Assess the significance of the cabinet
Assess the significance of the Cabinet in the Executive Branch
The US Cabinet consists of the heads of 15 executive departments and occasionally other important officials that the President decides to include. Some argue that the Cabinet is as important as the President wants it to be. The Cabinet is also said to have a greater input in legislative processes on an individual basis rather than as a collective body. This is known as a Kitchen Cabinet.
The Cabinet lacks constitutional legitimacy because they are all appointed by the President instead of elected by the electorate. This is central in their lack of power as a collective body. The British cabinet claims that the Prime Minister is simply a member of the cabinet but first amongst equals. There is no notion of such a thing in the US Cabinet. The President is seen as the leader and members of the cabinet below him. They are seen as subordinates.
Cabinet meetings are also not scheduled on a regular basis. Stephen Hess stated for example that JFK held cabinet meetings as ‘seldom as possible’. John F Kennedy used his cabinet 12 times in his first 9 months in office. He used the cabinet a total of 31 times during his tenure. In the modern day George Bush held 49 meetings in 8 years. This suggests to us that Presidents intend on handling as much government business on their own or with one to one sessions with cabinet officials.
However this depends on the President that the Cabinet is serving under. For example Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagen called 36 meetings in their first year in office. So this reiterates the point that the cabinet is as important as the President wants it to be
These meetings can also be seen as unproductive. The Cabinet officials who’s department matters are being discussed may be the only person who is interested in the matter. The rest are likely to be bored and are unlikely to contribute to the discussions. For example if the President is discussing
The US Cabinet consists of the heads of 15 executive departments and occasionally other important officials that the President decides to include. Some argue that the Cabinet is as important as the President wants it to be. The Cabinet is also said to have a greater input in legislative processes on an individual basis rather than as a collective body. This is known as a Kitchen Cabinet.
The Cabinet lacks constitutional legitimacy because they are all appointed by the President instead of elected by the electorate. This is central in their lack of power as a collective body. The British cabinet claims that the Prime Minister is simply a member of the cabinet but first amongst equals. There is no notion of such a thing in the US Cabinet. The President is seen as the leader and members of the cabinet below him. They are seen as subordinates.
Cabinet meetings are also not scheduled on a regular basis. Stephen Hess stated for example that JFK held cabinet meetings as ‘seldom as possible’. John F Kennedy used his cabinet 12 times in his first 9 months in office. He used the cabinet a total of 31 times during his tenure. In the modern day George Bush held 49 meetings in 8 years. This suggests to us that Presidents intend on handling as much government business on their own or with one to one sessions with cabinet officials.
However this depends on the President that the Cabinet is serving under. For example Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagen called 36 meetings in their first year in office. So this reiterates the point that the cabinet is as important as the President wants it to be
These meetings can also be seen as unproductive. The Cabinet officials who’s department matters are being discussed may be the only person who is interested in the matter. The rest are likely to be bored and are unlikely to contribute to the discussions. For example if the President is discussing