U.S. Presidents as Active Constitutional Interpreters

Although, according to judicial review, only courts are able to effectively interpret the constitution, in recent decades there have been numerous examples of interpretative activism undertaken by U.S. Presidents willing to pursue their policies. Even if the willingness of POTUS to determine the meaning of constitutional provisions seems natural, considering the significance of the institution in U.S. political system, the means by which Presidents were trying to explain, specify, or sometimes modify the supreme law of the land were often disputable. From the use of constitutional rhetoric during electoral campaigns or in confrontation with other branches of government, through political pressures on legal advisors, to actions undertaken according to their own understanding of the scope of their constitutional powers, chief executives became leading U.S. governmental actors responsible for the process of constitutionalization of politics. The paper aims at the analysis and determination of the most effective means by which U.S. Presidents pursued constitutional interpretation thus trying to influence the meaning of the document and legitimize their policies. Executive privilege, unilateral executive doctrine, state secrets privilege, national security, or the obligation to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" are just a few of the arguments used by POTUS as a justification of the activism in constitutional interpretation. The paper shall prove that, regardless of presidential ideology, all chief executives have easily adapted to their role of constitutional interpreters, with recent examples of 21st century Presidents as the most active in that respect.