Checks on the presidency are the constitutional and political limits that other branches use to constrain presidential power. Key checks include Senate advice and consent on nominations (cabinet members, ambassadors, executive office posts, federal judges—especially life-tenured Supreme Court justices) through confirmation, filibuster/cloture rules, and rejection of nominees; impeachment and removal by the House and Senate; Congressional control of budgets and legislation (can override vetoes); limits on war powers like the War Powers Resolution; Senate refusal to ratify treaties; and judicial review of executive actions. Presidents can respond with executive orders, recess appointments, or directives to the bureaucracy, which can create tension with Congress (LO 2.5.A). For AP review, study confirmations and landmark appointment battles (Bork, Tower, Fortas) and use the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

When the president nominates someone (cabinet, ambassadors, EOP posts, or federal judges), the Senate uses its "advice and consent" power to vet and approve or reject them. Nominations usually go first to a relevant Senate committee (e.g., Judiciary for judges) for hearings, questioning, and a committee vote. If the committee reports the nominee favorably, the full Senate debates and then votes; most confirmations need a simple majority. Senators can delay with a filibuster, but cloture (60 votes) can end debate for most nominations—though since 2013–2017 rules changes, judicial and executive nominees now need only a majority for cloture. Presidents can make recess appointments temporarily when the Senate’s not in session. Judicial confirmations are especially important because life-tenured judges shape policy long after a presidency. This process is a key check on appointment power and shows why nominees often spark conflict with Congress (LO 2.5.A). Review the topic study guide for examples and practice (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and try practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Because the president’s picks shape policy and can last decades, appointments are naturally political and provoke conflict with Congress. The Constitution gives the president nomination power but the Senate “advice and consent” role (EK 2.5.A.1), so senators can accept, slow, or block nominees via committee hearings, holds, or filibusters/cloture votes. If Congress is divided or opposes the president’s agenda, senators use confirmation power to check presidential influence—especially for life-tenured judges, where EK 2.5.A.2 notes the president’s longest-lasting impact. Presidents respond with tools like recess appointments or executive orders/directives to the bureaucracy (EK 2.5.A.3), which fuels more tension. For AP review, tie this to LO 2.5.A and study examples (Bork, O’Connor, Marshall) in the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). For broader unit review and practice Qs, see Unit 2 (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Both cabinet members and Supreme Court justices need the Senate’s “advice and consent,” but the confirmation consequences differ. Similarities: both nominees get Senate hearings and a confirmation vote—a check on presidential appointments (LO 2.5.A, EK 2.5.A.1). Key differences: - Tenure and impact: cabinet secretaries serve at the president’s pleasure and can be replaced; Supreme Court justices are life-tenured, so judicial confirmations shape law for decades (EK 2.5.A.2). - Political stakes: SCOTUS picks are scrutinized for long-term ideological effects, so confirmations are often more contentious. - Committee routes: judicial nominees go through the Senate Judiciary Committee; cabinet nominees usually go to the committee with relevant jurisdiction (e.g., Finance, Foreign Relations). - Senate tactics: procedures like filibuster/cloture, recess appointments, and intense floor politics can play out differently depending on the post (keywords in the CED). Want to review examples and practice? Check the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Short answer: both lost because the Senate used its advice-and-consent power to reject nominees who raised big political and ethical concerns. Robert Bork (1987): his record and writings showed strongly conservative views on civil rights, privacy (e.g., opposition to Roe v. Wade and expansive privacy rights), and Reconstruction-era civil-rights enforcement. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings turned into a high-profile ideological battle. Senators argued his judicial philosophy would roll back rights; opponents mobilized public opinion. The Senate voted him down (58–42). This is a textbook example of EK 2.5.A.1 (Supreme Court/Judicial appointments can spark conflict). John Tower (1989): nominated by President George H. W. Bush for Defense Secretary, Tower faced charges of ethical problems, conflicts of interest, and concerns about alcoholism and partisanship. Narrow but decisive Senate opposition (53–47) blocked him. That shows the Senate as a check on executive appointments. For AP review, this ties to LO 2.5.A and the checks-on-presidency study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). Need more practice? Try the unit page (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Presidents use executive orders because they’re fast and let the president push their agenda when Congress is slow, divided, or hostile. Executive orders and other directives to the bureaucracy implement policy within existing statutory or constitutional authority (EK 2.5.A.3)—they don’t create new laws like Congress does. Presidents often use them to set priorities, direct agencies, or respond to crises without waiting for legislation. That said, they’re checked: courts can strike them down, Congress can pass laws or refuse funding to block them, and political checks (oversight, impeachment) also limit abuse. For AP exam purposes, know the trade-offs: speed and unilateral action vs. limits from judicial review and Congress (advice and consent, legislation, funding). See the Topic 2.5 study guide for examples and practice (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). For extra practice, try 1,000+ problems at (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Judicial appointments matter more because federal judges—especially Supreme Court justices—serve for life and set binding legal precedent that shapes policy long after a president leaves office (EK 2.5.A.2). While Cabinet members or ambassadors influence administration policy, they’re replaceable and tied to the president’s term. Supreme Court and lower federal court rulings interpret the Constitution and federal law (judicial review), so a president’s judicial picks can shift outcomes on big issues (civil rights, regulatory power, etc.) for decades. The Senate’s advice and consent role is the key check (EK 2.5.A.1), which is why confirmations (and failed nominations like Robert Bork) are so politically charged. For AP prep, know life tenure, Senate confirmation processes (Judiciary Committee, filibuster/cloture), and landmark appointment examples like O’Connor and Marshall. For more review, see the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh); practice questions are at (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

