirmation fight to divided government or polarization and explain the effect on the president's ability to govern.
Connected topics
Videos
Check yourself
4 questions on 2.5 Checks on the Presidency. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.
In the last year of her second term, a president nominates a judge to a federal court of appeals. The other party controls the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee declines to hold a hearing, and the nomination expires when the Congress ends.
Hypothetical scenario
This scenario best illustrates
Why do presidents and senators fight so hard over nominations like this one?
| Senate controlled by | Nominations | Confirmed (%) | Average days from nomination to vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| President's party | 120 | 92 | 110 |
| Other party | 95 | 64 | 240 |
Hypothetical data on federal appeals court nominations over 20 years
Which conclusion is best supported by the table?
Based on the table, a president whose party does not control the Senate would most likely improve the chances of getting judges confirmed by
0 of 4 answered