Americans don't automatically reject presidential unilateral action as a threat to our system of checks and balances. Instead, they evaluate it based on partisan and policy preferences.
Survey Experiments: We conducted five survey experiments using nationally representative samples to examine public assessment of unilateral action.
Key Concerns: Our findings show the public evaluates unilateral actions primarily through constitutional conflicts (15%), partisan alignment (60%), and policy effectiveness lenses.
What This Means: Public constraints on presidential power are not automatic but variable, reflecting ongoing political contestation rather than institutional checks.
This nuanced understanding reveals that while Americans may have formal constitutional qualms about unilateral action, their actual assessments align more with partisan politics and practical policy considerations.
| Constitutional Qualms or Politics as Usual? The Factors Shaping Public Support for Unilateral Action was authored by Douglas Kriner and Dino Christenson. It was published by Wiley in AJPS in 2017. |