In real life, conflicts play out through tools each branch has. If Congress blocks a president’s bill, the president may issue executive orders or direct the bureaucracy to act on his priorities (EK 2.5.A.3). Congress checks back with oversight, funding power, confirmation (advice and consent) for appointees (EK 2.5.A.1) and even impeachment. Senate confirmation fights happen publicly (Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, filibuster/cloture)—think Robert Bork or John Tower—and judicial appointments can reshape policy for decades because justices are life-tenured (EK 2.5.A.2). On foreign policy, tensions surface in military actions (War Powers Resolution, examples: Vietnam, Iraq). For the AP exam, connect these concrete mechanisms to LO 2.5.A and use examples in FRQs. For a focused review, see the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Because the Constitution names the president commander-in-chief but gives Congress the power to declare war, conflicts have been a tug-of-war. Presidents since WWII increasingly used inherent and emergency powers to deploy forces for limited or urgent missions (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) or relied on congressional authorizations short of a formal declaration (e.g., Gulf of Tonkin resolution, AUMFs). Cold War pressures, the need for quick response, and public/media expectations pushed presidents to act first and ask later. Congress tried to check that trend with the War Powers Resolution (1973)—requiring consultation and 60-90 day limits without congressional approval—but presidents often view parts of it as unconstitutional or comply loosely, so it hasn’t fully stopped unilateral commitments. For AP exam purposes, know the tension between executive orders/directives and congressional powers (declare war, appropriations, oversight) and use Vietnam and Iraq as illustrative examples (see the Topic 2.5 study guide for review) (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). For extra practice, try Fiveable’s Unit 2 resources (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2).

