Is the US president the ultimate law-enforcement officer?

Question

In the comments of another answer, Grovkin and I discussed the power of the US president. In a reply I received, it was stated that the US president is the ultimate-enforcement officer:

@JJJ it gives the US the power to request such an investigation. The President, as the head of the executive branch, is the ultimate law-enforcement officer. Enforcing the law is the same as executing the law. Given that this was a discussion about potential corruption at the highest levels of the US government, the President could potentially try to keep the circle of people involved as small as possible. All departments of the executive branch exist to enable the President to do his job. A US President is the Executive actual. Everyone else (except VP) is delegated President's authority.

This seems rather weird to me because of the separation of powers. Is it true that the US president is the ultimate law-enforcement officer, and if so, what does that mean? Where is that power delegated to the president and what does it entail?

---

I found the Wikipedia page on Powers of the president of the United States but it doesn't use the term law-enforcement officer. The closest to it seems to be executive powers, but it's rather vague as to what that entails with respect to the judiciary.

Answer 1

I think this can be answered much more concisely. It's a bit longer than I'd like, but much of the material comprises quotations of statute law.

This seems rather weird to me because of the separation of powers.

Law enforcement is a function of the executive branch; the president is the head of the executive branch. The president, therefore, is at the top of the chain of command of any federal law enforcement officer, apart from the small forces employed by the judicial and legislative branches, as noted elsewhere. But if even those forces arrest anyone for the commission of a crime, the prosecution is effected by the Department of Justice, under the authority of the attorney general, and, therefore, the president.

(In the adversarial court system, the executive represents the United States before the judiciary, which is, of course, separate.)

Is it true that the US president is the ultimate law-enforcement officer, and if so, what does that mean?

It means that the attorney general answers to the president. But in fact, it's arguably an overstatement of the president's role in law enforcement. There does not appear to be anything in US law that would allow the president to represent the US in court, and 8 USC 516 (linked and quoted below) would seem to prohibit it. Similarly, the authority to investigate crimes, carry weapons, and effect arrests are specifically delegated to departments or their officials; see below.

Where is that power delegated to the president and what does it entail?

It isn't. It's delegated to the attorney general, at 28 USC 515(a):

The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.

The following section, 8 USC 516 is also of interest:

Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, or is interested, and securing evidence therefor, is reserved to officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General.

The authority to investigate and prosecute crimes is also delegated directly to the attorney general, or, more precisely, delegated directly to certain of the AG's subordinates, at 28 USC 533:

The Attorney General may appoint officials—
(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States;
...

Authority to carry weapons and make arrests is delegated directly to officials below the attorney general, for example at 18 USC 3052 for the FBI. I do not see a corresponding statute for the attorney general, much less the president:

The Director, Associate Director, Assistant to the Director, Assistant Directors, inspectors, and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice may carry firearms, serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States and make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony.

You will find similar statutes that also apply to officers who are not below the attorney general. For example, immigration enforcement is now under the secretary of homeland security. Law enforcement in national parks and forests is under the secretaries of the interior and agriculture, and so on.

In conclusion, I would note that some people will turn to an explicit definition of the term law enforcement officer in some law or other and then try to argue whether or not the president falls under that definition. This approach is misplaced, because statutory definitions have limited scope, and they do not generally apply to statements made in other contexts.

Answer 2

The President of the United States of America is the head of the State and Head of Government, and thus presides over the cabinet of the United States. The Constitution states in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 (Faithful Execution Clause or Take Care clause) holds that the President must "take care that the laws are faithfully executed".

Typically the unofficial title of "top law enforcement officer of the United States" is given to the U.S. Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice (DoJ) which includes various departments related to criminal prosecution of federal crime, and the most famous agency within is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the principal federal law enforcement agency (there are others, but their functions are more niche. For example, the Coast Guard is a maritime law enforcement agency and the U.S. Secret service has specific tasking related to financial crimes and VIP protection). The DoJ is considered one of the "Big Four" of the US cabinet, being one of the oldest departments and one of the oldest departments (the other three are State, Defense (Name's been changed over time, but it's the same department, and Treasury). However, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President which means that the AG is nominated by the President, but he can also fire the AG for just about any reason given.

All Cabinet level departments and all agencies below them derive their law enforcement power from the President's powers and duties outlined in the Constitution under the aforementioned Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Congress has no law enforcement ability in the United States save for the Capitol Police, which is charged with policing the U.S. Capitol building and legislative offices and congressional protection and is limited to a jurisdiction of 200 blocks outside of the Capitol operating jointly with U.S. Park Police (federal) and D.C. Metropolitan police (local, and only agency who can close roads in D.C. Even the Secret Service has to ask to close roads for the President's motorcade), and the Judiciary has no ability to enforce laws.

This means that in the United States, most law enforcement is an executive function of the government, and thus, the responsibility of the Executive officer and his staff. For Federal Law Enforcement, the officer is the President of the United States. That said, most ordinary citizens will not deal with the President's men as there is a specific DoJ policy that defers most crimes to the state and will not prosecute a state crime as a federal crime, regardless of outcome, unless very specific conditions are met. This allows the Federal law enforcement agencies to focus on doing their job well and they are ridiculously successful. The good news is, it's unlikely that you will ever deal with the DoJ in the course of your life. The bad news is, if you're the target of their investigation and they say you did something, I wouldn't lay odds on you being found not guilty of what they accused you of.

Answer 3

Federal Level

At the Federal level, the thinking that the President is the ultimate law enforcement officer holds true in most circumstances because of the theory of the Unitary Executive, which holds that all executive power is vested in the President, and and his/her discretion is ceded to functional officers and underlings. But it's through the vesting of executive power, and Presidential discretion that officers can wield this power. What can be discretionarily given can be, at the President's discretion, need not even be reclaimed, because it's never fully given.

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that this language, along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ..."), creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."

and

Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch.[3]

State Level

At the state level, barring Federal Preemption due to the Supremacy clause and case law, federalism considers the States to be the supreme. Whether the governor or attorney general in those instances would hold the post, would be determined by the nature of the State's constitution if they held a "plural executive".

But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds.

Who is the Head Honcho?

So we have two conflicting spheres of influence, although where they overlap, the Federal level is usually supreme. However, no discussion of this would be complete without a discussion on the People's right to "alter or to abolish (their government)it, a natural right elucidated in the Declaration, and adopted as part of the Natural Laws of the US. This natural right was further ensconced in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution on what "Republicanism" means. This means, as far as crimes committed by the State onto the people, the people are firmly in charge.

The Founding Fathers reached consensus that republicanism contains a provision to abolish and reform the government under new foundational laws. The means to do so exist through amendment, Convention or revolution, and the authority to do so resides in the people. For more on this topic I refer you to The Federalist Papers, No. 28, for the right to revolt, number 6 in the list below, and Fed 39 for the rest.

While there are 7 small "r" republican principles that came out of the Constitution ratifying process, undefined but assumed in Article 4 of the Constitution I am only listing the one relevant to the point on revolution:

6. The government acknowledges the final right of the People to alter or abolish it whenever it usurps the rights for which it was instituted by the People to administer God’s Law.

Answer 4

There can be no "ultimate officer" as there is a constitutional system of balances and checks. This is the tripartite division of powers. Had there been a unitary such power, then one could have said there is an ultimate "enforcement officer".

Still, in terms of the tripartite sysyem, the president is the head of the executive sysyem. And so the "ultimate law-enforcemt officer". But this may not also be "ultimate" in another sense, that is ethics. For example, the Indian Removals Act was signed into law by President Jackson and was strongly enforced. Today, it seen as a symbol of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Answer 5

The President of The United States is not an officer of the United States, so technically "no." The President is the executive actual.

Article II of the Constitution of the United States:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

This alone justifies the text quoted in the question.

The commonly used phrase "separation of power" does not refer to a separation of power within the executive, but to the separation of power between the 3 co-equal branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.

The phrase "co-equal" here refers to the fact than none of the 3 outranks the other 2. But each one has certain power which present a limited check on the powers of the other 2.

The phrase which is commonly used, by the officers of the Executive branch, to affirm the fact that the Constitution makes the President the sole ultimate authority of the executive branch's actions is "we serve at the pleasure of the President."

A phrase commonly attributed to Harry Truman

the buck stops here

also indicates that the President has the ultimate responsibility for the actions of the executive branch. The responsibility is to the voters.