Short answer: the Senate has directly blocked presidents’ agendas by refusing to confirm key nominees—especially ones that would shape long-term policy (judges) or key administration roles. Examples: - Robert Bork (1987): Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee was rejected after a bruising Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and full-Senate vote—a clear check on the president’s judicial agenda (CED keywords: Senate Judiciary Committee, filibuster/cloture). - Abe Fortas (1968): LBJ’s attempt to make Fortas Chief Justice failed amid Senate opposition and ethical concerns, showing how confirmation fights can derail court plans. - John Tower (1989): George H.W. Bush’s pick for Defense was rejected by the Senate, blocking the president’s choice for a major Cabinet post. - Merrick Garland (2016): Senate Majority Leader refused to hold hearings—effectively blocking Obama’s Supreme Court appointment (shows advice-and-consent can be withheld). - Andrew Puzder (2017) and others who withdrew after facing Senate resistance—examples of how confirmation fights force withdrawals. Why it matters for AP Gov: this maps directly to LO 2.5.A and EK 2.5.A (advice and consent, judicial appointments, filibuster/cloture). For more review, see the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and try practice problems at (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Pick a narrow prompt: identify one check, give a specific example, and explain the tension/impact. Use CED terms. Structure (3 short parts—claim, evidence, explanation): 1) Identify the check/constraint (1–2 sentences): e.g., “Senate advice and consent checks presidential appointments (EK 2.5.A.1).” 2) Give a concrete example (1–2 sentences): name a confirmed or failed appointment—e.g., Robert Bork’s failed Supreme Court nomination or a recess appointment—and note the Senate Judiciary Committee, filibuster/cloture role. 3) Explain the tension and consequence (2–3 sentences): link to LO 2.5.A—presidents pick nominees to advance an agenda, Senate can block or delay (confirmation hearings, filibuster/cloture), and life-tenured judicial picks create long-term presidential influence (EK 2.5.A.2). Mention president responses (recess appointments, executive orders) when blocked (EK 2.5.A.3). Keep answers tight, use AP vocabulary, and cite one example. For review, check the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and practice SAQs at Fiveable practice (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Appointments like Sandra Day O’Connor and Thurgood Marshall had huge long-term effects because Supreme Court justices are life-tenured and shape law long after a president leaves office. Marshall (appointed by LBJ) expanded civil rights and liberties through decisions that protected racial equality and due process; his presence strengthened the Court’s pro-civil-rights bloc for decades. O’Connor (appointed by Reagan) was a key swing/moderate justice whose votes decided many close cases on federalism, abortion, and administrative power, so her appointment shifted the Court’s center and affected policy outcomes. These picks show why the Senate’s advice-and-consent role matters: confirmation battles determine which ideology influences precedent, impacting Congress’s agenda, executive action, and future policy (EK 2.5.A.1–2). For AP review, see the Topic 2.5 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

The congressional agenda is the formal list of policies and bills Congress is considering at a given time—things like budgets, laws on education, foreign policy, and confirmations. It can clash with the president’s agenda when priorities or party control differ: Congress might block the president’s bills, refuse to confirm preferred appointments (advice and consent, filibuster/cloture), limit funding, or use oversight and impeachment. Important examples from the CED: Senate confirmation fights over cabinet or judicial nominees, budget standoffs that force a president to use executive orders or directives to the bureaucracy, and disputes over war powers (War Powers Resolution). These tensions create frequent confrontations because Congress controls lawmaking, funding, and confirmations while the president can act unilaterally only in limited ways. For study, review Topic 2.5 on Fiveable (study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh), Unit 2 overview (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2), and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government) to prep for related AP exam FRQ and multiple-choice items.

Because working with Congress can be slow or blocked, presidents use executive orders and directives to the bureaucracy to get their agenda done quickly and to direct how laws get enforced. The CED notes that policy conflicts with the congressional agenda can push presidents to act unilaterally (EK 2.5.A.3). Orders let presidents shape administration priorities, manage executive agencies, respond to emergencies, and implement existing statutes without waiting for new legislation. But they’re limited: Congress can pass laws to override them, the courts can strike them down, and future presidents can revoke them—so they aren’t a permanent substitute for legislation. For AP review, connect this to LO 2.5.A (tension with Congress) and study examples in the Topic 2.5 guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). For more practice, see Fiveable’s Unit 2 resources and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2 and https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

No Child Left Behind (2001) is a classic AP example of how a president’s agenda can create tensions with Congress. President Bush pushed a high-profile education reform—national testing and accountability—so Congress passed NCLB to advance his priorities. Tension came from funding (Congress controls the purse), mandates on states, and later disagreements about how strictly to enforce the law. When Congress hesitated to reauthorize or change funding/requirements, presidents and administrations used executive directives, waivers, and guidance to shape implementation—exactly the dynamic EK 2.5.A.3 describes (presidents use directives to the bureaucracy when policy conflicts with Congress). For AP review, connect this to LO 2.5.A (presidential agenda → frequent confrontations with Congress). See the Topic 2.5 study guide for a quick breakdown (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/checks-on-presidency/study-guide/gC04EY1t98bxlZ212VUh). For broader review and 1,000+ practice questions, check unit resources (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).